Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 13
specialise in either leaver research or invited-access research. A researcher who has been
labelled an apologist by some cult-watch groups, whether or not fairly, cannot hope to have
much street credibility with groups of leavers and anti- or counter-cult watch groups.
Conversely, a scholar who has been designated a ―cult critic,‖ again, whether or not that
label is deserved, cannot hope to gain sufficient trust of movement oligarchs to facilitate
adequate research access. Furthermore, a scholar who has been labelled might well be
subjected to deliberate compromise by the group being researched. Groups that are
regularly subjected to the most criticism (often for good reason) do liaise and collaborate,
and they are quite capable of vicious attacks upon potential critics.
While it has been observed that cult-watch groups have been unsuccessful in providing early
warning of violence, cult research groups also have been relatively unsuccessful so far as I
am aware. In my view, it is difficult to sit on the barbed wire fence (as we say in Australia)
in an effort to strive for academic even-handedness. This approach is likely to lead to
public-policy impotence. I have no doubt that the type of timely information most needed
by public officials is that which can be provided by leavers and families and friends of people
in high-demand groups. The only way we are going to find cancer is by searching for the
cancer—not in trying to determine how healthy the body might otherwise be.
I believe we should adopt a triangulated approach to research—to the extent that individual
scholars and groups of scholars specialise either in leaver research or invited-access
research, and in other methods, such as examining the official record of government and
cult encounters, an approach I adopted in my doctoral thesis. It seems to me that the ICSA
has extraordinary street credibility in the area of leaver research and contact with parents‘
and friends‘ watch groups, including counter-cult groups. ICSA should be leery, however, of
diluting this credibility by attempting to cover all bases. ICSA should stick with its core
business. Indeed, I see no reason why the ICSA should necessarily invite controversial
group representatives to its conferences. Some will only try to disrupt and intimidate. Let
those who specialise in access research invite representatives of controversial groups to
their conferences.xxi
The ICSA should focus on its client groups—the anti-cult groups, the leavers, the cult-
specific complaint groups, the counter-cult groups, and invite reputable scholars from the
cult-research groups to contribute to the debate. In addition, ICSA should:
foster scholars (on a multidisciplinary basis), specialising in leaver accounts
provide scholarships for researchers in this field
band leaver researchers together into a special academic network for
methodological guidance and, not least, protection and
invite and fund official visitors, particularly public policy makers, to ICSA
conferences. (If the Moonies can do it, so should the ICSA.)
The ICSA needs, in addition, to take a more proactive role in fertilising the blossoming of
various types of watch-groups, by:
keeping a comprehensive inventory of watch-groups worldwide,
providing start-up kits, including standardised log-in sheets, standardised
question forms for complainants, standardised information gathering and annual
reporting criteria, and
providing general conduct criteria for the guidance of watch groups.
In other words, the ICSA should not hesitate to assume a pivotal umbrella role for anti- and
counter-cult watch groups, and it should seek to establish research-based groups that
specialise in multidisciplinary leaver and cult-critic research. Perhaps the ICSA should look
specialise in either leaver research or invited-access research. A researcher who has been
labelled an apologist by some cult-watch groups, whether or not fairly, cannot hope to have
much street credibility with groups of leavers and anti- or counter-cult watch groups.
Conversely, a scholar who has been designated a ―cult critic,‖ again, whether or not that
label is deserved, cannot hope to gain sufficient trust of movement oligarchs to facilitate
adequate research access. Furthermore, a scholar who has been labelled might well be
subjected to deliberate compromise by the group being researched. Groups that are
regularly subjected to the most criticism (often for good reason) do liaise and collaborate,
and they are quite capable of vicious attacks upon potential critics.
While it has been observed that cult-watch groups have been unsuccessful in providing early
warning of violence, cult research groups also have been relatively unsuccessful so far as I
am aware. In my view, it is difficult to sit on the barbed wire fence (as we say in Australia)
in an effort to strive for academic even-handedness. This approach is likely to lead to
public-policy impotence. I have no doubt that the type of timely information most needed
by public officials is that which can be provided by leavers and families and friends of people
in high-demand groups. The only way we are going to find cancer is by searching for the
cancer—not in trying to determine how healthy the body might otherwise be.
I believe we should adopt a triangulated approach to research—to the extent that individual
scholars and groups of scholars specialise either in leaver research or invited-access
research, and in other methods, such as examining the official record of government and
cult encounters, an approach I adopted in my doctoral thesis. It seems to me that the ICSA
has extraordinary street credibility in the area of leaver research and contact with parents‘
and friends‘ watch groups, including counter-cult groups. ICSA should be leery, however, of
diluting this credibility by attempting to cover all bases. ICSA should stick with its core
business. Indeed, I see no reason why the ICSA should necessarily invite controversial
group representatives to its conferences. Some will only try to disrupt and intimidate. Let
those who specialise in access research invite representatives of controversial groups to
their conferences.xxi
The ICSA should focus on its client groups—the anti-cult groups, the leavers, the cult-
specific complaint groups, the counter-cult groups, and invite reputable scholars from the
cult-research groups to contribute to the debate. In addition, ICSA should:
foster scholars (on a multidisciplinary basis), specialising in leaver accounts
provide scholarships for researchers in this field
band leaver researchers together into a special academic network for
methodological guidance and, not least, protection and
invite and fund official visitors, particularly public policy makers, to ICSA
conferences. (If the Moonies can do it, so should the ICSA.)
The ICSA needs, in addition, to take a more proactive role in fertilising the blossoming of
various types of watch-groups, by:
keeping a comprehensive inventory of watch-groups worldwide,
providing start-up kits, including standardised log-in sheets, standardised
question forms for complainants, standardised information gathering and annual
reporting criteria, and
providing general conduct criteria for the guidance of watch groups.
In other words, the ICSA should not hesitate to assume a pivotal umbrella role for anti- and
counter-cult watch groups, and it should seek to establish research-based groups that
specialise in multidisciplinary leaver and cult-critic research. Perhaps the ICSA should look
