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

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

This brings me to a different type of problem in spontaneous case research: that of confusing research useful to our understanding of the phenomenon with a compilation of experiences. Here I am referring not only to developments outside parapsychological circles but also to developments inside those circles. I have argued before that we need to do more with cases than just present a case report limited to a description of the phenomena or to its evidential aspects (Alvarado, 1996c). Our field needs to learn something about the phenomena, not to continue sharing marvelous stories for their own sake. My impression over the years is that a segment of those concerned with the study of spontaneous phenomena are not interested in explaining or understanding the phenomena. They seem to be happy to maintain the mystery for its own sake. In their view, the phenomena is something sacred that should not be probed too much. This could be because of religious or spiritual concerns that define the phenomenon as transcenden tal and beyond the reach of science, or it could be because of fear that if the phenomenon is explained, there will be no more mystery and thus no reason to focus on it (on this issue, see Moody, 1999). Whatever the reason, such attitudes hinder the development of spontaneous case research, leaving the field as little more than the glorification of the parapsychological.

It is, of course, important to try to establish if the findings of work with spontaneous cases require an explanation based on new principles not accepted by science. But research conducted just to show this is very limited in terms of understanding the phenomena. I cannot speak for all spontaneous case researchers, but I feel that we need to do much more than just show that some phenomena are evidential or that they require explanations currently not accepted by science. TThere are many things to lear from our studies. One example is what we can learn (and what we have already learned) about the features of the phenomena (for reviews, see Alvarado, 1996a; Irwin, 1994; Stokes, 1997). We learn something if we study the particular features of the phenomena and how those features change or vary according to other variables. Schouten's (1979, 1981, 1982) studies of ESP experiences are a case in point, as is Ring's (1980) study of near-death experiences (NDEs). In addition, we also understand one phenomenon better when we can relate it to other phenomena. For example, spontaneous cases have been related to personality variables (Zingrone, Alvarado & Dalton, 1998-99) and to measures of global geomagnetism (Persinger, 1987).

Having said this, it is important to recognize that there is a place for the simple reporting of cases with little or no analysis. The presentation of cases of this sort may serve some useful functions. A significant number of these case reports could be used later to conduct a study of the patterns of these cases, as seen in the work of Roll (1977), Sidgwick (1922), and Stevenson (1970).