CHAPTER 2: A PRACTICAL THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY 83 the interview locations do symbolize the process of ‘merging of horizons’ between researcher and interviewee in particular and, in more general terms, between the voices of formal theology on the one hand and operant and espoused theology on the other. Although within rather strict limits, I was given access to the communities in a way most regular visitors would not experience. In Bose, I was taken on a sight-seeing tour through (certain) otherwise restricted areas: the courtyards, novice classrooms, chapels, the fields where they grow their crops, the different workshops, and the publishing house. In Taizé, I was invited to share lunch with the brothers (an invitation usually extended to personal guests and youth who stay for a longer in Taizé as ‘permanents’). These experiences gave me limited but significant insight in the life of the communities, a ‘peek over the fence’ (quite literally so in the case of Taizé). As such, these visits contributed to familiarizing myself with the communities, in addition to the interview sessions. Even though my own limited knowledge of Italian and French (the main languages in the communities) restricted my options to speak with the brothers and sisters – their capacity to speak English (or Dutch, in the case of Brother TA of Taizé) was part of the selection criteria for interviewees – as a Catholic theologian with Reformed roots, I am familiar with the theological language employed by the communities and their members. In fact, in two interviews, monastics referred to my own ecclesial biography. These conditions allowed me to adopt a predominantly emic perspective especially in the early stages of the research. The emic perspective focuses on the research object, articulating their world view andmeaning construction, and adopting the local terminology and language. In contrast, the etic perspective focuses on the observation of the researcher and on the intended readership of the research. This usually implies a more detached or distanced attitude, which, according to some, enables a more ‘objective’ perspective. However, the theological language of the communities of Taizé and Bose shows significant resemblance with the intended readership of this study (primarily Catholic theologians and church leaders). On the plus side, this requires little translation and enabled me to remain close to the (shared) emic language. On the downside, however, this does require a careful interpretation of the respondents’ words: do they indeed coincide with the meaning and connotations that the reader has in mind when he or she uses the same terminology? Additionally, the fact that the respondents enjoyed a certain theological training and, as a consequence, share the emic language with the researcher, meant they were inclined to focus on
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw