Posts Tagged "code"
Yet another clarification on ghosts and ethics
I have been asked to write another clarification by the admin on the ‘Society for Psychical Research (SPR)’ on Facebook group (who does not represent the SPR) regarding my views and opinions on their lack of an formal ethical code.
In response to my original blog post about this the admin posted a link to the SPR membership guidelines as though that was what I was stating was missing. However, it isn’t and I don’t think I have been understood.
I would like to point out here that I am an amateur researcher who has learnt everything I know about paranormal research from books, the internet and other more experienced people. I am not involved in formal research and don’t have expereince with formal ethical codes experienced in such a manner, yet I still do not believe that the Membership Guidelines of the SPR clearly state what is and isn’t ethical behaviour.
In section 6a the guidelines read:
Researchers are advised to consult fully with the subjects of their investigations prior to the start of an investigation, to keep within prearranged protocols unless there is full and free agreement with the subjects to a change of the protocol, and take due account of conditions under which investigations take place that might adversely affect a subject’s performance. They should also establish beforehand the framework for confidentiality and conditions of possible publication (e.g. as a courtesy, tested claimants should be informed about what is going to be said about them in a forthcoming publication). Researchers are advised to familiarise themselves as well as possible beforehand with the specific area they are researching, and to seek advice if in doubt during and after (eg. if there is suspicion of fraud) their research.
The SPR then link to the ‘Ethical and Professional Standards for Parapsychologists’ on the ‘Parapsychological Association‘ website. If this is the code of ethics that all of their investigators and researchers abide by, then I stand corrected, but it does not state this anywhere on the SPR site, and the site only refers to the PA paper as a good resource to read.
I understand that there are committees within the SPR that oversee different areas of research, but I cannot find any information online regarding how they set out their codes of ethics, or how they interpret potential problems. Do all research committees set out ethical codes in the same manner? If so, where is the framework for this taken from?
The SPR membership guideline page also suggests reading the ‘notes for investigators’ page on the SPR website. This outlines good protocol for their investigators to follow, but doesn’t really touch upon the potential for behaviour or research to become unethical.
It also doesn’t state when an investigator should and should not undertake a case. I’m not a member of the SPR (mainly due to the cost), and maybe that information is only available to members – but as far as I can see, as a member of the public, there is no set of guidelines on what constitutes good ethical behaviour and methodology on their site. That is the point I have been making all along.
On Facebook the SPR group admin said:
“The SPR has no power to dictate to investigators when they do not represent the SPR, even if they are members of it, the best thing is to provide guidelines for good practice. Members working through the SCC are often members of professional bodies and adhere to their organisations’ codes of ethics as well.
…I am reminded that the SCC has existed in its present form for over 30 years and has never had any kind of ethical issue during an investigation in all that time (and doubtless long before).”
This is sort of the point that I have been making all along. The person who stood up after my talk and said that the SPR do have a formal code of ethics in place was incorrect, and that was why I made the original clarification blog post – to clarify exactly what they were suggesting, and to clarify what I meant.
Although I am sure SPR research is ethical, I was merely highlighting the fact that there is potential for unethical behaviour and research to slip through the net due to personal interpretation of what is and isn’t ethical.
I should also say it was unfair of me to refer to the SPR as ‘ghost hunters’ along with all manner of ghost hunting groups, but I do refer to anyone that researchers ghosts as ‘ghost hunters’ simply because it seems to be the most universally understood term.
The potential for unethical behaviour to be a problem is more significantly present in unregulated amateur paranormal teams than it is organisations like SPR or ASSAP or similar, but there is still the potential there. I should have been more specific about the examples I was using.
I support…
