International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 25
Bromley’s emphasis on the oppositional role of
apostates undermines the reliability of apostate
accounts. Sociologist Lewis Carter (1998, p.
227), however, argued that defining apostates
solely as oppositional leave-takers is
problematic because it leads researchers to
dismiss the potential value of moderate former
members.
The findings from Zablocki’s (1996) study,
which examined apostate accounts in relation to
believer accounts, provide support for the
reliability and validity of apostate accounts. The
study involved a sample of 281 members of new
religious communities, divided into a subsample
of 176 believers and 105 apostates, and a control
group consisting of 109 members of
nonreligious communes (Zablocki, 1996, p. 14).
Zablocki (1996, p. 15) concluded that “not only
are apostate responses no less consistent than
believer responses, but they are also no less
consistent than those of people with no
involvement at all with NRMs.”
Despite the evidence supporting the credibility
of former-member accounts, the issue remains
contentious. Researchers who use the accounts
of former members risk “being accused of being
an anticult-movement sympathizer, not getting
published in certain academic journals, not being
accepted as a conference participant, [or] being
pressured to conform” (Lalich, 2001, p. 140).
Furthermore, researchers who use information
from former members receive criticism for
committing an alleged methodological error
(Kent &Swanson, 2017, p. 15). The academics
who criticize their colleagues for using
information from former members tend to
formulate their critiques solely on the basis of
the alleged methodological error as opposed to
evaluating the content of the research (Kent &
Swanson 2017, p. 15).
The nature of the disagreements within the
brainwashing-theory debate prevents the
researchers from resolving disputes empirically.
Berger et al. (2005, p. 148) argued that
researchers within a theoretical research
program resolve disputes using reason and
evidence:
Theoretical research programs cannot
guarantee discipline-wide consensus in
the interpretation of evidence, but
because any given program is at the
same time a network of investigators
who share consensual standards of
assessment, it is possible to resolve such
disputes within programs there are in
fact many disputes they are in fact
resolved and the grounds on which they
are resolved are rational, in the sense
that they appeal to argument and
evidence, not politics or ideology.
The disagreements within the brainwashing
theory debate, however, concern theoretical
concepts and principles, as well as substantive
and methodological directives. Given the
disagreement over methodological directives,
researchers within the debate lack a set of
consensual information-gathering and
information-processing techniques by which to
determine the empirical adequacy of the
brainwashing concept. Therefore, a fundamental
issue of the debate is the researchers’ inability to
agree on the “doability” of the problem.
Furthermore, the lack of consensual standards of
assessment prevents the researchers from
resolving disputes using evidence and reason.
Implications for Theory Growth
This section examines the implications for
theory growth within the brainwashing debate,
given the lack of consensual standards of
assessment. Without consensual standards of
assessment, noncognitive factors prevent
researchers from resolving theoretical conflicts
(Cole, 2001b, pp. 53–54) see Berger et al.,
2005, p. 148). Consequently, little or no theory
growth occurs. Therefore, we examine
sociologist Stephen Kent’s application of the
brainwashing concept to Scientology’s
Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) and
sociologist Lorne Dawson’s corresponding
critique to determine the extent to which
noncognitive factors influence how researchers
respond to new evidence that may contradict
existing views.
Kent’s application of the brainwashing concept
to Scientology’s RPF demonstrates Wagner and
Berger’s (1985) “theory proliferation.” Theory
proliferation is a type of relationship between
theories in which “ideas from one theory are

26 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
used to generate a theory concerned with a new
or different sociological problem or data base”
(Wagner &Berger, 1985, p. 707). The two
theories are similar in structure in that the new
theory modifies the concepts and theoretical
principles of the original theory. The new
theory, however, introduces new and auxiliary
concepts and principles to account for the
distinct problems of the new domain. Wagner
and Berger (1985, pp. 707–708) identified
theory proliferation as an example of theory
growth in that the new theory expanded the
range of application of the original theory. Kent
(2001b, p. 401) expanded the range of
application of the existing brainwashing theory
from being a means of converting members into
the new domain of retaining members.
Furthermore, Kent refined the previous
definition of brainwashing to establish a more
rigorous set of criteria required for the
application of the concept. In addition to the
existing criteria of forcible confinement and
physical coercion, Kent (2001a, p. 350)
identified social degradations and maltreatment,
intense study of ideology, forced confessions,
and personal “success” stories as additional
criteria for identifying brainwashing programs.
In disciplines without universally accepted
paradigms, a new theory that contradicts existing
values, regardless of how well it fits the data, is
unlikely to gain acceptance within the discipline
because political or social goals often are more
important than cognitive goals (Cole, 2001b, pp.
55–56). Kent’s research introduced new
evidence that challenged existing conceptions of
brainwashing. Consequently, Dawson’s critique
demonstrates opposition to the development of a
new theory that contradicts existing values.
Furthermore, given the lack of consensual
standards with which to resolve theoretical
conflict, Dawson formulated his critique on the
basis of politics and ideology as opposed to
reason and evidence.
In “Balance and Fairness in the Study of
Alternative Religions,” Thomas Robbins (2001,
p. 87) argued that “too often the allegations of
bias and expressive commitment serve as a glib
substitute for a careful critique of a study which
has produced unwelcome conclusions.”
Robbins’s statement applies to Dawson’s
critique in that Dawson substituted allegations of
prejudice for a careful analysis of Kent’s work.
As has happened in previous sociological
debates (Best, 2003, p. 3), Dawson resorted to
accusations that Kent’s political motivations
resulted in compromised research. For example,
Dawson (2001, p. 379) argued that Kent’s
“efforts are designed to encourage and facilitate
the introduction of new legal sanctions and
restrictions on minority religions in North
America and elsewhere (i.e., in Europe, most
especially Germany).” Dawson (2001, p. 380)
further argued that “. ..the methodological
inadequacies detected are indicative of a
prejudice inappropriate to the practice of the
social sciences (given the consensus on
maintaining at least the regulative ideal of
objectivity and value-neutrality).”
Thus, Dawson attempted to dismiss a competing
theory on the basis of politics and ideology as
opposed to reason and evidence.
Dawson argued that, given Kent’s
methodological inadequacies, “there is
considerable reason for treating his conclusions
with great caution, if not outright scepticism.”
Dawson’s critique, however, contains several
inconsistencies and flaws that undermine his
attempt to discredit Kent. The flaws in
Dawson’s critique demonstrate that he failed to
conduct a careful analysis of Kent’s work. For
example, Dawson (2001, p. 289) argued that
“Kent shows little circumspection in his use of
apostate accounts, and he makes no effort at
triangulation at all.” Kent (2001b, p. 405),
however, proved that his RPF research qualified
as a multiple triangulated study:
I obtained data from nine different types
of sources. First, information provided
by former members came from court
decisions, legal affidavits (many sworn
under oath), in-person and telephone
interviews, Internet postings, books
about Scientology, magazine accounts,
and newspaper accounts. Second, the
position of Scientology towards its RPF
program came from the organization’s
publications and internal documents.
Third, ...I also utilized information
from one current Scientologist.