Journal links
The following journals can be viewed online (from computers at the Marriott Library, from computers within the University of Utah’s domain, or by connecting through the Marriott’s proxy server):
The Patient Scholar
Reflections on Learning and Teaching
Sun, 19 Oct 2003
The research question continued
After an email message sent to members of my graduate committee, I received a response from Dan Levin. After reading my message and my blog entry of 11 October 2003, Dan noted that I seemed to be having a little trouble focusing my research question.
The question in its current state does seem rather wide open. After all, a question that seeks to study the exercise of political power by the LDS Church is broad to say the least. The LDS Church has acted politically almost since its inception. The very act of registering the new church under the laws of New York state in 1830 was essentially a political act. So, how do I focus the question?
One method of focus would be to restrict the study to either internal or external exercises of power. I seem to remember from Dan McCool’s public policy class that in some views of special interest groups, groups are seen as exercising power outside of the group, in terms of influencing policy, and inside the group, in terms of keeping the faithful in line.
Another way to focus would be to restrict the study to one, or maybe two events in which the Church acted politically. Of course, the question that is begged is “what is meant by ‘acted politically’?” I’m not sure as yet how best to answer that question, but I do plan on selecting only one or two events. At least one of the events will be quite contemporary, i.e., within the last five to ten years. A good candidate would the Church’s involvement with California’s Knight Initiative.
Peri suggested a possible approach to the question in her response to my draft. She suggested:
An alternative way to proceed would be to choose a particular instance of church action (or two instances) and compare three alternative explanations for church action: philosophy; power; socio-political context.
- The philosophy – as inferred in the manner above.
- Power – this is complex but one possibility would be a rational-actor perspective that emphasizes the actions of individual leaders
- Socio-political - this could be a version of “power” that is less actor oriented, more Foucaultian
If you could develop “pure” or “ideal type” explanations of these three, then you could assess which is the best explanation for the instance under examination… .
