Interfaith dialogue in a secular field

Abstract

Purpose

Bringing spiritual and religious perspectives to management and organization research requires clarifying the methodological implications and grappling with the diversity that characterizes the research community. This article aims to address both of these issues. The focal question addressed here is, how might spiritual and religious researchers effectively engage in interfaith dialogue in the ostensibly secular field of management and organization studies?

Design/methodology/approach

This article takes exception to privileging secularism over other faiths and argues for admitting spiritual and religious perspectives into the field of management and organization studies. It addresses how theological reflection can be carried out within a spiritually and religiously pluralist research community in management and organization studies.

Findings

Section 2 characterizes secularity and raises the possibility of moving beyond secularism to interfaith dialogue in the field of management and organization studies. Section 3 reviews influential perspectives on dialogue to identify attitudes and behaviors conducive to social learning. Section 4 introduces theological reflection as a method for conducting management and organization research and provides guidance and methods for pursuing interfaith dialogue.

Research limitations/implications

This article proposes interfaith dialogue as a way to explore important assumptions, ultimate concerns and innovative practices that currently go largely unraised in management and organization research.

Originality/value

This article adds to the methods available in the field by characterizing effective dialogue and introducing and explaining theological reflection. It contributes general guidance and proposes specific methods for moving to interfaith dialogue among researchers working from diverse faiths.

Citation

Miller, K.D. (2017), "Interfaith dialogue in a secular field", Management Research Review, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 824-844. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2016-0129