SOME NOTES AND REFLECTIONS ON THE ARTICLE:

Anthony J. Blasi, 1998, "Professional Ethics, Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, William H. Swatos, Jr., ed., Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 168-170.

According to Blasi, social scientists and others who study religion (religionists) have no special code of ethics of their own regarding religious studies. Instead, the corresponding academic disciplines each have their own code of professional ethics. Nevertheless, Blasi notes that the study of religion raises some special ethical concerns, issues, and questions.

Blasi points out that there may be an ethical conflict or dilemma between the norms of the researcher's society and beliefs, those of the society and religion under study, and/or those of the researcher's profession. According to Blasi, the researcher has an ethical duty to respect the norms of the society and religion under study, but also to be critical as a scientist and/or scholar. I would think that being critical as a professional should include criticism on how other people and institutions mistreat and even violate the freedom of religion and human rights of members of a particular religion, such as the case of conflicts over the sacred sites of Native Americans (see the video "In the Light of Reverence").

Blasi (p. 168) asserts that: "Activities of social scientists who study religion are often value-relevant. Because people in general need information upon which to base their moral judgements, the social scientific activities of collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and disseminating information have moral importance." I would pose this question: Under what circumstances might it be ethical to withhold any information from the public or other sectors of society such as the government? Blasi wonders about how the research process, and/or the resulting information, might place people at risk of civil or criminal liability, financial cost, damaged employment prospects, and so on? What, for example, are the researcher's professional, social, and legal responsibilities if, say, the religious community under study engages in the use of an illegal drug or some other illegal action as an integral part of its religion?

Blasi observes that adherents and/or officials of a religious community, or even publishers, may try to influence the research, or prevent certain kinds of information from being published and thereby become public record, as for example by threatening a law suit. How can a researcher ethically respond to such circumstances?

Blasi asks if it is ethical for a researcher to accept funding or other kinds of support from a religious organization, such as an honorarium for speaking at a conference they organize, when that religion is or was the subject of study? I ask if this would be a conflict of interest on the part of the researcher, or just a matter of professional reciprocity? Might the researcher sacrifice detachment, objectivity, and credibility? Does the researcher provide credibility to the religious organization by participating in any of their activities such as a conference and is there any ethical problem in doing so?

Blasi identifies one concern as the relationship between the researcher's beliefs (theistic, atheistic, nontheistic, agnostic, or whatever) on the one hand, and on the other that of the adherents to the religion being researched. How does the researcher behave when his/her beliefs, attitudes, and values conflict with those of the community adhering to another set of beliefs, attitudes, and values? From an anthropological perspective, I ask if it is always ethical for the researcher to suspend judgement and practice cultural relativism as a field method? For example, what if animal sacrifice is a customary part of the ritual of a religion? Moreover, what about the extreme case of human sacrifice or ritual cannibalism? Also, under what conditions does a researcher take a stand or side in the case of internal factions and conflicts within a religious community, say between conservative and liberal elements?

Blasi asserts that the researcher should be critical, but at the same time not attack or undermine the religion studied or the religiosity of its adherents. The researcher should also try to foresee and prevent any potential negative consequences of the research on the religion and its adherents.

While Blasi's discussion and my comments and questions do not by any means exhaust the subject of the professional ethics of religious studies, they should at least serve to raise the level of information, awareness, sensitivity, and responsibility for students of religion. In the end, except for the most egregious misconduct that is clearly unethical and maybe even immoral, most questions of ethics must be left to the conscience, discretion, and decisions of the individual researcher to wrestle with in response to the specifics of the particular situation.