International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 87
Lewis himself does something similar, using
census data from 2001 in combination with the
statements of Scientologists to claim that the
church is continuing to grow:
Scientologists I have spoken with tell
me that more, rather than fewer, people
have contacted and expressed interest in
the Church of Scientology as a
consequence of the free publicity
generated by the relevant South Park
[television cartoon] episodes [that
mocked Scientology and Scientologists]
and by high-profile remarks of
Scientology celebrities like Tom Cruise.
(p. 132)
Because his statistics were eight years old when
Oxford University Press published Scientology,
and he fails to verify the statements by unnamed
Scientologists, his conclusions about the reputed
growth of the organization are unreliable.
Authors Adam Possamai and Alphia Possamai-
Inesedy make claims beyond the scope of their
statistical data. Possamai and Possamai-Inesedy
use 2001 Australian census data to conclude that
a higher percentage of Scientologists (7%) than
of the general population (4%) comprises
managers, professionals, and associate
professionals (p. 348). From these figures and
another finding that the rate of unemployed
Scientologists was 20% below that of the
general population, these authors claim,
“Although data are not available, it is fair to
expect Scientologists to be more educated than
the average population” (p. 348). Hastening to
such conclusions risks error, especially when, as
the authors admit, no data exist to support their
claims.
Finally, more major methodological issues
reside within Scientology. I cannot acknowledge
all of these issues—they range from simply
using the word “I” in a coauthored piece without
identifying to which author “I” refers (Harley
and Kieffer, p. 186) to citing questionable
sources of information. Because citing
questionable sources can produce questionable
results, which in turn can discredit the value of
academic research, I identify two authors from
Scientology who do so.
First, James Richardson relies upon Wikipedia
to describe former member Larry Wollersheim’s
civil case with Scientology (p. 283). As a
Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies, it is
surprising that Richardson chooses not to seek
the Wollersheim case from a legal database,
which cannot be altered by its readers, unlike
Wikipedia (“Welcome to Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia that anyone can edit” [Wikipedia,
2009]).
Similarly, Mikael Rothstein trusts the
anonymous writer of “Xenu” on Wikipedia to
have constructed an analysis of the Xenu myth
based upon a good knowledge of Hubbard’s
writings in general: “To my awareness the
discussion on Wikipedia is the only example in
which such an analysis is attempted” (p. 374).
Even though Rothstein states that Wikipedia is
not a traditional academic source, he does not
treat it differently than he does other sources.
Rothstein, furthermore, encourages those
seeking more information to rely on the honesty
of the anonymous contributors to Wikipedia:
“The reader, however, is directed to Wikipedia,
in which many important details, not least
historical and theological data that I will ignore,
are available” (p. 374). It is surprising that
editors at Oxford University Press allow
Wikipedia to stand as an appropriate scholarly
source in this or any volume.
Despite Lewis’s claims, he and many of his
contributors fail to remain neutral—if such a
task is even possible for researchers of
Scientology. Most chapters claim that
Scientologists have suffered undue criticism
(often in the form of members having survived
critics mocking their deeply held religious
beliefs), and that such discrimination is
derogatory and unacceptable. Nevertheless, free
speech throughout the Western world allows
comment and criticism about one’s own and
others’ beliefs, and sometimes those beliefs may
transfer into questionable or harmful actions.
In Conclusion
Because of its numerous and varied
shortcomings, this new book on Scientology is a
poor sourcebook on the organization. Far too
many errors and lapses in judgment appear
throughout its pages to mention in one book
Lewis himself does something similar, using
census data from 2001 in combination with the
statements of Scientologists to claim that the
church is continuing to grow:
Scientologists I have spoken with tell
me that more, rather than fewer, people
have contacted and expressed interest in
the Church of Scientology as a
consequence of the free publicity
generated by the relevant South Park
[television cartoon] episodes [that
mocked Scientology and Scientologists]
and by high-profile remarks of
Scientology celebrities like Tom Cruise.
(p. 132)
Because his statistics were eight years old when
Oxford University Press published Scientology,
and he fails to verify the statements by unnamed
Scientologists, his conclusions about the reputed
growth of the organization are unreliable.
Authors Adam Possamai and Alphia Possamai-
Inesedy make claims beyond the scope of their
statistical data. Possamai and Possamai-Inesedy
use 2001 Australian census data to conclude that
a higher percentage of Scientologists (7%) than
of the general population (4%) comprises
managers, professionals, and associate
professionals (p. 348). From these figures and
another finding that the rate of unemployed
Scientologists was 20% below that of the
general population, these authors claim,
“Although data are not available, it is fair to
expect Scientologists to be more educated than
the average population” (p. 348). Hastening to
such conclusions risks error, especially when, as
the authors admit, no data exist to support their
claims.
Finally, more major methodological issues
reside within Scientology. I cannot acknowledge
all of these issues—they range from simply
using the word “I” in a coauthored piece without
identifying to which author “I” refers (Harley
and Kieffer, p. 186) to citing questionable
sources of information. Because citing
questionable sources can produce questionable
results, which in turn can discredit the value of
academic research, I identify two authors from
Scientology who do so.
First, James Richardson relies upon Wikipedia
to describe former member Larry Wollersheim’s
civil case with Scientology (p. 283). As a
Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies, it is
surprising that Richardson chooses not to seek
the Wollersheim case from a legal database,
which cannot be altered by its readers, unlike
Wikipedia (“Welcome to Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia that anyone can edit” [Wikipedia,
2009]).
Similarly, Mikael Rothstein trusts the
anonymous writer of “Xenu” on Wikipedia to
have constructed an analysis of the Xenu myth
based upon a good knowledge of Hubbard’s
writings in general: “To my awareness the
discussion on Wikipedia is the only example in
which such an analysis is attempted” (p. 374).
Even though Rothstein states that Wikipedia is
not a traditional academic source, he does not
treat it differently than he does other sources.
Rothstein, furthermore, encourages those
seeking more information to rely on the honesty
of the anonymous contributors to Wikipedia:
“The reader, however, is directed to Wikipedia,
in which many important details, not least
historical and theological data that I will ignore,
are available” (p. 374). It is surprising that
editors at Oxford University Press allow
Wikipedia to stand as an appropriate scholarly
source in this or any volume.
Despite Lewis’s claims, he and many of his
contributors fail to remain neutral—if such a
task is even possible for researchers of
Scientology. Most chapters claim that
Scientologists have suffered undue criticism
(often in the form of members having survived
critics mocking their deeply held religious
beliefs), and that such discrimination is
derogatory and unacceptable. Nevertheless, free
speech throughout the Western world allows
comment and criticism about one’s own and
others’ beliefs, and sometimes those beliefs may
transfer into questionable or harmful actions.
In Conclusion
Because of its numerous and varied
shortcomings, this new book on Scientology is a
poor sourcebook on the organization. Far too
many errors and lapses in judgment appear
throughout its pages to mention in one book
