When operationalizing ‘religiosity’ or ‘spirituality’ or ‘religious experience’ as measurable constructs, researchers tacitly treat them as if they were cross-culturally stable ‘things’ rather than investigating the way culturally-laden concepts, such as ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual,’ are used to interpret or appraise contested aspects of human life within and across cultures. To illustrate the distinction, we contrast the traditional research design that the Religious Experience Research Centre used to survey and compare “religious experience” in the UK and China with the appraisal-based design used by the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences (INOE). Instead of operationalizing “religious experience,” the INOE distinguishes between generically-worded experiences and the way the experiences are appraised. When coupled with item level validation to ensure that queries are understood as intended, the generically-worded experiences function as common features that allow us to compare similarities and differences between culturally-embedded “lived” experiences. Separating generic experiences from appraisals allows us to (1) treat culture-bound concepts, such as ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual,’ as appraisals, and (2) view these and other concepts (e.g., dharmic, paranormal, psychotic) as advancing claims about how and why an experience occurred. In so far as we can establish the cross-cultural validity of common features, we can set up culturally-balanced (rather than Western-centric) comparisons and avoid operationalizing culture-specific concepts.
The way forward?: The growth of systems biology