Book Re vie ws/Comptes Rendus 140 phenomenon in the university, having been considered odd, if not harmful, two or three decades ago. His interviewees recommend that there should be more balance in reward criteria. They also favoured higher minimum standards for teaching, and greater flexibility and variety in criteria to allow for more diversity in faculty skills and interests. Jarvis contrasts research in the humanities and sciences, suggesting that while a scientific conception of progress has guided much university research, humanities professors have a more difficult time proving that thinking has progressed from the time of Plato or Lao-tzu. A major theme running through the book is the need to develop a community of scholars, where mentors will provide advice and good role models in a collegial atmosphere: "the pursuit of truth in the company of friends" (p. 40). Practical advice on writing (brief, daily periods of undisrupted writing), on the preparation of a teaching dossier, and on designing a prestigious faculty development program makes the book a worthwhile purchase. Advice for faculty development programs includes recommendations such as choosing the achievers, rather than those who need remediation, to participate. Two other recommendations worthy of special note are selecting intellectually stimulating topics for discussion, and transcending disciplines, a practice we have found successful, even though professors often ask for "discipline-based" groups. The book closes with two Utopian visions, one minimalist, the other maximalist, of what university administrators can do to put faculty development programs in place. In summary, a short but very useful book for university administrators and faculty to have on their shelves. Remus, Harold; Clossin, William James; and Fraikin, Daniel. Religious in Ontario: A State-of-the-Art Review. Studies Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1992, pp.xviii; 422. Price: $24.95 (paper). Reviewed by Ronald Neufeldt, Head, Religious Studies Department, University of Calgary. T h i s is t h e t h i r d v o l u m e in a s e r i e s e n t i t l e d , The Study Canada/Sciences Religieuses of Religion in au Canada, following on two volumes dedicated to the analysis of the study of religion in Alberta and the study of religion in Quebec. This is the most ambitious volume to date for two reasons. First, the number of programs in Ontario colleges and universities makes any attempt at analysis a formidable task indeed. Second, no previous studies had been done for Ontario. The authors were therefore working "from scratch," so to speak. In spite of these difficulties, Professors Remus, James, and Fraikin have succeeded Book Re vie ws/Comptes Rendus 141 admirably in presenting a thorough and highly readable account, not only of the status quo, but also of the development of the study of religion in Ontario. The volume is comprised of twelve chapters covering a variety of topics, appendices providing details on theological colleges and faculties, and degree and non-degree programs, along with a helpful index. The institutions included in the study are universities, whether provincial or denominational; churchrelated colleges, whether affiliated with a university or not; institutes; and Bible colleges. Topics include the history of the development of religious studies in Ontario; perceptions of administrators, faculty, and students; preparation and hiring of faculty; teaching, research, and publication; undergraduate and graduate education; and library resources. A welcome and useful aspect of the volume is chapter two, in which Harold Remus deals with the development of Religious Studies in Ontario from the teaching of religion in an era of Christian establishment, to the study of religion — a shift reflecting, at least in part, the growing secularization and religious pluralism in society. There is, in this lengthy chapter, a gold-mine of instructive information on the history of religious studies in Ontario, instructive in the sense that Remus touches on the problems that have faced the development of religious studies, not only in the Ontario scene, but in other provinces as well. To be sure, there are peculiarities in the Ontario scene which may not be found elsewhere. For example, a good many programs in Western universities have not evolved out of previously established theology programs. Aside from its importance in providing the much-needed historical background to the development of religious studies in Ontario, this chapter, and chapters three and four dealing with the perceptions of administrators, faculty, and students, are significant in that they introduce many of the topics dealt with at length in later chapters. Among the findings and recommendations are the following: religious studies is firmly established in the universities; the traditions of Africa, Asia, Oceania, indigenous peoples of Canada, Jews, and Moslems, are under-represented in faculty numbers, curricula, and research; while the number of courses in Christianity has decreased, this still represents two-fifths of the total offerings; more needs to be done in the way of methodological, thematic, and dialogical courses; the ties between religious studies and theology need to be scrutinized periodically to insure that a distinction between the two is maintained; religion in Canada remains a minor focus both in curricular offerings and in scholarship; more conscious attention should be given to the business of teaching in religious studies at Learned Societies, in publications, and in hiring Book Re vie ws/Comptes Rendus 142 (in spite of the fact that the teaching that is done receives very good reviews); the traditional canon has been expanded considerably to include non-Western texts and non-textual materials; and there continues to be considerable debate concerning methodolgy and the definition of religious studies. Such findings are hardly surprising and, in all likelihood, apply to religious studies programs and departments throughout Canada. In many respects, the findings do indicate that issues facing religious studies are not necessarily different from issues faced by other fields of study or disciplines within the universities across the country. Indeed, a general conclusion one might draw from the volume is that on whatever level one might care to assess religious studies, and whatever problems one might care to discuss, religious studies is like most other fields and disciplines in the universities. In one important respect, William James suggests religious studies may be different. The achievement of credibility within the university context has meant that religious studies has had to distance itself from theology. James suggests that because of this distancing, religious studies has perhaps achieved a greater degree of the university's aims to objectivity and scholarly neutrality than have many other departments and programs. This view is certainly one that is shared by this reviewer. The place of theology in, or the relationship of theology to, religious studies remains a contentious issue, one that is important for the Ontario scene, given the abundance of church related colleges, and religious studies programs which have evolved from previous theology programs. The volume is confusing on this point, perhaps mirroring the general confusion that surrounds the issue. Harold Remus appears to push for a much clearer distinction between theology and religious studies than does William James. In his discussion of diversification of faculty, James speaks in terms of hiring scholars who have connections with religious communities other than Christian and argues for a role for theology in religious studies, provided that a commitment to academic freedom is maintained. Such statements tend to support the "zoo approach" to the study of religion, an approach which James himself criticizes elsewhere in the volume. This is an important work not only for religious studies scholars, but also for any scholars in the humanities and social sciences who have a concern for the future health of liberal arts education. It is a pity that the comments on teaching were not made available to Stuart Smith; and if they were, that they seem to have been ignored in his commissioned report.