Guest editorial: thoughts on the study of spontaneous cases - Editorial

Journal of Parapsychology, The, June, 2002 by Carlos S. Alvarado

The new millennium provides us with an opportunity to take stock, to reflect on the state of parapsychology and its different areas of study. In this brief essay, I would like to offer some comments on aspects of the study of spontaneous cases.

Many problems characterize this area of research. My concerns are not with the usual criticisms about the weaknesses of human testimony (e.g., West, 1948, 1982) but with other aspects of the field. During the latter decades of the 20th century, several writers have emphasized the importance of spontaneous cases and suggested ways of investigating them (e.g., Alvarado, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; Irwin, 1994; Stokes, 1997; Watt, 1994; White, 1990, 1992). Nonetheless, we need to focus on a more basic issue: the dearth of research with spontaneous cases. Essentially, the main problem of spontaneous case research at the moment is that there is little research on the subject, at least judging from convention presentations and publications. There may be many reasons for this state of affairs, such as that most parapsychologists prefer an experimental approach. However, I think we should consider a serious problem within our own parapsychology community. That is, many of those interested in spontaneous cases do not conduc t research. I frequently hear privately (or read in print) the ideas on the importance of casework of many individuals, some of whom have a great passion for their subject matter. Some of them go on and on attacking the experimentalists or academia in general but do nothing to help their interests. Blaming others for their neglect of spontaneous cases because of their preferences for laboratory studies, because of their definition of what constitutes scientific research, or on account of their so-called fear of psi experiences will not solve our problems. We should be aware that research is done from one's interest and training and that we cannot expect those who conduct other types of research to do research we want to see done. They simply have other priorities and views. In a great measure, it is our own responsibility to change the situation by engaging in and by conducting research in whatever form: field studies, case collection studies, or survey studies, among some possibilities. A field that limits i tself to talking and criticism is condemned to be small and underdeveloped. Without research, there can be no growth, and there is little to learn about the phenomena. In short, there is stagnation.

An excuse for this lack of engagement in research is lack of funding. While it is obvious that this can affect our work, I can say from personal experience that there is much one can contribute to spontaneous case research with a low budget. Some of my "low budget" work has been based on the analysis of other researchers' published data, including work conducted with a colleague regarding hauntings (Alvarado & Zingrone, 1995) and near-death experiences (Alvarado & Zingrone, 1997-1998). Stevenson (1970) conducted an analysis of ESP impression cases from the psychical research literature. The work of Schouten (1979, 1981, 1982) is probably the most systematic ever conducted with previous case collections. This type of research can be conducted slowly over a period of time with a minimum budget. It is also possible to collect new cases from public appeals or to conduct small-scale surveys within a limited budget. The situation is more complicated if one has to travel to distant places to interview individuals or to conduct field studies. But the point is that there are valuable things to do even within one's limited resources. Having conducted several studies over the years with limited resources, I am confident that our community can do more, and thus change the state of the field.

I am aware that there is research being conducted outside of conventional parapsychological circles, research that is mostly not formally published or presented in conventions. This research needs to be examined and should not be neglected just because it appears in other forums. However, one must be careful of many of these efforts because, to judge from a variety of books, magazine articles, and Web sites and Web pages, what sometimes passes for research is merely a brief compilation of cases. Even assuming there is a significant number of individuals who are conducting research that is unreported in formal ways, why do so few of them publish or publicly present any of their findings? If research is not shared, it is as if it did not exist. It will not benefit anyone, and it will not have any impact on other researchers or on society at large. So, in practical terms, one cannot refer to this "invisible" work to counter the claim that there is little research on spontaneous cases. Another problem with this w ork is that, because it has not been publicly presented, we cannot evaluate its quality, something that limits even more the value of this research. It is not enough to be featured in a popular magazine with a picture of the instrumentation one uses to study hauntings, to have a Web site claiming that one has hundreds of investigated cases in one's archives studied by a highly qualified team of researchers, or to be told that a person or a group has important unpublished research. If one wishes to be taken seriously, one needs to publish in peer-reviewed forums .that not only disseminate the findings but also provide some measure of quality control (although the peer-review system is far from perfect and sometimes may hinder new ideas). At the very least, one needs (and has the responsibility) to make findings public and available to be examined by others, as is normally done in science and in other intellectual disciplines. (1)