Abstract
This article reports findings from an action research project in which a university chaplaincy team explored the desirability and viability of assessing their impact. It uncovers a complexity in chaplains’ understandings about their role and – chief amongst their fears – belief that quantitative measures can be harmful to pastoral and spiritual work. It also reveals a sense of institutional accountability and a desire to engage with processes for determining and articulating chaplaincy's value
Introduction
A focus on outcomes and on demonstrating the contribution and impact of different interventions is evident across many organisational settings, including those sectors within which chaplaincy operates. This is driven by a range of factors, including calls for accountability and the demonstration of efficiency in a climate of limited financial resources. Measures and indicators by which impact is established and outcomes assessed will vary across sectors, institutions, and activities, but there is a common requirement for ‘evidence’ which often involves quantification and the collection of statistics.
Within the British higher education sector, student success data and institutional-level measures of quality are increasingly linked by regulatory frameworks to outcomes which dictate institutional credibility and viability (see, e.g., Howson & Buckley, 2020; Williamson, 2019). This pressure to provide evidence of tangible benefit, to ‘demonstrate usefulness’ (Kevern & McSherry, 2016, p. 47), has been felt by chaplaincy, which works in a wide range of sectors and organisations and is somewhat subject to the priorities, systems and mechanisms in place in those contexts (Slater, 2016). See, for example, Todd and Tipton’s (2011) report on the role and contribution of prison chaplaincy: ‘the production and evaluation of measurable outcomes for support services provided across the Criminal Justice System is standard, and chaplaincy is no exception’ (p. 46).
Chaplains have traditionally been protected from questions of ‘value’ and it is perhaps unsurprising that extending an outcomes-oriented approach to chaplaincy is not universally welcomed, as reported, for example, in Fitchett et al. (2014) and Damen et al. (2020), and has been characterised as undermining the purposes of chaplaincy: ‘we often hold that becoming outcome driven is a violation of some basic tenets of our profession’ (Handzo et al., 2014, p. 47). Despite this resistance, there is growing recognition of the pressure on chaplains to demonstrate their value in light of ‘the tendency to reduce the number and size of chaplaincy positions’ (Walton & Körver, 2017, p. 259). Finding an approach to outcomes which ‘respects the integrity of chaplaincy’ (Damen et al., 2020, p. 133) therefore has some urgency and is the quest of Damen et al. (2020), who also note that ‘outcomes and chaplaincy care are not obvious partners’ (p. 132). The call to chaplains in whatever sector to demonstrate their contribution is made in no uncertain terms by Ryan (2015) in his report ‘A very modern ministry’: ‘chaplains need to be able to prove that their role matters, whatever field they are in and whether or not they are paid’ (p. 31). Other writers, too, acknowledge the accountability which comes with chaplaincy's presence in the public domain, and the expectations which accompany professionalisation and the need to establish legitimacy (Walton & Körver, 2017), an argument also noted by Schmid and Sheikhzagedan (2020).
Outcomes-oriented chaplaincy has received particular attention in healthcare settings (Peery, 2021). The pressures and obstacles have been less well-documented within higher education: a setting, argues Hunt (2013), in which chaplaincy has ‘increasingly become a contentious and contended concept’ (p. 359). Aune, Guest, and Law note the failure systematically ‘to record the impact of university chaplaincy’ (Aune et al., 2019, p. 111) but also stress the value and desirability of doing so, ‘to ensure that university chaplaincy’s achievements are recognised and it receives the resources it needs to function well’ (p. 118). However, they not only acknowledge some of the complexity in documenting impact but also the controversy around doing so: ‘a way has to be found to offer an account of their contribution that others can appreciate, yet that does not contradict the very values that make them distinctive and of worth’ (p. 118).
This article draws on the findings from a project at a British university, which engaged a chaplaincy team in action research to address this conundrum specifically. It offers data from the first phase of that project, which contribute to discourses about the viability and desirability of assessing the impact of chaplaincy, specifically extending that discourse within higher education.
The Project: Impetus and Context
The context for the project from which this article emerged was a chaplaincy team of 10 people (in appointments ranging from full-time employed to part-time volunteers) representing several Christian denominations, as well as Jewish and Muslim communities. The team was based in an English university, of which 70% of the student population self-identified as being of a specific faith tradition, with the two dominant groups being Christian and Muslim. The project ran from January 2020 until July 2022 and emerged in response to perceived pressure from the university for chaplains, collectively, to demonstrate the impact of their work in relation to organisational-level strategic goals. The team had responded enthusiastically to ‘Chaplains on Campus’ (Aune et al., 2019), one of few publications focusing on impact assessment in higher education chaplaincy. The chaplains were eager to explore a process for enabling them to articulate their value to the institution, but reluctant to engage with quantitative measures in place to assess impact across most departments at the university. Thus, the project was founded on a desire to explore chaplaincy's impact but with a concern to take seriously the chaplains’ reservations about the desirability and viability of applying standard methods to their unique situation.
The project grew out of informal group discussions on the topic of evaluation as part of the termly whole-team committee, which took place from September 2019. These quickly identified the complexity of opinion and understanding that existed and pointed to a need for a more focused research and development project.
The Project: Methodology
The methodology adopted for the project was action research, in line with Bryman’s (2016) definition: ‘an approach in which the action researcher and members of a social setting collaborate in the diagnosis of a problem and in the development of a solution based on the diagnosis’ (p. 387). A review of the literature around assessing impact took place alongside the initial team discussions, in order to explore approaches which would be acceptable to the team and chime with the perspectives and understandings which were being uncovered. The intention was for an evidence-based approach which gave agency to chaplains rather than imposing particular measures; an approach which sharpened reflective practice, and enabled sharing of practice across the team; one which would encourage articulation of purpose and vision, as well as impact; and one which offered potential for drawing in those from the host institution and from the chaplains’ faith communities to develop understanding and enable potential alignment with the aims and visions of each.
As such, a two-phase action research project was designed. The first phase was intended to be exploratory and conversational, in order to enable the development of a tool for evaluating impact which could be tested in a second phase of the research. Following an ethical review of the proposed method and the establishment of consent from participants, phase one explored in depth the chaplains’ perceptions about evaluation and outcomes measurement in general. 1 It aimed to uncover their hesitations and enthusiasms about different methods for assessing impact, and the importance of theological and linguistic considerations in undertaking evaluation.
A first, formal meeting to discuss the project took place 1 week before the first lockdown of the pandemic—which had profound impact on the work of the chaplains and on the course of the project, with the means of collecting data becoming more limited and with meetings taking place on Zoom (this allowing for recording and transcription of conversations). Nine of the 10 chaplains participated, with facilitation by two researchers, one from outside the immediate context of the chaplaincy, and one who is involved in the oversight of the chaplaincy team's work.
Two focus groups provided an opportunity for participants to share their opinions and perspectives on evaluation in the context of chaplaincy, with reference to university documents which set out the vision, mission, and strategy of the institution. Following this, structured discussions between chaplains were facilitated, drawing on elements of the Most Significant Change (MSC) technique. MSC is a participative approach to monitoring and evaluation, focused on learning over accountability, developed by Davies (Davies & Dart, 2005). The technique has already been used to evaluate a chaplaincy initiative (Porter & Tarleton, 2014) and is recommended by Ryan (2015) for use in chaplaincy evaluation because it allows an exploration of values and individual development at the same time as engaging the wider organisation. It also overcomes some of the difficulties encountered in applying more conventional evaluation processes, where impact is difficult to quantify and where the focus is social change (Willetts & Crawford, 2007).
Chaplains met in pairs to discuss the ‘domains of change’ (to borrow language from MSC) they perceived to encompass the responsibilities of the chaplaincy team. Following this, each chaplain spent time identifying stories of change of which they had been part, with a further online meeting, again in pairs, to share their stories and discuss them. These conversations were recorded, transcribed, and distributed in advance of a ‘making sense’ meeting, at which the chaplains came together to share stories with the whole group, and to discuss meanings and implications.
Findings 2
Phase one meetings uncovered a complex diversity of perspectives on the work and purposes of the chaplaincy and on how the achievement of those purposes can—or should—be assessed and articulated. Some of these aligned with the literature relating to evaluation in other chaplaincy contexts, but some were distinctive in their expression or have not been widely discussed in prior research. The main themes which emerge from the data are summarised below.
The Quantitative Error
The conviction that chaplaincy work should not, or could not, be evaluated in ways which the university would recognise was a recurring theme. This was presented as a logical result of the nature of chaplaincy: a belief that chaplaincy, by definition, exists in a different space to the work of other university activities, often beyond the realm of measurable impact.
Instinctively, this resistance emerged from an (unprompted) assumption that data collected for assessing impact within the university would inevitably be quantitative, essentially about counting the number of students with which chaplains interact. On that basis, measures of impact would contain a misguided concern for the popularity of chaplaincy activities whereas chaplaincy should have a different focus: ‘You’re talking about depth as opposed to measurements of things’.
Resistance to the use of statistical measures for evaluating chaplaincy was repeatedly expressed by contrasting the (limited) importance of numerical size with the (critical) importance of the quality of work: ‘Quality as opposed to quantity’. This was felt to be especially so because chaplaincy involves forming relationships and building community.
community isn’t necessarily about quantity of students and reaching as many students as you can, it's the quality of those relationships…
what we tend not to do is court the large. You are offering a service then, rather than building relationships. We are about building relationships. I think the way that we go about our work is due to the fact that we see our purpose as relational. And you can’t do that if your only function is to be a service provider
How, chaplains asked, could the true value of their work be measured using numbers?
I know that now organisations, they want the figures, they want to be able to analyse, is this working? Is this not working? What's the impact? What's the benefit of having this?
I feel that senior management prefer data rather than the qualitative side of things – which doesn’t really measure what the benefits of people who are attending would have
The Perils of Quantification
Chaplains reflected that ambivalence about pursuing impact assessment emerged in part from fears that the data collected would be used to criticise and question the value of chaplaincy work.
I think there is a fear around being judged poorly if our numbers aren’t high. I think there is fear that what the institution is looking for is contact with the most number of people
In turn, this might provide justification for removing or reducing chaplaincy provision.
People often think that when chaplaincy is being…There is a call for assessment…Oh, they are going to cut the jobs… and therefore there is anxiety.
I know there is an ambivalence from people's own fear about job security
If you’re looking at numbers on a sheet you go…is it really worth continuing…and actually, sometimes we go back, no it is. That half an hour of prayer together with those two or three people is absolutely vital…
Something very very important that I think it is quite difficult for institutions to hear, chaplaincy is the only place that both staff and students, in my experience, know that when they come, they are not going to be reduced to statistics
they don’t want just to be a tick-box exercise
The minute we start looking then to … just fill in this form and tick these boxes about who you are, so that we can assess how well we’re doing, we’re putting on them the very thing that they’re with us to avoid, in some respects
The Long View
Measures of success preferred in secular organisational settings were believed by chaplains to be too focused on the immediate and the short term. A theme which emerged in this study was the chaplains’ emphasis on a long-term view of impact.
it's difficult to know when you’re doing ministry how that impacts people because it might be years later that something that you said to them, they reflect on it or they’ve written it down in a diary or anything really. So I think you probably only know a very small percentage of the impact
it's a journey. … we may not see the seeds of that for 15, 20 years
we enter into a different game. We have long views. Strategies only last a couple of years based on people who are the changemakers in the moment
there's another layer there to perhaps examine about how we as individuals hold ourselves accountable within our own faith traditions as well, and whether that actually speaks before and actually shapes how we want to respond to the university
It's sitting in a number of different camps but not sitting comfortably ever in any of them fully
And they’re very different conversations, and they’re different understandings of the role.
what language do we engage with…? Is it an institutional language or is it a theological and spiritual language? … we recognise that when we talk to different groups, we use different language.
when I talk to them [faith community representatives] about some of the number counting conversations we’ve had here, they’re horrified, because you’re there to do pastoral care for this community, so what does it matter about how many people show up to this or that… They see it in a very different way…
Work Which Cannot be Measured
Chaplains perceived difficulty in measuring, by any means, activity ‘which is not always concrete or difficult to spot or pin down or to know’. Facilitating and nurturing spiritual encounters were accepted by all participants as a significant purpose for the work of chaplaincy, and very much in this category: ‘Is it simply there to provide something that is immeasurable?’. Variously described as pastoral encounter, prayer, spiritual guidance and development, the challenge of measuring these ‘spiritual’ activities was perceived as a major stumbling block to the exercise of investigating the impact of chaplaincy.
when it comes to capturing spiritual development, I’m not quite sure what the tools for that are.
your individual encounters with people, you can't really measure the impact that that will go on to have in their life. It just seems that some things which chaplaincy do, because it engages with the spiritual, you can't really measure its impact empirically.
I don't believe that any of us actually bring someone to God. That's the job of the Holy Spirit
But even where human agency was more explicit, the significance of the spiritual encounter was associated with a strong focus on forming pastorally supportive relationships, which in turn were perceived as equally difficult to measure.
it doesn’t create an immediate impact necessarily that you can quantify, but what it helps is to create an ongoing relationship. And I think it's quite empowering for students and members of the community
It's not necessarily about one time, bam, life changed, because that's not the nature of this sort of ministry… I always think that that's what I would like to do as a chaplain and to be, is someone who walks alongside students
The unique nature of the relationship formed with each individual and their unique needs makes measures of impact equally unique, and this implies that generic means for monitoring impact will be untenable.
And that's one of the things we work with students on because what success looks like for one person is not what success looks like for another person.
doing that extra intentional thing which I see in my Scriptures when Jesus doesn’t just heal people and sort them out. He says, what is it you want, or what's going on?
Chaplains also emphasised the nature of such relationship building as a two-way process: something which is not done to a person, but which is formed with them: ‘learning from your own encounters and those personal, individual encounters having very significant meaning for you’. This mutuality leads to challenges in measuring impact, precisely because that impact is also mutual: ‘That story has an impact, not just on the person, but on yourself as well’.
Beyond the distinctively spiritual and mutually relational work of chaplaincy, the challenges in attempting to measure impact were articulated by chaplains as emerging from a core priority in their work of offering a ministry of presence.
It's about… showing up and giving time in ways that perhaps other services within the university are not able or it's not their remit to do.
Sometimes just being there is what is required of us.
Chaplains were confident in speaking about the varied aspects of the value of their presence in a range of environments.
God is for life and not just for church. Our presence actually portrays that, and this is a really important thing.
when I attend it as an associate chaplain…. It's making the statement that chaplaincy are interested in whatever the event is. It's making the statement that chaplaincy have something perhaps to say to that event.
I have to lead by example through who I am and how I speak and the presence that I have
modelling a way of being, and of working, which is perhaps different from the mainstream
it's time consuming and it's very, very difficult to quantify and measure. But most of the conversations that I have had, loitering with intent, has often led to pointing a student or a member of staff towards something
Sometimes it's not about the doing. And to be able to capture that can be really hard
Similarly, a critical focus for chaplains in their work was the creation of spaces in which students and members of staff could feel welcome and safe, and in which encounters of a pastoral nature could take place.
it was this idea of creating a space that was welcoming, and hospitality at its best of come in as you are, there are no expectations, leave when you’re ready, but know this is always available to you.
so the kind of literature we have out and hopefully the messages that we have on the door as you come in, that says, you are welcome to be here as you are, just setting the place for that in every step of the journey, trying to affirm that they are welcome, whoever they are.
Chaplains were able to articulate specifically that this work was distinctive and important:
it is the intentionality of the atmosphere that really, really makes our work, in terms of sense of community, distinct
there are, about, ten individuals from different backgrounds, cultures, faiths, and no faith at all, countries. And they are all conversing with one another about kindness and tolerance. For me, is an example of how it's possible, through chaplaincy, to be able to create an experience that allows people to know people of faith
I have provided a space for people to be able to offer their prayers, offer their… Celebrate or just remember an event that ought to be held
Chaplains reflected on the wider impact on the community of the intentional spaces they create: their role in ‘signalling something, about what the university stands for’. This had intrinsic value, whether or not members of the community chose to inhabit those spaces, but value which cannot be tracked.
I will say that we also don’t know the other impacts that it may have. We don’t know who has seen the poster, the advert, for the event. And even though they haven’t attended, if it's made a difference to them. … Or when somebody's looking at what university do I want to go to, and they look at what activities and events all the departments are offering, and they see a Trans Day of Remembrance, World AIDS Day Service, and whatever else we’re celebrating and marking, they may then feel, yes, this is a place where I can belong, because things that are important to me are being recognised by that university.
there are quite a lot of events that we put on that people don’t come to. And sometimes that's okay.
if God has placed it on our hearts that this is something which we should be offering, then something good is coming out of that, whoever attends or doesn’t attend, so I don’t think it's a negative thing at all.
Attempts to measure impact were also made challenging, chaplains believed, by the collaborative and supportive nature of their roles. This includes a distinctive desire to work alongside other departments in the university context.
One of the things chaplaincy does for this university is … co-creation, partnership, enabling others to do what they do best
It's in partnership, so it's difficult to demonstrate impact if we’re a partner rather than a driver.
Chaplains often, and chaplaincies work well, when they celebrate and highlight others. And it's very frustrating when you then need to write a report
you’re on the fringes of the main event, that's where chaplaincy happens.
Chaplaincy's got a long narrative about dancing on the edge, sitting on the edge. Being inside, but not completely in. Knowing this sense that we have this liminal space
This, chaplains believed, posed challenges when considering how to articulate institutional impact.
we are a department, really, whose very nature is to be on the edge, to be in and out at the same time. And I think that's really hard for an institution with a certain expectation about management and structures … it's very difficult to get across without feeling like, we’re a special case, and we need more space and more time than other people.
Roles and Expectations
The challenge to impact measurement presented by the distinctive work of higher education chaplaincy was compounded for the chaplains in this study by a perceived lack of clarity around the university's expectations of the chaplaincy team.
We don’t know what's going to be asked of us in a couple of weeks from now let alone in a year from now or two years.
I don’t feel wholly that I have an agenda. I don’t have a sense of, well, I need to be meeting this criteria or I need to be getting X amount of people to do this or I need to be raising X amount of money to justify my existence.
What I find quite difficult in the university context is this, what are the…requirements that the university wants from the chaplain? … I’ve found it quite difficult because you don’t have statutory requirements
Compare higher education chaplaincy to something like hospital chaplaincy….. Because in hospitals … there is a background of systems that are there to measure things as a whole. And so, probably, the assessment of chaplaincy would fit into that more neatly than in higher education, where it's very different.
How do we balance a collective approach, as well as being sympathetic and empowering to our own personal sense of calling and priorities which mean we’re here in the first place?
So I imagine that's different for all of us, not just between Muslims and Christians, but that's probably different to you as individuals, how you feel you are responding to or making sure that if you’re held accountable, you’re responding to whatever you’re expected to do, your obligations.
Measuring impact assessment is dependent on what our understanding of chaplaincy is
- I think within our team we have very varied understandings of what chaplaincy is…
- Varied, yes. And, I don’t say that in a critical way. I think that adds to what we offer. But I think it means we’re looking for different things in terms of impact and evaluation
some of us are part-time and voluntary, so how we would approach our work and our relationship with our work is going to be very different from those who live on campus, and are full-time.
what I’m prepared to offer as a minister might… be very different than someone who's in an employed relationship
We’re employed or not by different bodies, have very different job descriptions with very different aims and objectives
An institution has to be more sort of intentional and organised in the way it operates and things it forms. And I think chaplaincy is one of those beautiful spaces that can be unplanned and messy
I’m not sure the language, often, of management is the right language.
We’re not always brilliant at using the institutional language
Clearing the Hurdles
Chaplains, then, identified very significant challenges in establishing an effective evaluation process. They did, however, also acknowledge that some of these challenges were not complete blocks. Knowing and being able to articulate the impact of ‘spiritual’ matters, for example, was acknowledged in one instance.
I had experiences at school with my faith and the teachers didn’t know until I’d told them later on in life and they were very shocked that that happened
often, we can be tempted to use that [the idea that impact is not immediate] too much as a reason then not to do anything at all. And I guess the question I would throw back into that scenario is, if you don't know that it's making any difference, and you might not know that for ten years, it might never make a difference. Why are you doing that thing?
I think we do need some space to reflect and evaluate more regularly that is built into our work ethic, I think, than we do currently
We can reflect back and go… Is there value behind what we were trying to do, and do we do it different, is there a better way of doing things?
I’ve really tried to I think be creative and open to ways in which my interactions and my presence might have an impact just within that limited time that I’m able to offer
before we can respond to somebody within the university to say this is the difference that we think that we’re making… I wonder whether there's another layer there to perhaps examine about how we as individuals hold ourselves accountable within our own faith traditions as well, and whether that actually speaks before and actually shapes how we want to respond to the university as well
the expectations of the university into our deliberations may be different for each of us. But also, it may vary, dependent on what it is that we are considering as to how important will that be alongside of being true to our own theology or being true to the tradition of our denomination. And I should imagine what will take priority may depend on each situation as well. So there's going to be that constant tension
Sometimes things need to be built on. And I know, the very first year I did a Trans Day of Remembrance service, it was just, I think, three of us… that were at that service. But then, the following year, there were a dozen people at that service, and that's been the same for the last three years that we’ve been able to run it.
- Do we collect data on the numbers of people who’ve been coming to the lunches?
- Not hugely. We have a rough…
- My sense is that they have gotten larger over time.
Some events that we do, that we perhaps do weekly and have pretty similar attendances, might need to be reimagined or decided, actually, for whatever reason, there isn’t the need for that at the moment, and so let's think about doing things in a different way
if we’re running something that is for student engagement and every week we might get two or three people from the chaplaincy seen there, and maybe a couple of other people who are paid to deliver stuff, but we’re not getting students engaging with it beyond that, then I think we need to be able to feel honest about the fact that that isn’t working
how do I gauge the sense of change? How do I gauge that sense of improvement? And for me, the quantity does make a difference. Not quantity of numbers necessarily, but across the year, perhaps being able to quantify what types of events I've done and how many of them I've done. And did I do more than I did the previous year? If not, why not? Is important
Because we do collect that data, so we know how many Jewish students we have, we know how many Hindu students and Sikh students, etc. Is it about staffing per X amount of students, or is it about a wider conversation? So, as chaplains, part of our role is about meeting the needs and facilitating the worshipping or the social life within specific faith communities
she sent me an email thanking me for conversing with her when no one else was talking to her. That's rare… But it was good to have that measurement for community lunch. But it was useful to think, actually, how could a greater impact be created?
for me as well, it can't be the numbers, because I work with very, very small groups… You can't look at numbers, but look at more qualitative information
you will get anecdotal evidence, but to get the numbers is difficult. So, there must be some creative thinking to be able to measure
A Way Forward
Alongside the various hesitations and anxieties chaplains expressed about measuring impact, they also expressed hope and enthusiasm for finding methods whereby their work could be seen for the value it holds. The need to speak into the university about the impact of chaplaincy wasn’t under question. At times, this could be couched in relatively cynical terms.
I know in our world today we’re constantly having to prove the point of our existence and show what impact we are making and that we’re worth the money being invested, etc.
there is value in mapping what is done in more detail, and saying to the organisation, here is what we’re up to, telling the story of what chaplaincy does and how it does it, and how chaplaincy influences in different ways.
I know that we need to be able to articulate our value to the institution… Yes, it's definitely desirable to have a language which we can speak, and if they’re looking for impact assessment, we have to be able to speak a language which qualifies what we do
I think part of our ministry to the wider institution that we serve… is to make the people that are in leadership to understand that [through] the structures that are in place and the spaces that we provide… on campus, we are good at providing care for people.
I think that will be a really helpful exercise… Rather than just day to day oh, I need to do this, this, this, what's my bigger purpose and why am I here? Why am I in this job and how do I want to have an impact or lead people to God? I think that's really helpful
it can be useful for us to be reminded of the impact that we are making because often in this type of work, you don’t always see that and you can get to the point where you’re thinking, what is the purpose of this? Am I doing a good job? Am I making a difference? And so to have something which shows that as a reminder to ourselves I think can be a desirable thing as well
one of the things we might learn from this process, as a team, is not just to be gung-ho about what we do, but to have a sense of a shared understanding of what the purpose of it is, and who it is for, and what does success here look like. And then that might enable us to be a bit bolder about saying, this isn’t working, let's try something else. And it might help us be more insightful about what kind of things we could adapt it to that might work better.
we can reflect back and go, well we thought that would be more valuable, but somehow hasn’t quite worked well, what is that about? And do we still… Is there value behind what we were trying to do, and do we do it differently, is there a better way of doing things?
There is value in expressing why it is you’re seeing something differently. Sometimes, there might be value in doing that to the wider institution… it might also enable the institution to understand a different way and what that might contribute into the way in which the institution talks about life and work and careers and whatever it might be.
I have felt very strongly that I need to account because I feel the chaplaincy is giving so much to me that I need to feel that I am returning that
conscious that actually, there's definitely been cutbacks. There's people who are no longer in some certain roles or people are not being recruited into roles. And actually, if I'm not able to find the time or to be able to articulate the why, it just makes me think.
it's something that I suppose in some ways is inherent in my work as a Muslim to my community.
the accountability is very much to do with my relationship with Jesus, with God.
It is important that chaplaincy's impact is measured
I think, it's very important, it is desirable, for chaplaincy impact to be measured.
Summary and Conclusions
Many of the findings from this project around higher education chaplains’ attitudes to outcomes-oriented approaches and assessing impact accorded with those found in the existing literature. The dominant narrative in use by the chaplains about their work was in line with how chaplaincy activity is often characterised: ‘relationships marked by empathic presence’ (Fitchett et al., 2014, p. 146). This focus on process and ‘being’, often in spaces on ‘the edge’ of the institution, led to discomfort in chaplains trying to demonstrate value, with a concern, too, that mechanisms for enabling them to do so would interrupt and disrupt the interpersonal process at the heart of their work (as in Lewis 2002, cited in Fitchett et al., 2014). Further, questions of agency and the unmeasurable nature of spiritual development and its long-term nature led to doubts not only about desirability (as in Gleason 1998 cited in Damen et al., 2020; also Smith, 2015) but also about the feasibility of assessing impact. Evident, too, in the chaplains’ initial responses was an expectation that quantitative measures must predominate in any attempts to articulate impact, particularly attendance numbers, which would contradict the chaplains’ focus on depth rather than volume, and which might also lead to adverse consequences in terms of how their work was perceived by the institution.
On the other hand, chaplains felt a strong sense of accountability, at multiple levels—to God, their faith traditions, to the university. They expressed a desire to be able to articulate the value of their contributions, with an increasing recognition that some quantification might have its place but that there might also be richer alternatives to wholly quantitative approaches. The fact of the multiplicity of perspectives, partners, and interested parties impinging on each individual's work, however, was seen as leading to complexity both in terms of expectations and what is valued, but also in how to articulate impact in different contexts, with the language of the institution potentially being at odds with that of their faith traditions.
The process of finding a language and appropriate measures was therefore seen as offering the potential not only to enable the demonstration of value but also to help in refining understandings of purpose, in reflecting as individuals and as a team on their work, and in extending chaplaincy's impact, with the possibility, too, of influencing the wider work of the university. This determination to find a way forward and to be in dialogue with the university and with one another about their work has been a significant outcome, leading to a second phase of the project.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
