Ethical Scholars and Unethical Committees

Ethics and Fieldwork in the Study of Religion


  • George D. Chryssides University of Birmingham



codes of practice, ethics committees, Jehovah’s Witnesses, new religious movements, research ethics


In most education institutions, research involving human subjects requires to be scrutinized by an ethics committee. After outlining the history of research ethics and codes of practice, the author draws on his own experience of research on Jehovah’s Witnesses, examining issues of consent, disclosure, respect for informants, and confidentiality. It is argued that institutional ethics committees tend to apply a biomedical model of research, which is inappropriate in the study of religion. Several problems in the operation of research committees are identified, such as their typical adversarial stance, the frequent lack of appropriate qualifications among members, and their failure to recognize the ways in which research in religion is conducted. Ethical considerations are not limited to fieldwork, and the author argues the need to recognize the wider aspects of research, and to note the ways in which other organizations address ethical issues. Such organizations include religious communities themselves, business companies, and a few universities who have developed a concern for their wider social responsibility. Although there remains a place for ethics committees, they can themselves operate in an unethical manner, and need to take a more humane and realistic account of research methods in the study of religion.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

George D. Chryssides, University of Birmingham

George D. Chryssides is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham and York St John University (UK), having been Head of Religious Studies at the University of Wolverhampton from 2001 until 2008. He has written extensively on new religious movements, and has a particular interest in Jehovah’s Witnesses. Recent publications include Historical Dictionary of Jehovah’s Witnesses (2008), The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements (co-edited with Benjamin E. Zeller, 2014), and Jehovah’s Witnesses: Continuity and Change (2016).


Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies (AUDTRS) 2005 Framework of Professional Practice. Online: (accessed December 9, 2017).

Balch, R., and D. Taylor 1976 Salvation in a UFO. Psychology Today 10(5): 58–106.

Bird, F., and L. Lamoureux Scholes 2013 Research Ethics. In Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, edited by M. Stausberg and S. Engler, 81–105. London: Routledge.

British Psychological Society 2014 Code of Human Research Ethics. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Online: (accessed February 2, 2018).

British Sociological Association 2002 Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association (March). Online: (accessed February 2, 2018)

Crane, Andrew, and Dirk Matten 2007 Business Ethics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dima, Gabriel 2015 EU USR University Social Responsibility: A Common European Reference Framework. Final Report of the EU-USR Project, 52709-LLP-2012-1-RO-ERASMUS-ESIN, February 2015. Online: (accessed February 2, 2018).

Dyck, Murray, and Gary Allen 2013 Is Mandatory Research Ethics Reviewing Ethical? Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (November 8): 517–20.

ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) 2015 ESRC Framework for Research Ethics. Online: (accessed December 9, 2017).

----- n.d. Data Storage and Data Security. In The Research Ethics Guidebook: A Resource for Social Scientists. Online: (accessed December 13, 2017).

Festinger, L., Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter 2008 When Prophecy Fails. London: Pinter and Martin [1956].

Giuffré, Lidia, and Silvia E. Ratto 2014 A New Paradigm in Higher Education: University Social Responsibility (USR). Journal of Education and Human Development 3(1), March: 231–38. Online: (accessed December 9, 2017).

Haney, C., W. C. Banks, and P. G. Zimbardo 1973 A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison. Naval Research Review 30: 4–17. Online: (accessed December 13, 2017).

Lofland, John 1966 Doomsday Cult: A Study of Conversion, Proselytization, and Maintenance of Faith. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Maddock, S. 2012 5 Reasons Patients Withdraw from Clinical Studies. Online: (accessed December 13, 2017).

Milgram, Stanley 1963 Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(4): 371–78.

Smith, W. Cantwell 1959 Comparative Religion: Whither—and Why?” In The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology, edited by M. Eliade and J. M. Kitagawa, 31–58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stroup, H. H. 1945 The Jehovah’s Witnesses. New York: Columbia University Press.

Universities UK 2012 The Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Online: (accessed December 9, 2017).

University of Manchester 2017 Social Responsibility. Online: (accessed December 9, 2017).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2010 Code of Federal Regulations Title 45: Public Welfare Part 46; Protection of Human Subjects: Withdrawal of Subjects from Research Guidance (2010). Online: (accessed December 13, 2017).

World Medical Organization 1996 Declaration of Helsinki. British Medical Journal 313(7070) (December 7): 1448–49.

York St John University 2017 Research Ethics and Integrity. Online: (accessed December 9, 2017).



How to Cite

Chryssides, G. (2018). Ethical Scholars and Unethical Committees: Ethics and Fieldwork in the Study of Religion. Fieldwork in Religion, 12(2), 223–238.

Most read articles by the same author(s)