Is it methods that defines CSR?

I heard from a number of people at the AAR that they would be more interested in CSR if it presented them with methods they could use in better understanding the material that is the focus of their research. A familiar adage of JZ Smith was cited in this regard (does anyone off hand remember the paper it comes from?). In short, what they were looking for were techniques or tools or methods. This brings me to ask two questions:

(1) What tools or methods or techniques are distinctive of CSR research?

(2) Is it correct to think of CSR as being primarily a toolbox, or does this approach misunderstand what's distinctive about the field and misrepresent the larger contribution it can make to the discipline of Religious Studies?

I've got my own ideas on (2), but (1) seems to be of more interest to a lot of folks, especially those who haven't made the commitment of identifying their scholarship with CSR. And whatever our answer to (2), if we can introduce people to new methods, then why not?

So while I could make my own list of methods that are familiar in CSR work, I'd like to hear what other people think: What tools or methods or techniques are distinctive of CSR research?