An observation:
Academics vs non-academics on occasion will come to roughly the same conclusion in some matters. Such is the case with JW's.
JW's, and especially their ruling GB, must be judged against their current and historical claims.Both those who use to be JW's (or "disaffected members", likely those who are shunned for the simple act of disagreement I imagine) or "anti cult activists" (those who correctly point out the dead from those who weren't really able to take blood medicine and still keep an active status within JW's, or perhaps those who have been molested by cult leaders) often provide real time and real life experiences into what the day to day is like.
Though not scholarly, I would politely disagree with vienne's comment above about how "misleading" such source information is. While vienne is well within his rights to point out how outliers like "six screens of WT" will latch on to ANY story, regardless of veracity, to discredit JW's, most who leave and blog simply tell their story. Like a puzzle, piece them together, and most reasonable people will see a picture come together. That picture of course, is that JW's are a cult....
A scholarly study is just that. An examination of writings, dogma, and changes through the years. That too disproves JW/WT/GB teachings, unless you have been inoculated from these changes by buying into "new light" and all that goes with it.
My comments are motivated by vienne's closing statement: "Approaching the study of any religion though the work of disaffected members or anti cult activists will mislead you." This is as false as claiming that a study of the Nixon presidency via the claims of John Dean was void because he was once a member of the Nixon administration. Far from it, his first hand accounts laid bare the true nature of the beast. So it is with former JW's and the light they hold up against the former cult they belonged to and their ruling, idiotic, despotic, governing body.