Browse by Person
 | Up a level |
Voas, David (2014) Afterword: some reflections on numbers in the study of religion. Diskus, 16 (2). pp. 116-124.
Voas, David and Doebler, Stefanie (2014) Secularization in Europe: an analysis of inter-generational religious change. In: Value Contrasts and Consensus in Present-Day Europe: Painting Europe’s Moral Landscapes. Brill, Leiden, pp. 231-250. ISBN 9789004254619. Official URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publication/521266
Voas, David (2013) Religion, religious experience and education in Taiwan. In: Religious Experience in Contemporary Taiwan and China. National Chengchi University Press. ISBN 9789866475467. Official URL: http://nccupress.nccu.edu.tw/book/bookdetail.php?i...
Voas, David (2013) The future of Europe: secular but not secularist; diverse but not divided. In: The Pursuit of Europe. Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation, Stockholm, pp. 235-245. ISBN 978-91-89672-51-2. Official URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publication/521267
Storm, Ingrid and Voas, David (2012) The intergenerational transmission of religious services attendance. Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 25 (2). pp. 131-150.
Voas, David and Doebler, Stefanie (2011) Secularization in Europe: religious change between and within birth cohorts. Religion and Society in Central and Eastern Europe, 4 (1). pp. 39-62.
Voas, David and Ling, Rodney (2010) Religion in Britain and the United States. In: British Social Attitudes: the 26th report. British Social Attitudes Survey Series . Sage Publications Ltd, London. ISBN 9781849203876. Official URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publication/513355
Crockett, Alasdair and Voas, David (2004) A matter of attitude: homosexuality and divisions in the church. Modern Believing, 45 (3). pp. 23-31.
Crockett, Alasdair and Voas, David (2003) A divergence of views: attitude change and the religious crisis over homosexuality. Sociological Research Online, 8 (4).
Voas, David and Olsen, Daniel and Crockett, Alasdair (2001) Religious pluralism and participation: why previous research is wrong. American Sociological Review, 67 (2). pp. 212-231.