4 research outputs found

    Shari'ah and the Secular State: Popular Support for and Opposition to Islamic Family Law in Senegal.

    Full text link
    Why do citizens disagree about the extent to which state law should be based on Islamic law? And why do some view state laws that conform to Shari’ah as a threat to secularism, while others do not? I argue in this dissertation that how local elites frame the issues shapes the kinds of values and considerations ordinary citizens mobilize as they form their preferences. In Senegal, some Muslim groups have advocated a personal status law that would apply only to Muslims and that would conform to Shari’ah principles. They framed a Muslim personal law as a question of faith and the religious authority of the Shari’ah. Defenders of the state Family Code framed the issue in terms of the secularism of the state and the principle of legal equality for all citizens. For some men and women, religious values and commitments do lead them to support a Muslim personal law. For others, commitment to secularism and the principle of legal equality lead them to oppose such a law. Many men and women, however, profess commitment to each of the principles invoked in these debates and do not view a Muslim personal law as incompatible with Senegalese secularism or legal equality. To explain how citizens reconcile competing values and commitments, I argue that awareness of elite discourse plays a critical role. The most educated and media-exposed men and women tend to view these as incompatible issues, in part, because they are more aware of the prevailing secular interpretive package offered in the media. These findings stem from analyses using multiple methods — statistical analysis of an original survey of public opinion in urban Senegal, interpretive analysis of coded narratives with 800 randomly selected men and women, and content analysis of print media debates about family law reform. Through public debate over family law reform, elites and the public constantly negotiate the boundaries of the religion-state relationship and the prevailing meaning of secularism and legal equality.Ph.D.Political ScienceUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75839/1/ckonold_1.pd

    Developing a collaborative agenda for humanities and social scientific research on laboratory animal science and welfare.

    Get PDF
    Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from enquiry in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they frame questions, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving mutual understanding of different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy
    corecore