Source = Ron Geaves in Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421
Mid Level = The source id academically published, Relevance is problematic, the date applicability ranges from pre 2004.
Discussion: Relevance: Geaves’ area of expertise is ‘the sociology of religion’ and his treatment of Hans, Satpal and Prem Rawat and the organisations to which they have had connection is exclusively in terms of ‘religion’. As a “sociologist of religion” Geaves writings have the potential to be relevant across the the Project, however a difficulty arises in that Geaves is not only an adherent to the ‘religion’ he is writing about, but was one of a very few people who were involved in promoting this religion in an expansionist phase in the early 1970s. Further Geaves has taken a prominent part in at least one promotional film about Prem Rawat - “Passages” – excerpts available at http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/premies/geaves/geaves.html
Sociologists have choices in the way they carry out their work, broadly these choices may be described as being either Quantitative or Qualitative. Quantitative investigatation presuposes a disinterested analysis of the subject, whereas Qualitative investigatation involves the explicit acknowledgement that the investigator is an involved agent in the social processes being investigated. Geaves at no point in any of the academic works currently used as sources for the Project articles, makes it explicit that he has had direct involvement in the very specific social processes he is writing about, his writing conforms to none of the conventions of Qualitative research and his presentation is wholly in the form of Quantitative research. Geaves’ consistent choice to avoid a Qualitative approach in which his personal involvement, bias and perspective would be made explicit, greatly limits the relevance that his writings can have to an encyclopaedic work. Ironically Geaves has this to say about C.L. Tandon (although he misspells the name) – in Ashcraft & Gallagher “However Professor Tunden(sic) was a loyal devotee of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and Secretary of Divine Light Mission in India. It is not possible to corroborate this insider discourse from elsewhere”. If by Geaves own estimation that the loyal devotee (and academic) Tandon’s uncorroborated opinion is ‘suspect’ , then we must conclude that the uncorroborated opinion (no matter the claimed expertise) of Geaves’, the loyal devotee of Guru Maharj Ji, is likewise suspect.
There may be relevance to a number of the Project articles, where Geaves’ opinion can be explicitly stated within the article text but Geaves’ promotional role in the expansion of the ‘religion’ he writes about, coupled with his lack of explicit acknowledgment of this involvement in his writings, greatly limits the relevance of his work to articles related to the Rawat family. It is important to make a distinction between ‘corroboration’ and mere repetition of article material by subsequent encyclopaedists who have accepted material uncritically.
Base Level = Geaves is an uncertain source for citations relevant to his area of expertise, some usage that is incidental or autobigraphical observation may be appropriate.
Discussion
With the lack of any explicit acknowledgement of perspective bias given in any of the academic publications, Geaves becomes a less certain source for factual detail than would otherwise be the case, this doesn’t imply any deliberate falsehood or conscious attempt to deceive on Geaves’ part, simply that the author has not demonstrated any process of challenging the likely bias from which a self serving presentation of data might devolve. Geaves' work does include some notable chronological errors.
Errors:
Geaves erroneously claims that Élan Vital was created as a new organisation.
Geaves erroneously claims that the Divine Light Missions was disbanded.
Resolving what is or is not within in the author’s area of expertise is problematic, the writing style is didactic and consequently all content is presented as authoritative truth. While sociological expertise should ensure that any historic data given would be expected to be reliable, the inclusion of simple errors brings this into doubt. Therefre “Sociology of Religion” should be construed as having a very narrow remit and both academic sociology, and religious definition should be identifiable in the cited text. Otherwise citing of this source should be treated as incidental to Geaves' area of expertise and the content given appropriately moderated text where Geaves’ affiliation to DLM/EV and GMJ/Prem Rawat is made explicit .
Action: Current cite's to this work to be reviewed and unless meeting the stringent test of relevance, be replaced as a cite with alternate sources, or treated as incidental opinion or possibly as autobiographical observation with appropriate editing of the text, or else the content be removed. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC) updated --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
