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.
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.
