Theologians Reading Data Driven Research

BY: Dr. Scott Donahue-Martens | November 10, 2025

When I applied to the cross-training programme, I hoped the experience would provide an opportunity to gain additional competence and experience reading both quantitative and qualitative research. I had utilized several empirical studies on intercultural competency and survey data on race in my dissertation. Reading that literature was difficult and painstakingly slow. I was more often aware of how much I did not readily know or understand on a first read through than what I readily grasped. The experience was humbling for someone pursuing a Ph.D., especially as it fed into the all-too-common imposter syndrome.

In order to understand articles with quantitative data, I needed authors to clearly spell out their research methodology, analysis, and findings, using as little jargon as possible. Jack Skellington’s line after conducting an experiment in The Nightmare Before Christmas often rang through my head as I tried to decipher the significance of findings: “Interesting reaction, but what does it mean?” I stared glassily at graphs and Greek letters, which were often more mystifying than clarifying. Thankfully, the cross-training fellowship provided the opportunity for me to become more adept at reading quantitative and qualitative research. Perhaps, just as important, the fellowship programme reassured me that I was not alone among theologians, or even psychologists, in my difficulties.

One of the most important affirmations that the psychologists in the cross-training programme offered to theologians who were struggling to read data-driven works was their own need to look up terms, symbols, and statistical tests. This assurance was a relief to me as it showed that there was not some mystical storehouse of knowledge that many other scholars possessed that I had somehow missed. There are many different research methods and, what seems to me, an endless number of ways to do statistical tests in data analysis. No one knows them all. Learning that even psychologists who teach psychology research methods still need to look up terms and statistical tests was reassuring.  

My experiences with the fellowship also changed my expectations for how long reading empirical research takes and my overall approach to reading data-driven articles. Reading shorter articles does not necessarily mean budgeting less time to read, and spending more time reading is not a sign of inefficiency. Even though quantitative articles follow a standard format and terminology, reading quantitative research well takes time. I also learned that reading an article line by line from start to finish at one time may not be the best approach for full comprehension. Rather than being discouraged by needing to skip or flip through different sections of articles, flipping back and forth between sections of articles is now my standard practice. Without the goal of instant recognition and complete comprehension, my experience of reading empirical research changed. Instead of approaching every piece of research as an expert, the fellowship invited me to back to the role of learner.

Peer Reviewing Works of Theology using Quantitative Methods

Toward the end of the fellowship, a publisher asked me to peer review a quantitative study on homiletics. When the invitation to serve as a peer reviewer for an article with “quantitative” in the title first came to me, I was excited. I scanned the abstract and hit “accept.” Then, the dread and doubt set in. Would I really be able to provide a meaningful analysis of the content of the article and the quantitative research? I felt additional pressure because the field of homiletics rarely conducts such research, so the stakes were high.

After I finished my initial read of the paper, I was struck by how much I understood and how much more I noticed because of the cross-training fellowship. I was better able to reflect on the significance of the data, considering the sample size. The graphs weren’t something I instantly understood, but I knew how to look for the necessary guiding information in the article to help me understand and interpret them. I was not discouraged by having to look up how certain Greek letters and symbols were being used, because I now see reading empirical research as a process.

What stood out the most to me, though, were the things I noticed were missing from the article. After months of designing my own quantitative research project and consistently reading quantitative research articles, I found myself with the opposite problem than I expected. Rather than not having anything meaningful to comment on in the peer review process, which was my initial fear, I wondered if I now had too much to say. For example, I was deeply concerned by an almost complete lack of a methods section. The authors made scant references to the design of their study, and any references made were retrospective. The article did not identify any expected findings or hypotheses. Along with the lack of attention to method, this made me worried that the authors were engaging in data-dredging or p-hacking. These concerns were magnified by the authors' referencing of qualitative components of the project, which were never discussed in the article. This suggested to me that they “broke up” the data and results to produce more articles.

One of the other peer reviewers identified many of the same or similar concerns that I raised, while the third did not. Without the fellowship, I would not have identified these serious structural and methodological concerns. Importantly, without the fellowship, I would be prone to making these same mistakes. In my review, I gave the authors the benefit of the doubt that these concerns were more due to a lack of experience or knowledge than malicious intent. Nonetheless, as theology continues to utilize empirical methods, it must do so with knowledge of the academic standards of other disciplines. Merely adopting tools without the skills, knowledge, and methods to use them well is academically irresponsible. Perhaps, as with the cross-training fellowship, collaboration among disciplines will be a key to moving forward. Based on my experiences in engaging with empirical research, here are five take-aways or suggestions for theologians starting to read empirical research.

5 Takeaways for Theologians Starting to Read Empirical Research

1. Reading empirical research may take you more time than you expect, especially as you may need to look up what a Greek letter (or something else initially incomprehensible) means in the context of empirical research.
2. You don’t have to read line by line from start to finish. Instead, you might flip through previous or upcoming sections to make sure you know key information, such as sample size, hypotheses, and methods of statistical analysis.
3. It is ok not to understand everything on a first read-through or even a second read-through. Even people who are well-versed in empirical methods will miss things and need to look things up.
4. Try reading collaboratively with other theologians or experts from other disciplines to learn what others notice and miss.
5. Positioning yourself as a learner rather than an expert may make the overall experience easier.