Youth of the Eighties, Parents of 2000, Sociological Observations

(Résumé de l'ouvrage) This book is meant to honour the Belgian religious educationalist Herman Lombaerts reflecting on his legacy. He is internationally renowned as a scholar with a strong commitment to and a conceptual analysis of the social and cultural context in which people live and learn. This series of essays is build upon a thought provoking, streamlined design on the relationship between theology and education, relying on Lombaerts' societal and cultural analysis of contemporary religious education. Three key elements are at stake: the self-agency of the learner, the hermeneutic and communitive interpretation of religious traditions in the teaching of religion, and the radical re-imagination of Christian theology relying on this new model of religious educational praxis. For Lombaerts, the search processes of religious people have their own dynamic and dignity. Practical theology should listen carefully and empathetically to this quest. But he is also convinced of the need of solid fundamental research to understand critically its ambiguities and perspectives. Scholars from Europe, the United States and Australia lead the way in this process of "conceptual stretching". Issues such as happiness of children, identity formation of youth, educational and religious insecurity of parents, multi-faith education, tradition crisis of churches, theological education of lay ministers, narrativity and modern art in religious education, etc. are examined from a practical theological point of view, with a strong commitment to the philosophical, psychological, sociological, educational and political dimensions of three issues. With this book the editors hope to commemorate Lombaerts' international radiation, by building a collegial bridge between the different theoretical approaches in the German, Dutch, French, Italian and Anglo-Saxon religious educational research.

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.