| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
158280
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Though scholars now view religion as a legitimate topic of study in International Relations (IR), most continue to ignore practices like prayer, despite the fact that prayer is present in global political contexts, including in the service-advocacy work of transnational faith-based organizations (FBOs). In addition, FBO funders like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) require religious organizations to separate prayer from projects funded by these agencies due to contradictory perceptions about both the dangers and the inconsequence of incorporating “inherently” religious activities into development projects. The neglect of prayer in international relations scholarship and funding policies is, I contend, due to common ontologies of religious practice that link prayer with the transcendental, emotional, and private. Such ontologies lead scholars and others to assume that prayer is, and should be, materially and analytically distinct from the “real” work of FBOs. Drawing on interviews and participant observation of three FBOs working in areas of peace, development, and human rights, I argue that common ontologies of prayer employed by scholars of international relations and FBO funders do not accurately reflect the ontologies of FBOs themselves. Moreover, because scholars rely on such ontologies, they miss the ways that prayer manifests as a central, consequential, and sometimes political practice in the transnational work of FBOs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
166140
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There are differing views on the strengths and weaknesses of faith-based organizations relative to secular international nongovernmental organizations. This article argues that the theory of comparative advantage and the theory of organizational alignment are inadequate in helping to assess these strengths and weaknesses. The article offers a different perspective, called conduit engagement theory. It holds that humanitarian organizations naturally have specific relationships, organizational linkages, affiliations, or shared philosophies (referred to in the article as conduits) that enable certain programmatic interventions. Maximum effectiveness within the humanitarian marketplace is a function of the robustness of engagement of conduits with high-priority initiatives that have adequate funding over the necessary length of time. A new kind of tool for strategic planning within specific countries and for auditing at an organizational level are proposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|