Note: Below is the accepted and unedited manuscript version of the article. To read and cite the published article in the Missiology: An International Review Journal (SAGE Publication, UK) , visit and download the article on this site: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00918296241236728 __________________________________________________________________ Why is Inculturation in Catholic Theology Difficult to Operationalize? Dr. Vivencio O. Ballano Program Chairperson, MA Sociology Program Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP). Email: voballano@pup.edu.ph Abstract This article attempts to explain sociologically why the Catholic Church’s popular theological concept of inculturation is difficult to operationalize or provide empirical indicators, that is, to make it more observable and measurable for social scientists, missionaries, and inculturation practitioners. Using some secondary data and peer-reviewed literature, it explores how the following major hurdles inhibit the clear conceptualization and operationalization of inculturation projects, namely: (1) the lack of unified definition in the Church for culture, (2) plurality of the meaning of inculturation, (3) the ambiguity of the extent of the cultural change in inculturation that results in unsettled levels and units of analysis in measuring it, as well as (4) the lack of social science training and expertise of Catholic theologians, clerics, and missiologists, leading to the neglect of empirical studies that operationalize inculturation in the mainstream research and literature. This study recommends intensified social science training for missionaries and clerics in the Catholic Church and active dialogue between inculturationists and social scientists to enhance the empirical dimension of inculturation in research and literature. Keywords: Culture, Inculturation, Evangelization, Missionaries, Conceptualization, Operationalization, Research Methods, Sociology Introduction In the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), one of the most important concepts for research and theologizing after Vatican II that has become a buzzword among contemporary Catholic theologians and writers is inculturation. Since the Council, Catholic scholars have been trying to understand the relationship between culture and faith and adapt the Christian message in society. Because of its crucial role in evangelization, inculturation as a theological concept has now become firmly rooted in the RCC around the world (Russel-Mundine and Mundine 2011: 96). Ukpong (1999: 100) sees inculturation as “a new way of doing theology that seeks to interpret the Christian faith from the perspectives of the socio-cultural contexts and historical life experiences of different people….” Pope John Paul II who popularized this concept after Vatican II viewed inculturation as urgent and vital today as the destiny of the world at the end of this twentieth century is at stake. “To him, an inaccurate adaptation of the Christian faith in human cultures can lead to a bad theology and defective pastoral policies and practices” (Ballano 2021: 1). Despite the importance of inculturation in contemporary Catholic theology, its proper conceptualization and operationalization to make it more empirical and measurable have escaped many theologians and practitioners. Several conceptualizations and definitions of this concept are available in the mainstream literature. Scientific research and publications that evaluate inculturation projects using rigorous social science methodology, however, remain scarce. The current literature on inculturation in the RCC is replete with philosophical and theological conceptions (Ukpong, 1999; Akah, Obiwalu, and Akah, 2020; Ballano 2019). But it obviously lacks operational definitions and indicators for researchers and theologians who want to comprehend it empirically and sociologically. Inculturation is not only a theological concept but also a sociological one. Two difficult processes of converting theological concepts such as inculturation into something tangible within the scientific methodology of the social sciences are conceptualization and operationalization of variables. The sociologist Earl Babbie (2020) contends that conceptualization is the refinement and specification of abstract concepts and operationalization, which implies the development of specific research procedures that provide indicators to concepts. “Conceptualization is the mental process by which fuzzy and imprecise constructs (concepts) and their constituent components are defined in concrete and precise terms” (Bhattacherjee, 2012: 43). It is a process that is crucial in scientific research to clarify the imprecise terms such as inculturation. Operationalizing inculturation implies creating appropriate conceptual and operational definitions to make it measurable in a particular culture. “Once a theoretical construct is defined, exactly how do we measure it? Operationalization refers to the process of developing indicators or items for measuring these constructs…Thus, if religiosity is defined as a construct that measures how religious a person is, then attending religious services can be an indicator. The combination of indicators at the empirical level representing a given construct is called a variable” (Bhattacherjee, 2012: 44). To make the concept of inculturation more practical requires operationalization, constructing concrete items or acts to implement its theological meaning of inserting the gospel message in local cultures. It demands adaptation of the spiritual message by missionaries to the thought patterns of the recipient (Waliggo, 1996). Pope Paul VI taught in his encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi [Evangelization in Modern World] that the gospel message must be expressed in the language of the people (Schreiter, 2015). But how can Catholic theologians and missiologists translate the conceptual meaning of inculturation into variables and indicators without adequate social science training and assistance from social scientists specializing in research and methodology? A great bulk of the inculturation literature primarily explores the conceptual rather than the empirical aspects of inculturation. The RCC lacks scientific publications on the empirical and practical dimensions of inculturation. With its current focus on exploring the philosophical and theological dimensions of inculturation, the RCC has not developed a robust empirical literature on how to deal with inculturation as a sociological concept. With this absence, the RCC will continue to lack social sensitivity and context in implementing inculturation in society. Using some sociological perspectives and research methodologies, this article explores some major hurdles on why operationalizing the concept of inculturation for the mainstream Catholic literature and research is difficult to operationalize. It intends to stress the importance of scientific evaluation research methodology to make the theological concept of inculturation more empirical and measurable, enabling missionaries and practitioners to evaluate their inculturation projects scientifically before applying theological and spiritual reflection. Specifically, this article aims to explain four major hurdles the RCC would encounter in operationalizing inculturation in scientific research in order to make it more empirical and measurable in the social world. This study used the qualitative secondary research method using archival or documentary data from secondary literature and studies (see Long-Sutehall, 2010; Largan and Morris, 2019). The textual data of this research are largely collected from Church documents, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books. The data from online sources were collated and then analyzed to construct the article’s main argument and to attain research objectives. Hurdles Towards Adequate Operationalization This section discusses the major hurdles in the conceptualization and operationalization of inculturation as a theological concept in the RCC. It explains why the diversity of definitions and meanings of culture and inculturation in the RCC literature and research can create ambiguity in understanding and creating empirical indicators of inculturation. It also examines the extent of cultural change in doing inculturation in society which is necessary in knowing the levels and units of social analysis of inculturation. Lastly, it explores the larger social context on why inculturation is difficult to operationalize by analyzing how the lack of social science education for Catholic clerics, missionaries, and missiologists doing inculturation and active dialogue between theologians and professional social scientists contributed to the lack of empirical and scientific studies on inculturation in the RCC and literature. Lack of a Unified Definition of Culture The idea of inculturation is said to be as old as the Church, but its empirical indicators are lacking and vague. Inculturation is said to be only “a new term for an old issue in Christianity concerning the translation and realization of Christian meanings and practices in different cultural contexts” (Orta, 2016: 1). “Paul's interpretation of the Christian faith in a Gentile cultural context whereby he propagated the gospel of non-circumcision for Gentile Christians…is an example of inculturation theology in early Christianity” (Ukpong, 1999: 100). Thus, inculturation can be understood as “a new vision of an old problem in the Church or a new approach to a solution of an old problem” (Anthony, 2012: 237). The concept was first used in a theological sense by Joseph Masson, a professor at the Gregorian University in Rome. But it was Fr. Pedro Arrupe, the Superior-General of the Society of Jesus, who introduced the term to the Jesuits and to the RCC’s theological literature. Later, Pope John II first inserted this concept in his Apostolic Exhortation on Catechesis in October 1979 and popularized it in his writings. Since then, the concept has become popular in papal documents and theological writings. Other terms such as “indigenization”, “incarnation”, “contextualization”, “revision”, “adaptation,” “transculturation”, “deculturation”, and “exculturation” have been coined by other writers to refer it to the adaptation of the gospel in society. But what turned out to be the most popular term is “inculturation” (Chupungco, 1992: 13). “Many writers tend to limit the scope of inculturation theologically to the first insertion of the Christian message into hitherto non-Christian cultures” (Shorter, 1999: 11). The main problem in Christianity, specifically in the RCC, is seeing inculturation as purely theological process and ignoring its sociological aspects. As a result, the definition of culture and inculturation became narrow and highly theological. To adequately understand the concept of inculturation requires a clear understanding of culture. When Fr. Arrupe first introduced inculturation in his letter to the Jesuits, he was not clearly aware of its precise meaning. Later, he clarified that he was using the term “culture” as the RCC understood it, and as Vatican II described it in its official documents. However, a deeper examination of the meaning of “culture” in these documents reveals a diversity of theological meaning. It was only ten years after the Council that the RCC through Pope Paul VI used the term with anthropological precision and sensitivity. The popular understanding of culture in the RCC changed considerably after Paul VI published the landmark church document on culture and evangelization in 1975—Evangelii Nuntiandi [Evangelization in the Modern World]. Since then, the ecclesiastical definition of culture became open to anthropological meaning. Despite this anthropological sensitivity to the meaning of culture, ecclesiastical definitions remain fundamentally diverse. The RCC has no unified understanding of culture, just as anthropology and the social sciences conceive its meaning in various ways” (Ballano, 2019: 4). To the anthropologist-theologian Gerald Arbuckle (2010), this plurality of definitions of culture in the RCC and its application to vastly different situations is the thorniest methodological problem in inculturation theology. If inculturation implies insertion of the gospel in culture, how should the missionary and inculturationist define it? Can there be a standard definition? Indeed, this lack of a uniform definition of culture among inculturationists and theologians in the RCC only reflects the contentious nature of the term and the plurality of its definition in cultural anthropology, the discipline that specializes the study of culture. In their classical work, the anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) claimed that “culture had 160 definitions published in English by anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other social scientists” (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1957: 1963). Finding a common definition of culture has been a cause of conflict, not only among Catholic theologians but also among anthropologists who often clash on how to agree on a single definition. Gittins (2004: 47) argues, “Culture is polysemic, carrying many meanings. ’Culture’ (like ‘language’) is used both in the singular and in the plural, which is confusing and intrinsically ambiguous. Culture embraces both the material (including architecture and artifacts), and the symbolic (including speech and ritual).” Thus, one may ask: “What exactly is culture? Unfortunately, a fixed, universal understanding does not exist; there is little consensus within, let alone, across disciplines” (Tharp 2009, 2). Culture is a central concept in cultural anthropology. Despite the disagreement of anthropologists and sociologists on how to define it, culture is generally understood as consisting of “ideas, transmitted symbolically and intergenerationally about the things people make, their behavior, their beliefs, and ideas” (Weisgru, Rosman, and Rubel 2024, 5). The “British anthropologist Edward Tyler is widely credited with the first (1871) ‘modern’ definition of culture: ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’” (Tharp 2009, 3). Tylor’s classic definition is still relevant for inculturationists since it sees culture as a “complex whole” or the totality of what people learn from society whether in terms of spiritual and material realities. The RCC should view culture as the totality of socially learned behavior and material structures that people used as members of a particular community or society. Inculturation thus implies that Christianizing the entire society should also include the material aspects of life such as providing livelihood for the poor, organizing cooperatives or labor unions as taught by Catholic social teaching for workers in urban centers, lobbying for just laws and legislation in society, etc. This is indeed an ambitious project, but nothing is impossible in Christ! Aside from the difficulty of defining culture, there is also the hurdle of creating a uniform and standard definition of inculturation in the RCC. The Church itself acknowledges that defining inculturation is “difficult” and “delicate.” Surveying the literature would reveal numerous definitions, each differing in nuance or emphasis. “Definitions generally emphasize the goals of inculturation, such as the rooting of Christianity in diverse cultures, the transformation of cultures in light of the Gospel, the evangelization of every aspect of the individual and societal life of a people, the naturalizing of the church in every culture” (Schineller 1996: 109). Plurality of Inculturation Definitions Another hurdle in operationalizing inculturation itself is the diversity of its definitions. The word ‘inculturation’ is only one of the various terms in ecclesial and theological writings that describe the dialogue between the Christian faith and culture, contributing to the problem of defining it conceptually and operationally for scientific research purposes. This term is said to be an adaptation from the anthropological term of “enculturation” which denotes the process by which a person is inserted into his culture. However, it was given a slight change in missiological use as a process by which the church becomes inserted into a particular culture. Schineller (1990: 21) claims that “at its best, the term combines the theological significance of incarnation with the anthropological concepts of enculturation and acculturation to create something new.” The minute change of “enculturation” to “inculturation” implies a shift of meaning for the RCC to give it a theological meaning. Enculturation in anthropology is a learning experience by which an individual is initiated into his or her experience, while “inculturation” denotes the process by which the Church becomes inserted in a culture” (Roest-Crollius, 1978: 275). In this case, the term “enculturation” is simply a scientific term to describe the initiation of an individual to a particular culture, while the term “inculturation” is a theological one, with a reformist tone of transforming human cultures into a Christian culture as taught by the RCC” (Ballano, 2020: 5). But what is inculturation and what is not for the RCC? What are its indicators of inculturation when applied in a particular society? How can one evaluate it? Bosch (1991: 454) broadly defined inculturation as “a process whereby cultural values can be transformed through their exposure to the Christian message and the insertion of Christianity into indigenous cultures.” To him, inculturation is a double movement of adaptation of Christianity to culture and Christianization of culture. But this can be done if there is already an understanding of the local culture “as it relates to world views, ways of thinking, group solidarity, understanding of history and of modernity and its impact” (Duncan, 2014: 2). With the pluralism of meanings attached to the term, inculturation becomes “susceptible to oversimplification, misinterpretation, and eventually to being consigned to the dustbin of faded "buzz words” (Starkoff, 1994: 66). This serious problem of understanding the concept of inculturation started when Fr. Pedro Arrupe (1978) introduced it formally to the RCC in the Jesuit decree entitled "The Work of Inculturation of the Faith and Promotion of Christian Life” to encourage Jesuits to advance it in their apostolate. Inculturation was not clearly defined in empirical terms, although he described it normatively in an exhortation form as: the incarnation of Christian life and of the Christian message in a particular local cultural context, in such a way that the experience not only finds expression through elements proper to the culture in question (this alone would be no more than a superficial adaptation), but becomes a principle that animates, directs, and unifies a culture, transforming and remaking it so as to bring about "a new creation (Arrupe, 1978: 1). Paul Paul VI (1975), who tried to expound the theological meaning of inculturation in the encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi [Evangelization in the Modern World], was also uncertain of the empirical boundaries of the term and thus used "evangelization of cultures." He encouraged theologians to come up with ‘linguistic adaptation' of inculturation, “understood not as semantic or literary but as anthropological and cultural” (Starkoff, 1994: 68). Although inculturation started as a theological term from the RCC, it is not purely theological in content but also a sociological one. Because the RCC’s theology of inculturation is promoted mostly by theologians and philosophers rather than by sociologists and anthropologists, its empirical and sociological aspects have been neglected and seldom examined in Catholic research and literature to clarify empirical boundaries for research evaluation purposes. This prompted the missiologist Robert J. Schreiter (1989) to comment that the challenge of bridging the gap between faith and cultures remains largely unmet. Despite “the frequent references to inculturation and its importance by ecclesiastical authorities and theologians… few are taking up the challenge to enter realistically with the cultures of the times. And one major reason for this is the lack of adequate methodologies for theologians ‘to break through the conceptual logjams’ and lack of tools that can be used readily and easily by practitioners” (Arbuckle, 2010: xx). This reflects the lack of operationalization of inculturation in their work to measure the impact of their projects or experiments in the RCC’s evangelization. Clarity of conceptualization is necessary for a clear operationalization of inculturation, which is crucial in understanding the effects of inculturation projects in society. To implement the inculturation of the Christian message in society requires translating theological concepts into variables and indicators that express the cultural form. Since Shorter (1999: 12) argues that “the Christian Faith cannot exist except in a cultural form. When we speak of Christian faith or Christian life, we are necessarily speaking of a cultural phenomenon. It is a distinctive way of life that can only operate culturally.” Inculturation as inserting the Christian message in human cultures has empirical dimensions (Ballano, 2019). There is a complex web of meanings that constitute cultural systems. Thus, theologians must not isolate individuals from their own authentic environment when dealing with inculturation (Starkoff, 1994: 66). The Christian message is doctrinal and supernatural but once it is applied in social practice by the preacher, it assumes an empirical form (Ballano, 2021). A comprehensive review of all published works on inculturation in the RCC reveals a robust literature on the conceptual aspect of inculturation but not on its empirical and methodological dimension. Determining Inculturation’s Levels and Units of Analysis Another major hurdle towards an adequate operationalization of inculturation is determining the levels and units of analyzing, in evaluating any attempt to insert the gospel in a particular culture in society. To what extent do cultural change practitioners expect in an inculturation project? What must be the level of social analysis to be used in understanding it? What macro and micro change are? Knowing this level of conceptualizing inculturation is important in scientific study of inculturation projects as it determines its units of analysis in order that the missionary or inculturationist can evaluate their work adequately for improvement. “Micro, meso and macro are levels or scales that can and may be mobilized in social analysis” (Sherpa and Ferreira, 2019: 1). A micro analysis focuses on individual or small group interaction. A meso evaluation entails examining the social units between nations but bigger than the local communities, while a macro measurement is the widest level that covers national institutions, nationwide organizations, nations, global forces, and international social trends. Using a macro level of analysis implies a structural or systemic change in a particular society, when adapting the gospel in the local culture. But this is difficult to operationalize as inculturation theology and literature is inconsistent in determining as to what extent inculturating the Christian message in society must take shape. Various official documents, however, imply that inculturation is a radical structural change of society, a complete Christianization of culture (Evangelii Nuntiandi [Evangelization in Modern World], 1975). Several theological writings too imply inculturation as a macro change, thus requiring a macro level and unit of analysis (e.g., Mbiti, 1969; Schineller, 1999; Gittens, 2004; Shorter, 1999). But one has yet to see a published scientific study of an inculturation project using this type of analysis in the literature. The process of inculturation may start in the micro and meso levels such as adapting the liturgy to the local culture, particularly the Eucharistic liturgy (Chupungco, 1992). But eventually it must include: “all areas of life—theological, liturgical, catechetical, pastoral, juridical, political, economic, and familial…Ways of thinking, praying, and relating to other members of the community; ways of exercising authority; ways of deriving and applying church law; ways of living and preaching the Gospel…today” (Schineller, 1996: 109-110). Thus, ideally, the RCC expects that inculturation can reach the macro level of conversion that includes nations, if not the whole world as taught by Christ to evangelize the entire planet: “Go therefore and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28: 19-20). Inculturation, therefore, is a macro process of the interaction between Christianity and cultures, “which takes into consideration the total collective religious, social, and moral life as it gradually takes a concrete form in each culture” (Kurgat, 2009: 92). In this sense, inculturation implies a complete conversion or holistic change of a local culture into a |Christian culture. As Pope John Paul II would put it: “inculturation is the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures” (John Paul II, 1983 paras.: 52–54). It is the process of inserting the gospel message in human cultures, requiring that the preacher to adapt the Christian faith according to the cultural orientation of its hearers. This implies a structural change to inculturate the Christian message in society. According to John Paul II, “A faith which does not become culture is a faith which has not been fully received, not thoroughly thought through, not fully lived out” (Ezechi, 2011: 221). Speaking about inculturation of Africa, Mbiti (1969) saw inculturation as a structural process in society which must embrace language, thought patterns, fears, social relationships, attitudes, and philosophical disposition if that conversion is to make a lasting impact upon the individual and community. But how can this be achieved without the cooperation of the state and civil authorities to ensure that the inculturation process is included in public policy and legal system? If inculturation is a macro or structural change of society, the unit of analysis to understand and measure its effectiveness can be region, nation-state, or institution where the experiment is done by missionaries and inculturationists. If the unit of analysis would be the nation-state, then scientific research would evaluate the effects of the inculturation intervention in a specific country. Thus, if one intends to evaluate the effect of a particular intervention to preach the Christian message in a country, it requires a national baseline study, time 1, that is, measuring the natives’ belief or practices, before the Catholic catechism is introduced and taught by missionaries, for instance. Then after a certain period, another data set would be gathered to measure the effects of the intervention or catechism in time 2. This can be quasi-experimental research normally used in field experiments to measure effects. A macro unit of analysis to measure the effects of an inculturation experiment in a particular nation can be very complex that needs research funding and social science research expertise for the RCC. One has yet to see a published scientific evaluation research of an inculturation experiment of this kind. The most common type of research on inculturation happens in the meso level. To Sell (2016), the most common levels of analysis in research are the micro and macro. But in-between these two extremes, some intermediate levels (meso) can also be used in research and units of analysis for secondary groups such as organizations, associations, and communities. Fine (2012) argues that a focus on large group analysis is important as it enriches both structural and interactional approaches in understanding the social order. Doing inculturation projects in the meso level such as Christian communities is popular in Catholic inculturation. The Paraguay reductions and inculturation of the Jesuits for the Guarani Indians was a meso experiment in introducing the gospel into the indigenous culture, although no formal scientific research on this had been done. In recent times, the case study of Sr. Celia Chua (2000), a missionary sister on the inculturation of Marian devotion in Taiwan, particularly among devotees in the Immaculate Concepcion Basilica parish is also an example of a meso unit of analysis. The micro level analysis in sociological or anthropological research deals with “the study of human behavior in contexts of everyday direct interaction” (Giddens, 1997: 883). This relates to the study of individual and small groups such as the family, team, and small organization. A micro analysis of inculturation can include individual Catholics, a small parish, a parish organization, or a small basic ecclesial community or group. Evaluating the effects of translating liturgical texts into the vernacular language in a small parish church can be an example of this type of analysis. Lack of Social Science Training and Dialogue The bottom line on why there is a difficulty in operationalizing inculturation in research and literature in the RCC is the lack of anthropological and social science training of many practitioners, missionaries, and theologians doing inculturation as well as the lack of an active dialogue between professional anthropologists, sociologists, and other social science experts on culture and clerics, missiologists, and theologians of inculturation. The ongoing conflict and distrust between theology and the social sciences reflects the uneasy alliance between theology, sociology, and anthropology, resulting in scarce empirical research on inculturation. Despite Vatican II’s emphasis on the crucial role of culture in evangelization, clerics, and missionaries, who are expected to be the leaders of this endeavor, lack knowledge of the latest scientific research on culture and society from anthropology and the social sciences, both of which can advance the RCC’s mission on inculturation. A great “majority of missionaries, both Western and non-Western, are still largely uninformed by anthropological insights” (Whiteman, 2003). Research to integrate theology and the social sciences, such as sociology and anthropology in the work of inculturation, is still in the rudimentary phase (Arbuckle, 2010; Agrosino, 2021). A robust literature on the empirical dimensions of inculturationn that uses social science methodologies such as explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive research, especially one that applies the quasi-experimental research to evaluate inculturation projects or experiments in the field is apparently absent. What clearly dominates in the literature are published philosophical, theological, or conceptual views and reflections on the nature of inculturation mostly by clerics, missiologists, and Catholic scholars who are primarily educated in philosophy and theology (Ballano, 2021). Ballano (2020) argues, “Clerics and missionaries, by academic training, do not have the advantage of having ethnographic expertise of professional anthropologists in studying culture, even if they live with the natives in the missions for longer periods.” To understand culture and its dynamics in order to be able to creatively insert the gospel in society requires an intensification of social science education in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities for inculturationists. An active dialogue between inculturation theologians and professional anthropologists and sociologists who are experts in the study of culture is also necessary to gradually infuse empirical insights and methodologies into the Catholic inculturation research literature. Without this enhanced social science education and dialogue, clerics and missionaries will continue to be ill-equipped in inculturating the Christian message on a solid empirical ground. They will also be left behind in anthropological and sociological perspectives and methodologies in dealing with the fast-evolving nature of culture especially in today’s postmodern world. Agrosino (1994) contends that many inculturationists and missionaries still understand culture in the classical sense and identified it with nation-states or other political units rather than with self-identified ethnic communities. This is contrary to the view of contemporary anthropologists who generally view intracultural variation as a salient characteristic of every culture (Barrett 1984). The problem of operationalizing inculturation in the current Catholic research and literature is only a reflection of the bigger issue of lack of dialogue and integration between Catholic theology and the social sciences. Conclusion This article has shown that inculturation is a popular theological concept in the RCC that is well-embedded in Catholic theology but lacking in clear conceptualization and operationalization to make it more empirical and measurable in inculturation projects. Operationalizing inculturation by providing empirical indicators to make it measurable for evaluation research purposes is difficult and challenging without sociological and anthropological research. It identified and discussed the significance of the social sciences to overcome the four major hurdles in providing empirical indicators for inculturation and in making inculturation research and literature more sociological rather than theological and philosophical, namely: (1) the diversity of definitions of culture, (2) : (2) plurality of the meaning of inculturation, (3) the ambiguity of the extent of the cultural change and units of analysis in measuring it for research evaluation purposes, and (4) the lack of social science training among clerics and missionaries doing inculturation as well as an active dialogue between Catholic theologians and professional social scientists. This study recommends that the RCC updates the clerical and missionary education with more social science and research courses in seminary formation and missionary training. Advanced degrees in cultural anthropology, sociology, and other social sciences that deal with culture must encouraged to Catholic clerics, religious, and missiologists to prepare new breed of inculturation Catholic scholars to do more empirical studies and publications on inculturation to increase scientific research in the literature. References Agrosino M (2021) The culture concept and the mission of the Roman Catholic Church. In Martha Frederiks and Dorottya Nagy: Critical Readings in the History of Christian Mission, vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, pp. 499–510. Agrosino MV (1994) The culture concept and the mission of the Roman Catholic Church. American Anthropologist 96: 824–32. Akah JN Obiwulu AC and Ajah AC (2020). Recognition and justification: Towards a rationalisation approach to inculturation. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 76 (3): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i3.6186. Anthony KI (2012) Inculturation and the Christian faith in Africa. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2(17): 236–44. Arbuckle GA (2010) Culture, Inculturation, and Theologians: A Postmodern Critique. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Arrupe P (1978) On inculturation, to the whole society. Available at: https://jesuitportal.bc.edu/research/documents/1978_arrupeinculturationsociety/ Babbie E (2020) The Practice of Social Research.15th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Anthony KI (2012). Inculturation and the Christian Faith in Africa. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2 (17): 236-244. http://ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_17_September_2012/25.pdf. Arbuckle GA (2010). Culture, Inculturation, and Theologians: A Postmodern Critique. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Agrosino M (2021). The Culture Concept and the Mission of the Roman Catholic Church. In Critical Readings in the History of Christian Mission Vol. 2: 499-510. Brill. Ballano VO (2020) Inculturation, anthropology, and the empirical dimension of evangelization. Religions 11(2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11020101 Barrett Richard A (1984) Culture and conduct: An excursion in anthropology. Belmonth: Wadsworth. Bhattacherjee A (2012) Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks Collection 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3 Bosch DJ (1991) Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission (American Society of Missiology Series). Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books. Chua C (2000) An investigation on the inculturation of Marian devotion in Taiwan Catholicism: a case study of Marian devotion at the Immaculate Conception Minor Basilica in Wanchin, Pingtung. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Dayton]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=udmarian1430315232 Chupungco AJ (1992) Liturgical inculturation: Sacramentals, religiosity, and catechesis Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. Duncan GA (2014) Inculturation: adaptation, innovation and reflexivity: An African Christian perspective. HTS Teologiese Studies 70(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i1.2669 Ezechi JC (2011) The dead are never gone: Odo Masquerade and Contemporary realities. Enugu: Monrovia Street New Haven. Fine GA (2012) Group culture and the interaction level: Local sociology on the meso-level. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145518 Gidden A (1997) Sociology. Third Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gittins AJ (2004). Beyond liturgical inculturation: Transforming the deep structures of faith. Irish Theological Quarterly 69(1): 47-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/002114000406900104. Kroeber AL and Kluckhohn C (1957) Ritual and social change: A Javanese example. American Anthropologist 59(1): 32–54. DOI:10.1525/aa.1957.59.1.02a00040. Kroeber AL and Kluckhohn C (1963) Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. New York: Vintage Books. Kurgat SG (2009) The theology of inculturation and the African church. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 1(5): 090-098. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJSA.9000092. Largan C and Morris T (2019) Qualitative Secondary Research. London: SAGE Publishing. Long-Sutehall T (2010) Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population? Journal of Research in Nursing 16(4): 335-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110381553. Mbiti JS (1969) African Religions and Philosophy. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. Orta A (2016) Inculturation. In Henry Gooren, ed., Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions. Springer. Cham: Springer International Publishing: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08956-0_206-1. Pope John Paul II (1979) Catechesi Tradendae [Catechesis of Our Times]: An Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Joahn Paul II on Cathesis in Our Times. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae.html (accessed 10 February 2023). Pope John Paul II (1983) The Church and culture: The holy father’s address to the members of the pontifical council for culture. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_doc_20000126_jp-ii_addresses-pccultr_en.html#1 (accessed 5 June 2023). Pope Paul VI (1975) Evangelii Nuntiandi. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html (accessed 10 January 2023). Roest-Crollius AA (1978) What is so new about inculturation. Gregorianum 59: 721–38. Russel-Mundine G and Mundine G (2014) Aboriginal inculturation of the Australian Catholic Church. Black Theology 12 (2): 96–116. Russel-Mundine G, Mundine G (2014) Aboriginal inculturation of the Australian Catholic Church. Black Theology 12(2): 96–116. Schineller P (1990) A Handbook on Inculturation. New York: Paulist Press. Schineller P (1999). Inculturation: A difficult and delicate task. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 20 (3): 109-112. http://www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/1996-03/1996-03-109-schineller.pdf. Schreiter RJ (1989) Faith and cultures: Challenges to a world church. Theological Studies 50 (4): 744-760. https://doi.org/10.1177/004056398905000406. Schreiter RJ (2015) Inculturation of faith or identification with culture? In Concilium Christianity and Cultures: A Mutual Enrichment, edited by Norbert Greinacher and Norbert Mettre, 15. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Sell CE (2016) Max Weber e o Atomo da Sociologia: Um Individualismo Metodológico Moderado? [Max Weber and the Atom of Sociology: A Moderate Methodological Individualism?]. Civitas – Revista de Ciências Sociais 16(2): 323-347. DOI: 10.15448/1984-7289.2016.2.22167. Serpa S and Carlos Ferreira CM (2019). Micro, meso, and macro levels of social analysis. International Journal of Social Science Studies 7(3): 120-123. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v7i3.4223. Shorter A (1999) Toward a Theology of Inculturation. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers. Starkloff CF 1994 Inculturation and cultural systems: Part I. Theological Studies 55: 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/004056399405500105. Tharp BM 2009. Defining “culture” and “organizational culture”: From Anthropology to the Office. Interpretation a Journal of Bible and Theology, Harworth. http://www.paragonbusinessfurniture.com/documents/DefiningCultureandOrganizationalCultur e.pdf Ukpong J (1999) Toward a holistic approach to inculturation theology. Mission Studies 16(2): 100-124. https://doi.org/10.1163/15733831-90000009b. Waliggo JM (1996). Inculturation: Its Meanings and Urgency. Nairobi, Kenya: St Paul. Weisgrau, M Rosman A and Rubel PG 2024. The tapestry of culture: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology 11th Edition. Lanham, Maryland: The Rowland & Littlefield Publishing Group. Whiteman DL (2003). Anthropology and mission: The incarnational connection. Missiology: An International Review 31: 397–415. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.cloversites.com/e1/e1c09bc3-c173-420b-a11f-628609cec4cb/documents/5._Anthropology_and_Mission.