Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:46:48.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reltrad Coding Problems and a New Repository

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2015

Ed Stetzer  and
Ryan P. Burge
Ed Stetzer*
Affiliation:
LifeWay Research
Ryan P. Burge*
Affiliation:
Eastern Illinois University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Ed Stetzer, LifeWay Research, 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN 37234. E-mail: research@lifeway.com; or to: Ryan P. Burge, Department of Political Science, Eastern Illinois University, Coleman Hall 2020, Charleston, IL 61920. E-mail: rpburge@eiu.edu.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Ed Stetzer, LifeWay Research, 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN 37234. E-mail: research@lifeway.com; or to: Ryan P. Burge, Department of Political Science, Eastern Illinois University, Coleman Hall 2020, Charleston, IL 61920. E-mail: rpburge@eiu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While there have been many approaches to classifying religious traditions in the social sciences (see Hackett and Lindsay 2008), the most popular approach is the religious tradition classification scheme, which was most carefully systematized by Steensland et al. (2000). Their widely-embraced article argued that the most accurate typology of religiosity was to sort individuals into seven distinct groups: evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, black Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, other religious groups, and no religion. This approach has become popularly known as “reltrad” and its usage in academic writing is voluminous. A brief search of Google Scholar indicates that over 900 published articles and books utilized the reltrad framework. However, the implementation of this typology has never been fully and accurately operationalized.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 187 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Burge, Ryan. 2013. “Using Matching to Investigate the Relationship between Religion and Tolerance.” Politics and Religion 6:264–281.Google Scholar
Hackett, Conrad, and Lindsay, D. Michael. 2008. “Measuring Evangelicalism: Consequences of Different Operationalization Strategies.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47:499–514.Google Scholar
Johnson, David, Scheitle, Christopher, and Ecklund, Elaine. 2015. “Individual Religiosity and Orientation towards Science: Reformulating Relationships.” Sociological Science 2:106–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., and Campbell, David E.. 2012. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Steensland, Brian, Park, Jerry Z., Regnerus, Mark D., Robinson, Lynn D., Bradford Wilcox, W., and Woodberry, Robert D.. 2000. “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.” Social Forces 79:291–318.Google Scholar
Stetzer, Ed. 2015a. “In a Dramatic Shift, the American Church Is More Evangelical than Ever.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/14/in-a-dramatic-shift-the-american-church-is-more-evangelical-than-ever/ (Accessed on September 1, 2015).Google Scholar
Stetzer, Ed. 2015b. “The Rise of the Evangelical ‘Nones’ - CNN.com.” http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/living/stetzer-christian-nones/index.html (Accessed on September 1, 2015).Google Scholar
Woodberry, Robert D., Park, Jerry Z., Kellstedt, Lyman A., Regnerus, Mark D., and Steensland, Brian. 2012. “The Measure of American Religious Traditions: Theoretical and Measurement Considerations.” Social Forces 91:65–73.Google Scholar