“…… The central opportunity of most qualitative work is to give the pen, keyboard, or voice to the people under study in order to empower them to express what they believe; to explain how and why they live the way they do; to explain why they choose those paths of belief and action; and, ultimately, to capture and convey their experiences in their own voice and what it means to them. (Wurm et al, 2018, p. 639).…”
Objective and Background
We used qualitative methodology to explore forgiveness motivations and processes in an ethnically, economically, and geographically diverse sample of 198 highly religious Christian, Muslim, and Jewish families in the United States (N = 480). Prior research has identified several significant relational implications and outcomes of forgiveness. However, there is a need for additional research on forgiveness processes and motivations among highly religious families.
Method
Families were interviewed jointly through a semistructured interview protocol. Analysis was conducted using thematic and team‐based coding procedures.
Results
Core themes included (a) “Why forgive?”: Relational, religious, and spiritual motivations; (b) “What enables state forgiveness?”: Relational, religious, and spiritual processes; and (c) The role and development of trait forgiveness (forgivingness).
Conclusion
Findings highlight the relational, religious, and spiritual motivations and processes present in forgiveness and the role religious/spiritual beliefs and practices play in those processes. Additionally, findings illustrate participants' value of the virtue of forgivingness and reported religious and relational processes that helped in developing the trait of forgivingness.
Implications
We offer several questions that can be used as a starting point for practitioners to work within the worldview of religious clients to empower individuals, couples, and families to forgive.
“…… The central opportunity of most qualitative work is to give the pen, keyboard, or voice to the people under study in order to empower them to express what they believe; to explain how and why they live the way they do; to explain why they choose those paths of belief and action; and, ultimately, to capture and convey their experiences in their own voice and what it means to them. (Wurm et al, 2018, p. 639).…”
Objective and Background
We used qualitative methodology to explore forgiveness motivations and processes in an ethnically, economically, and geographically diverse sample of 198 highly religious Christian, Muslim, and Jewish families in the United States (N = 480). Prior research has identified several significant relational implications and outcomes of forgiveness. However, there is a need for additional research on forgiveness processes and motivations among highly religious families.
Method
Families were interviewed jointly through a semistructured interview protocol. Analysis was conducted using thematic and team‐based coding procedures.
Results
Core themes included (a) “Why forgive?”: Relational, religious, and spiritual motivations; (b) “What enables state forgiveness?”: Relational, religious, and spiritual processes; and (c) The role and development of trait forgiveness (forgivingness).
Conclusion
Findings highlight the relational, religious, and spiritual motivations and processes present in forgiveness and the role religious/spiritual beliefs and practices play in those processes. Additionally, findings illustrate participants' value of the virtue of forgivingness and reported religious and relational processes that helped in developing the trait of forgivingness.
Implications
We offer several questions that can be used as a starting point for practitioners to work within the worldview of religious clients to empower individuals, couples, and families to forgive.
“…Moreover, the institutional logics approach can help us to specify what is distinctly religious, or familial, about religion, or family (see Smith, 2003a;Wurm et al, 2018). Definitions of religion and family are hotly contested within both scholarly domains and are essential for the progress of both subfields (Tweed, 2006).…”
Scholars theorize the effect of modernization on religious and familial institutions in a parallel way. Some argue that both are irreversibly in decline—as secularization and deinstitutionalization, respectively—while others argue that they have either merely changed or are in fact growing stronger. However, correctly interpreting institutional change depends not only on how one evaluates the empirical starts and endpoints but also on how one defines the domains under change themselves. In this paper, I examine these debates, detail the structural similarities in their arguments, and outline a new analytical approach informed by recent work in institutional logics to better answer the definitional questions. Theorizing both institutions together and their parallel trajectories in modernity reveals unique insights about the scholarly discourse on modernization and is especially important given the unique influence of religion and family on one another as (seemingly) privatized spheres of social life.
“…This perspective seems to blend well with the position of Bromley and Busching (1988) that, contrasted with contract-based systems, covenantal values systems promote and involve "qualitatively different types of social relations" that have been misunderstood and denigrated by many social scientists (p. 15). They further posit that covenantal systems (e.g., faith communities) hold their own "form and logic" that deserve exploration and consideration (p. 15; see also Wurm et al, 2018).…”
Through in-depth qualitative interviews with a sample of 198 diverse religious families (N = 480 participants), this study explored why highly religious individuals remain involved in and meet the often costly demands of religious institutions. Specifically, we explored (a) the various religious expectations and demands individuals and families encounter and (b) the relational compensators or benefits they report receiving as a result of their religious sacrifice and involvement. Findings indicate a complex connection between religious expectations and relational compensators. Specifically, our participants report significantly positive and multifaceted relational benefits not only: (a) in spite of religious expectations, or (b) in addition to religious expectations, but in some cases, (c) because of religious expectations. Findings are discussed and interpreted through a rational choice theory lens to increase understanding of how religious expectations and relational compensators might influence individuals' decisions to remain religious.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
