Challenges, Perspectives, and Directions in the Study of Religion

Reassessing Theoretical and Professional Assumptions

Authors

  • Philip L. Tite University of Washington

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.33193

Keywords:

religion, theory, profession, Swiss study of religion, American Academy of Religion

Abstract

Editor's introduction to this issue of the Bulletin for the Study of Religion, an issue that includes a set of articles on the Swiss academic study of religion, specifically on theory-building, and another set of articles responding to Kate Daley-Bailey's Open Letter to the American Academy of Religion on contingent/adjunct faculty.

Author Biography

  • Philip L. Tite, University of Washington

    Philip L. Tite is an Affiliate Lecturer at the University of Washington and an adjunct instructor at Seattle University in Seattle WA USA. He holds a PhD degree from McGill University (2005) and has authored several books and articles. His most recent books include The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: An Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis (TENT, 7; Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2012) and Valentinian Ethics and Paraenetic Discourse: Determining the Social Function of Moral Exhortation in Valentinian Christianity (NHMS, 67; Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2009). As a specialist in the study of early Christianity, in particular Valentinian Gnosticism, Tite has strong interests in elucidating social processes at work in the study of religious phenomena. He also has strong interests in method and theory, religion and violence, and pedagogical issues in the academic study of religion.

References

Daley-Bailey, Kate. 2015. “For the Good or the ‘Guild’: An Open Letter to the American Academy of Religion.” Bulletin for the Study of Religion 44(4): 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.v44i4.29036.

Downloads

Published

2017-04-18

Issue

Vol. 46 No. 1 (2017)

Section

The Editorial

How to Cite

Tite, P. (2017). Challenges, Perspectives, and Directions in the Study of Religion: Reassessing Theoretical and Professional Assumptions. Bulletin for the Study of Religion, 46(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.33193