Researchers under fire: Where do we draw the line?

Disagreement is at the heart of research, and criticism is the cornerstone of scientific work. Collegial discussions can refine methods, change theories, and lead to new insights. But researchers who enter into wider, societal, debates often find that the nature of this criticism changes.

When research findings enter into the political arena, the attacks are no longer necessarily about methods and data, but target the researcher’s character, motives, or alleged agendas instead.

Criticism is welcome — but proper criticism requires that you have actually read the research in question

Jesper Petersen, associate professor and Islamic studies scholar, University of Copenhagen (UCPH)

This is something that Jesper Petersen, associate professor and Islamic studies scholar at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH), is acutely aware of.

He introduced the concept of non-Muslim Islam in 2022 with a colleague — a concept that explores how politicians, priests, and pundits outside Muslim communities shape perceptions of Islam.

Jesper Petersen got a grant from Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF) in 2024 to continue his work on the topic — and that’s when the real debate began.

His concept set off a discussion among both researchers and in wider media circles. Jesper Petersen says he has been on the receiving end of criticism from multiple sides — often in ways that, in his view, have little to do with the research itself:

»Criticism is welcome — but proper criticism requires that you have actually read the research in question,« he says.

From critique to personal attack

For Jesper Petersen, the distinction is crucial.

When colleagues raise questions about his concepts or point out weaknesses in his empirical work, he welcomes it.

»If someone can convince me that I’ve made a mistake, I see that as a good thing,« he says.

But in the debate about non-Muslim Islam, he has repeatedly been on the receiving end of criticism that, he believes, was aimed not at his research, but at him personally.

Politicians and commentators have described him as being a »mouthpiece«, or accused him of trying to silence critics of Islam — allegations which, according to him, have nothing to do with his actual findings.

»When researchers are taken to task for things they never said, that’s going too far,« he says.

Academically irresponsible

There are numerous examples, according to Jesper Petersen.

Politicians have labelled him as one of the most incompetent researchers, he explains, and then as one of the most insightful ones — all within a short span of time. His research, he says, has served as the basis for a political hearing one day — and then been dismissed as worthless the next.

Academic colleagues have also voiced harsh criticism. Religious historian Mikael Rothstein described Jesper Petersen’s project as »academically irresponsible« in an opinion piece in the Danish weekly newspaper Weekendavisen — before he had even read the research article on non-Muslim Islam.

»This affected me deeply, because I respect him professionally,« says Jesper Petersen.

To make external representations of Islam a problem — this is, in itself, a scientific problem

Mikael Rothstein, associate professor and religious historian, University of Southern Denmark (SDU)

University Post has seen an email correspondence between Petersen and Rothstein, confirming that the latter had not read the research article before publicly criticising the concept.

Mikael Rothstein responded in writing to University Post’s questions for this article.

In an email, he explains that he was addressing a concept that was already widely debated and »more than adequately covered« in public debate.

»You don’t need to read a long article to do that. Ideally, of course, it’s always best to be well-informed, which I acknowledged to Jesper Petersen,« he writes.

He stands by his critique and maintains that the concept of non-Muslim Islam is problematic and academically irresponsible.

»It is the task — and duty — of research to offer a perspective on the religions that differs from how the religions view themselves. A biologist says something different about frogs or orcas than the animals know themselves. To make external representations of Islam a problem — this is, in itself, a scientific problem,« Rothstein writes.

Asked where he thinks the line should be drawn when criticising researchers, he replies:

»As long as the criticism is sound and focussed on the academic substance, then there are no limits. But personal attacks, dirty strategies, shady alliances, power games, and other types of academic rot like this — these are still all too common — should be avoided. If research has political, economic, or ethical implications, then this should naturally be debated, just like in any other context,« Rothstein writes.

Professional disagreement

Jesper Petersen has not found all of the criticism unwelcome.

He specifically highlights the debate with fellow Islamic studies scholar Thomas Hoffmann, professor at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Copenhagen, as an example of a respectful academic disagreement.

In the original research article presenting the concept of non-Muslim Islam, Petersen and his colleague pointed to Thomas Hoffmann as an example of a non-Muslim who interprets Islam.

Hoffmann has explained in several opinion pieces why he disagrees with the definitions and framing of the concept of non-Muslim Islam.

But unlike others, he had read the article and based his critique upon it before reaching for his keyboard.

»When a colleague has familiarised himself with our work and concludes that he disagrees, we have that discussion. That doesn’t mean we now agree, but it’s through discussions like this that research evolves,« says Jesper Petersen.

In preparing this article, the University Post reached out to Thomas Hoffmann to get his views on Jesper Petersen’s research and their subsequent debate. Hoffmann, however, declined to participate.

Perceived as controversial

Although Jesper Petersen’s research has been labelled controversial by some, he believes this is a mischaracterisation:

»In Denmark, some people consider my research is controversial — but it really shouldn’t be,« he says, explaining that his project is essentially about describing how Islam is interpreted and used — by both Muslims and non-Muslims — rather than declaring what the »true« Islam is.

»But I think many people find it controversial because they’re used to being the ones who are allowed to define Islam in public. They’re used to being non-Muslims telling others what Islam is. And here I come along and say: That is one interpretation of Islam, but a Muslim’s interpretation is another. We need to distinguish between interpretations of Islam — also between those of Muslims and non-Muslims,« says Jesper Petersen.

I genuinely hope that the informed and academic criticism never stops

Jesper Petersen, associate professor and Islamic studies scholar, University of Copenhagen (UCPH)

He emphasises that researchers must be open to criticism also.

»A researcher should always be prepared to defend their work and explain their findings,« says Jesper Petersen.

What matters to him, however, is that the criticism remains academic. When he is attributed to positions that he has never expressed, because critics haven’t read his work, or when accusations directly contradict his actual research, he feels it crosses a boundary:

»When researchers are held accountable for things they haven’t said, that’s crossing a line. When narratives are spread that I am a mouthpiece, even though my research argues the exact opposite — that’s over the line. Or when it’s claimed that my position is that Islamic studies shouldn’t be critical, or that I hide results that Muslims wouldn’t like.«

So you also take a critical view of Islam in your research?

»Yes, absolutely. I’m pretty sure that not everyone in the Muslim communities is happy with my research,« says Jesper Petersen, pointing to his studies of social control among imams as an example.

Staying focussed

A year after the debate peaked, Jesper Petersen is now working with several academic colleagues on a new edited volume that collects research and debate on the concept of non-Muslim Islam — and the work of the research group continues.

»From the start, we decided to keep our eyes on the ball. To focus on the research and make the project a success,« he says.

The group is now working on several new studies — analysing media portrayals of Islam over the course of three decades, political speeches in the Danish parliament, and legislation — to explore how perceptions of Islam are created and used in society.

For Jesper Petersen, the key lesson from the debate is that criticism is an essential part of research — but only meaningful when it’s based on what he has actually written.

»I can vouch for my results« he says:

»But not by things that have I never said. My problem is not that people criticise — they’re more than welcome to. My issue is that they criticise without reading. And I genuinely hope that the informed and academic criticism never stops,« he says.

This article was first written in Danish and published on 19 September 2025. It has been translated into English and post-edited by Mike Young.