Editing Eileen Barker (section)

==Opinions of others==
[[Brainwashing]] proponents [[Margaret Singer]] and [[Janja Lalich]] have criticised Barker's rejection of the brainwashing hypothesis in her study of the conversion process for members of the [[Unification Church]]. Singer and Lalich, in their 1995 book ''[[Cults in Our Midst]]'', called Barker a "procult apologist" for adopting an "apologist stance" towards the Unification Church, and noted that she had received payment from the Church for expenses for a book and eighteen conferences from the [[Unification Church]]. Barker defended this by stating that it had been approved by her university and a government grants council, and saved taxpayer money.<ref>''[[Cults in our Midst]]'', [[Margaret Thaler Singer]], [[Janja Lalich]], pp. 217–218, notes on p. 352</ref>

Barker responded to the financial issues in a 1995 paper, writing that "[w]hat is less well known is that vast amounts of money are at stake in the fostering of brainwashing and mind control thesis in the anti-cult movement secondary constructions", and noting that "[[Deprogramming|deprogrammers]]" and "exit counselors" charge tens of thousands of dollars for their services and that "expert witnesses" such as Singer "have charged enormous fees for giving testimony about brainwashing in court cases".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Barker |first=Eileen |title=The Scientific Study of Religion? You Must Be Joking! |journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |volume=34 |number=3 |pages=287–310 |date=September 1995 |doi=10.2307/1386880|jstor=1386880 }}</ref>

Barker's INFORM organisation has been criticised by the [[Family Action Information Resource]] chaired by former [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] Home Office minister and anti-cult campaigner [[Tom Sackville]], who cut INFORM's Home Office funding in 1997.<ref name=Telegraph>{{citation|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4253550/Cult-advisers-in-clash-over-clampdown.html|title=Cult advisers in clash over clampdown|last=Telegraph staff|date=31 July 2000|work=The Daily Telegraph|access-date=19 December 2009}}</ref> In 1999, it was reported that INFORM was facing closure, due to lack of funds.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=144989&sectioncode=26|last=Thomson|first=Alan|title=Cult-watch centre faces closure|date=12 February 1999|work=Times Higher Education|access-date=19 December 2009}}</ref> By 2000, Home Office funding was restored, prompting Sackville to warn that INFORM might provide government with bad advice, adding, "I cancelled INFORM's grant and I think it's absurd that it's been brought back".<ref name=Telegraph /> Criticism of INFORM has focused on Barker's reluctance to condemn all new religions as "cults".<ref name=Telegraph /> Barker responded to the criticism by saying, "We are not cult apologists. People make a lot of noise without doing serious research – so much so that they can end up sounding as closed to reason as the cults they're attacking. Besides, I imagine FAIR was disappointed not to get our funding".<ref name=Telegraph />

In a 2003 collection of essays in honour of Barker, the influential [[Oxford University]]-based religious scholar [[Bryan R. Wilson]] commented that INFORM was "often in a position from which it can reassure relatives about the character, disposition, policy, provenance and prospects of a given movement. It may be able to deflate some widely circulated rumours and false impressions derived from media comment".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1076505.ece|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070311051648/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1076505.ece|url-status=dead|archive-date=11 March 2007|title=Bryan Wilson: Influential sociologist who offered new and enduring insights into sects and religions|last=Staff|date=29 October 2004|work=The Times|access-date=19 December 2009}}</ref><ref name=Wilson>{{citation|last=Wilson|first=Bryan R.|title=Challenging religion: essays in honour of Eileen Barker|editor=Beckford, James A. |editor2=Richardson, James T.|publisher=Routledge Taylor & Francis Group|year=2003|chapter=Absolutes and relatives: problems for NRMs|isbn=978-0-415-30948-6}}</ref> Wilson added that Barker's social science research, in particular her work on the [[Unification Church]], had been instrumental in demonstrating that the brainwashing concept, which for some years had enjoyed popularity in the media, was unable to explain what actually happened in the process of [[religious conversion]], or to explain why so many members of new religious movements actually leave these movements again after a short period.<ref name=Wilson />

Australian psychologist Len Oakes and British psychiatry professor [[Anthony Storr]], who have written critically about cults, [[guru]]s, new religious movements, and their leaders, have praised Barker's work on the Unification Church's conversion process.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Oakes |first=Len |quote=By far the best study of the conversion process is Eileen Barker's The Making of a Moonie [...] |title=Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities |year=1997 |isbn=0-8156-0398-3}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Storr |first=Anthony |title=Feet of clay: a study of gurus |year=1996 |isbn=0-684-83495-2}}</ref>