Tag Archives: Ethics

The ethics of Ghost Research

When I first got involved in paranormal research as a teenager I thought a good code of conduct looked like the one that can be found here. Most people who get involved in paranormal research do so with good intentions, but sometimes good intentions aren’t enough. There are things I have done in the name of ‘paranormal research’ that were unethical and damaging to the people involved. I should have known better but I didn’t and as time has gone on I have been able to cast my mind back to those instances and see how I would have done things differently had I been more aware of the unethical implications my desire to communicate with dead people could have on others.

There was an instance a few years ago when I was asked to conduct an educational investigation at a reputedly haunted pub in Bristol. The idea was that I would lead the investigation and walk people through the pseudo-scientific methods of ghost hunting. This included using the ouija board, and as we sat around the table conducting a faux ouija board session a member of staff that lived in the pub walked into the room, saw the board and started to panic.

I didn’t know people lived on premises, I hadn’t thought to ask the organisers of the event about such things, and as a result one resident got very scared and I’m pretty sure that would have had a knock on effect. Unfortunately I cannot change the past no matter how much I want to, all I can do is learn from my mistakes and hope that perhaps the lessons I have learnt through trial and error as a paranormal investigator can help others avoid such mistakes.

I interviewed the chairman of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP), Dave Wood, alongside long time researcher CJ Romer about the ethical implications of spontaneous phenomena investigations a while ago and you can read the transcript of the interview by clicking here. Very recently I have observed numerous instances of paranormal researchers demonstrating either unethical behaviour or a lack of understanding about what ethical implications their actions may have on those they encounter. Rather than just name, shame and moan about what I had seen I’ve decided to both transcribe the interview I did with Dave and CJ (as linked to above) and write up a summary about the basic things to consider when it comes to ethical ghost research.

Ethical Ghost Research – the basics

When investigating spontaneous phenomena you will come into contact with all sorts of people who are both involved in the case and not involved in it. As a researcher (whether professional or amateur) the welfare of those affected by your research is paramount. Being guided by your common sense or morality is often not enough to ensure you have considered all possible implications that your presence at a location as a researcher may have on those you come into contact with.  This is why it is paramount that paranormal researcher organisations draw up a code of ethics to which organisation members are to abide by while on location.

Who can be harmed by paranormal researchers?

There are four groups of people that paranormal researchers may come into contact with who should be considered in a code of ethics drawn up by research organisations.

1 – The recently bereaved 

Paranormal Researchers should not work with those who have experienced the loss of a loved one within at least a six month period. Grief can make a person extremely emotionally vulnerable and only those professionals with specialist training in coping with grief and depression should work with those who have experienced such a recent loss.

2 – Children

Cases involving those under the age of Eighteen are an ethical nightmare for paranormal researchers. Some claim that it is okay to work with children, but I personally agree with CJ Romer and Dave Wood when they point out that only those Social Welfare Professionals with specialist training should work with children – and only when called upon to do so in a professional capacity.

3 – Statutorily vulnerable adult

Vulnerable adults may be those with mental health issues, learning difficulties, who are very elderly or frail, or someone who’s recently bereaved. Paranormal investigators should consider very carefully about whether it is appropriate to work with such people. Of people with these circumstances Dave Wood, the chairman of ASSAP says

‘they would fall into the category of statutorily vulnerable and that means they have some kind of care needs and you [paranormal researchers] shouldn’t be working with those people at all because they should already have professional networks of support.’

4 – Non-Statutorily vulnerable adults

Adults who are not vulnerable can still be harmed by the actions of paranormal researchers – the previously mentioned barmaid who stumbled upon the Ouija board session would fall under this label. Many ghost researchers enter a location in the pursuit of ‘evidence’ that ghosts exist, this can not only misinform the people they come into contact with but it can scare them too and cause them to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or scared of their own home or place of work. It’s a sure sign that you need to review your code of ethics when the hunt for evidence takes priority over the well being of those involved in the case – or the well being of those you come into contact with isn’t even considered in the first place!

How can people be harmed by paranormal researchers?

Through the sharing of information

When ghost researchers conduct an investigation they often conclude by writing and sharing a report about the investigation. If no code of ethics is in place, the way in which information is shared by the ghost researchers can have a harmful effect on the people involved in the case being researched.

Occasionally the reports that ghost researchers put together can describe pretty horrific things they believe they encountered as locations, such as being pushed, scratched, made to feel unwell, things being thrown or moved, sounds being heard and things being seen. These things can be upsetting and scary to those who live or work in the location – especially when the paranormal research teams findings may be pseudo-scientific and erroneous.

Not only this but sometimes it isn’t appropriate to name the people involved, or even the location involved as this can bring unwanted attention upon those being named. Confidentiality is something that all paranormal researchers should respect above all else.

Often paranormal investigators will visit locations where they don’t really come into contact with anyone they could cause harm through their actions, but then claim to talk to spirits while at the location. Publishing the details of the spirits they believe they have encountered could also be unethical in the cases where those spirits were real people who may have living relatives who could stumble upon the report containing details about their deceased loved ones.

By acting as a professional in a non-professional capacity

Many paranormal research organisations have members who are qualified in roles that might aid those who are listed above as potentially vulnerable. Some ghost researchers may be psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, grief councilors, GP’s etc. but acting in their professional capacity when on an investigation is unprofessional and may have negative outcomes for the people they advise. Most vulnerable adults and children have a care network in place with such professionals already working for them and so anyone in a ghost research team who happens to have those credentials should not consider it their place to act in such a manner.

By breaking the law

A very big problem is caused by paranormal researchers who gain access to locations without permission from land owners. There have been horror stories of people being seriously injured and killed because they trespassed on private property to look for ghosts there. Even some graveyards have limited opening hours and by accessing the graveyard outside of these opening hours could mean you are breaking the law.

Not everyone who accesses a location illegally is respectful of the location and there have been instances of ghost researchers using locations as a toilet, vandalism, spraying graffiti and littering. I think the unethical implications of such behaviour speaks for itself.

Ethical conduct is a huge topic and the above has hardly scratched the surface, but then this was only intended as a brief introduction to the ethics of ghost hunting. The points made above are the most common mistakes I have seen paranormal researchers make again and again in the few years I have been involved in such research. Keeping research ethical is a big deal for researchers of all disciplines, but sometimes ghost researchers are so desperate to get out there and talk to ghosts that they don’t stop to think that this means them too.

I haven’t written out a list of rules that I think ghost researchers should follow, or a dummy code of ethics. I’ve just listed all of the above as my pointers on what to consider and hope that those researchers without a code of ethics will consider the information I have shared and draw up their own code of ethics.

flattr this!

Posted in: paranormal / Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Ethical issues in Spontaneous Phenomena Investigations: An interview with Dave Wood & CJ Romer

I interviewed Dave Wood, the chairman of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomlous Phenomena (ASSAP) and CJ Romer, a highly regarded phenomena investigator, about the ethics of ghost hunting for Episode 105 of the Righteous Indignation Podcast. Below is a transcript of the interview.

H = Hayley Stevens
D = Dave Wood
CJ = CJ Romer

H We’re here to talk about an article you both wrote for vol. 45 of the ASSAP journal ‘Anomaly called ‘Ethical issues in spontaneous phenomena investigations’.Do you believe unethical behaviour is a large problem among amateur paranormal investigators? I think it’s probably a bit of a given…

CJ I’d say it’s almost certain that there are ethical issues that come up almost on a daily basis for anyone who is active within the field. I’ve faced all kinds of ethical problems in my own time, and I’ve probably made lots of incorrect decisions myself. A couple from my own experience from running a paranormal group back in the 90’s before this all started to take off and everyone started to do it.

On one occasion I asked another academic, a colleague, if he’d like to be involved as he was a reputable scientist. I asked him if he’d like to come along on an investigation and he filled in a form and agreed to maintain confidentiality etc. We met him at the university, he got in the car and we thought ‘what possible harm could come from taking this fellow with us?’ and in fact no harm did come from it, but the first thing he asked us as we got out of the car was ‘why have you brought me to my house?’

It turned out that the case which was very sensitive involved his next door neighbour who’d he’d been friends with for many years who had been too embarrassed to tell him anything about the phenomena they were witnessing. So, inadvertent but straight away that raises a few interesting points, doesn’t it? On another occasion some time later we found what appeared to be a full blown physical relationship between a young child and a babysitter, and there’s real legal issues that become involved and I think one of the problems psychical researchers don’t realise is just how much they stick their necks out just by going into people’s homes which is why I strongly encourage people not to do it.

H Yes

D I agree with CJ, there’s some really shocking headline ethical issues that hit the papers, and I think some examples we used in the article included known registered sex offenders going into family homes and that kind of thing and really incredible mind-blowing stuff where you’re thinking ‘how could this have even happened?’ and it’s worrying on all sorts of levels, but going back to what CJ said originally, minor ethical issues crop up every weekend when paranormal investigation groups go out, most of which don’t have ethical codes of any description and from my own limited experience of seeing other groups as opposed to groups I’ve been directly involved with, ethical issues crop up all the time and I think it’s a big worry.

H I certainly know from my own experience – I mean the reason that I do less investigations now is because of ethical reasons, I just can’t assure that I’m being ethical so I steer clear. CJ you mentioned a ‘sensitive case’, could you describe what a sensitive might be?

CJ As an academic one of the first things you are taught is that you don’t do research with the recently bereaved and unfortunately one of the groups you’re most likely to be approached by is someone who has suffered a recently bereavement. It’s very hard.

D Yes

CJ a question that arose when we were writing the paper was ‘do you take on those investigations? Do you look at the phenomena, do you offer anything more than a cup of tea and sympathy – my preferred approach, and break off contact as quickly and gently as you could?’ How do you deal with it Dave?

D I think generally that certainly within six months of someone being bereaved there’s a good case that it’s almost automatically unethical to deal with someone who has been bereaved in the previous six months, there’s so much going on there. They’re automatically vulnerable in pretty much every single case. I don’t think a paranormal investigator is a suitable person to be working with them. Everything is too fresh and raw and it just doesn’t sit right with me at all.

An interesting offshoot to that is something that a number of paranormal researchers have done over the years, is set up legacy research. A few years ago I came across someone who put in place a plan for when they eventually died as to what research they wanted done by the people around them when they died which was kind of strange to me and kind of highlighted that issue there as to how you deal with that sort of thing as well

H Are these investigators who are saying when I die I want you to try and communicate with my ghost?

D yeah that sort of thing, a few years ago I came across an investigator who had a whole kind of plan in place of research they wanted conducting to try and make contact

CJ It’s almost the norm for members of the SPR[Society for Psychical Research] to do things such as set bicycle locks, create complex cypher messages that could only be decoded with the correct key, and to do other things so they can be used as tests of survival. I don’t have an ethical issue with this as it is people who are making informed decisions to assist a future research community and the normally the research doesn’t start until quite some time after their death.

But no… Stay away from the recently bereaved! And stay away from working with Children! Absolute horror!

D Yep

CJ I used to be a psychiatric nurse and one of the things they drummed into us was even if you’re a psychiatric nurse you don’t work with children unless you have that sort of training and understanding and we didn’t so they told us to stay away from them.

D I completely agree, going into a private case where children are present is a big no-no in most respects. People have argued the opposite view but I’m with CJ on that one. Working with children directly, there is the potential to do a lot of harm for them. Before anyone thinks about doing something like that they need to speak to professionals and get advice – certainly not something to do without thinking about it.

In the article we made a difference between statutorily vulnerable adults and then people who didn’t fall into that category. If you’ve got someone who has mental health issues, learning difficulties, is very elderly or frail, or someone who’s recently bereaved then they would fall into the category of statutorily vulnerable and that means they have some kind of care needs and you shouldn’t be working with those people at all because they should already have professional networks of support.

Then you have people who are non-statutorily vulnerable which is pretty much anyone in their own home who is concerned, worried or distressed about something happening in their own home and I think in any case where there’s than non-statutorily vulnerable you have to be very careful about how you deal with those situations and as CJ said he’d probably avoid them entirely and I’ve spoken to a refreshing number of researchers who have said ‘I don’t have enough training to deal with this, I would avoid the situation entirely’ but I think if anyone was to work with someone in a private house, and lots of people do, I think it’s important to have a very strong ethical code in place to ensure that person is protected.

H I know a lot of a lot of research teams who’ve gone into people’s homes and have done horrific things on their investigations and in the way they handle their ‘findings’ which is quite disturbing for those involved. When raising my concerns they often say they not sure how to work out if someone is vulnerable. Do you think it’s best to avoid private investigations completely unless they have specialist training?

D Yes I think unless they have some sort of ethical grounding I think the safest thing is to avoid those sorts of cases. At ASSAP[Association for Scientific Study into Anomalous Phenomena] we provide particular training on dealing with no statutory vulnerable people in private houses, and I think unless you’ve gone into it in a great deal of depth it is much better to err on the side of caution as we are dealing with people’s lives, and avoid these cases.

CJ You’ve got to bear in mind that even a trained social welfare professional will be working as part of a multi-agency task force, they’ll be working as part of a team. You’ll have a GP involved, and maybe social services, they may have contact with local clergy who deals with the faith of the family, with the housing officers, the hospital, maybe psychiatrists, perhaps a substance abuse teams. All those people work in an institutional frame work that protects them, gives them assurance, gives them cover but is ultimately designed to prevent unnecessary sharing of information and ensure that the client gets the best possible deal out of ay intervention.

What happens with paranormal investigators is more like:

*acts the knocking of a door*

*puts on voice* ‘Hello Ma’am, oh I’m sensing it already! It’s a headless baby, it’s horrible and disfigured, did you have a miscarriage? It’s coming through the walls!

I mean, I mock but that kind of horrific scenario goes on out there.

H Yeah I’ve seen that kind of thing

CJ These people believe it’s okay to go and do this. Actually there’s a real issue here. There are two kinds of psychic researchers at the end of day. Those who see themselves asspiritual super beings who save the world through psychic intervention and some of these do a good job and make people feel better and I have seen positive outcomes from mediums-

H a bit like a placebo

CJ Perhaps… sometimes though it can do horrendous damage. How do you know which people are going to leave you in some state of uncertainty and cause you untold degrees of horror, and how do you know whose going to tell you a nice story about the ghost and sort it out – whether its true or not doesn’t matter.

D Yeah, I’ve spoken to people in the past who say they feel quite comfortable approaching mediums because mediums tend to have this tenet of not doing harm at the centre of what they do, but I have come across cases of mediums going into locations and scared the bejesus out of people quite frankly. Saying there are dozens of ghosts in your house, or in your children’s bedroom and the children can’t sleep at night. So I think there is no way to know when you invite someone in your house – that can be a medium or an investigator –how do you know if they’re going to help and reassure you or how do you know they’re not going to make it worse?

CJ mediums generally do at least claim their aims are therapeutic. My team once had a call from a woman saying: “I’m so terrified, my children have gone to stay with their grandparents. The saucepan just got thrown at the dog. The dog is howling, objects keep moving and thumping! Doors keep opening and closing. I can’t take it anymore, I can’t take it anymore!’

My friend turned around to me and shouted: “Yes! We’ve actually got a good one!”

Utterly inappropriate. We went down there and the woman was absolutely hysterical and from my nursing perspective I wanted to cheer her up but it quickly became apparent that activity occurred when the family were stressed and upset so I also had this strong scientific urge to make them as unhappy as possible…

H *laughs*

D I’m sure you didn’t act on it!

CJ No, actually what I did was tried to calm them down, and that will always take priority for me over of hunting for evidence. One of the problems I have is statistically I don’t think there’s much point of going and sitting with a camera because even on the most live poltergeist cases where I’ve been, as soon as you have an outsider involved you might see or hear something but the phenomena is extraordinarily elusive so I spend most of the time trying to explain the phenomena in rational terms and trying to calm people down.
At the end of the case the woman said to us ‘you don’t want to get rid of the ghost at all, do you? You want it to stay here!’ and I think that’s true of a lot of research groups, they want the ghost to be there.

D They mean well and feel they’re doing a good job, and they may do a good job in the way they investigate, but not having an ethical code and a grounded ethical way of doing things, statistically speaking you’re going to have so many ethical issues coming up over the course of x number of cases you investigate. Unless you’re prepared to deal with them, small amounts of harm are going to take place, you may not know they take place, you may go in, do an investigation, leave and never actually realise that after the event something takes place that causes harm to the family.

We can focus on headline issues and horror stories which I think is good because that brings out good examples, but the thousands of investigators who operate without an ethical code just create these small ethical breaches over the course of time creates a huge accumulative problem.

H What do you think is the cause of unethical conduct? Is it people ignoring the problem? Or just not realising the potential for the problem is there?

D I think probably not realising the potential for the problem is there, I think very few people go out there trying to scare people and cause distress. I think the vast majority of investigators are trying to do a good job and a good thing through this sense of personal morality that people would hope guides them through a process. I suppose it’s where you’re coming from. If you think about Paranormal Investigation, it’s pretty much an amateur type hobby, most amateur hobby you don’t tend to have any code of how you act – you go into something with common sense and hope it prevails.

Indeed with psychology, that used to be, broadly speaking decades ago, how psychology worked, the individual morality of the person – albeit a well-trained person – would hopefully see them through the experimentation they’d do.

Psychology and other disciplines quickly learnt that actually the only way to really protect people is to have a set of behaviours, a code of conduct, a set of ethics to guide you and help you interpret different eventualities. Things you hadn’t considered and potential harm for people you wouldn’t consider. So I think very few of us can go into an investigation case having knowledge of every possible outcome that could happen. At least with a code of ethics you can institutionally minimise risk of harm and be in a position to address it if it comes up. So I think people go into it with the right mind-set but with the not that kind of professional mind-set that says ‘yes, we must have a formal code of ethics’.

-end-

flattr this!

Posted in: musings, paranormal / Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Don Philips surpasses himself

I’ve blogged before about the unprofessional and unethical antics of Don Philip who promotes himself as a top investigator of ghost phenomena in the UK. With numerous TV appearances and public events to his name it is quite worrying. Today Steve Parsons posted a screengrab from Don Philips on Facebook that blew away anything I’ve blogged about in the past.

It reads:

Spur of the moment I rang nick who turned up in Leicester around 11:30pm, we visited a cemetery & the most prevelent contact we made was with a [deleted by me] year old girl called [deleted by me], she passed in 2010 & told me she was not happy in spirit so I invited her to come with me to find out more, she a lovely sounding child but obviously now myself and Nick have questions we would like the answers to so i plan on speaking with [deleted by me], this evening. I was actually hoping to find Becky’s [his friend] resting place! [sic all the way through]

The ethical oversight of this is staggering. I am lost for words really. I hope that the child doesn’t exist – I hope there are no parents who will discover that a man who thinks he can talk to dead people has been hanging around in a graveyard talking to their child who died just two years ago. Gosh. I’m lost for words.

This demonstrates the real need for people to be vigilant of the ghost hunting community because for all of those who understand ethical behaviour, there are the few who don’t whose reach is wide.

Don’s reaction is again defensive, and he ignores the reason people are outraged at what has been said. The exchange with his comment can be read below:

Don: If you took the time to read the post “I was actually hoping to find Beckys resting place” (a friend) you just might find the reason we went instrad of jumping to conclusions and moronic assumptions! if a little girl wishes to speak to me whilst im there then thats her business and mike and feck all to do with you! and just for the record paranormal investigators and ghost hunters are 2 different things!! .. And as for TWAT & no respect ethic or morals comments KEEP EM you really have no idea what I actually do do & and as its it in my friend + the fact myself and nick spent some time making good some graves that vandals had spoiled putting things back and standing headstones back up go preach your ethics morals and other crap to somewhere it actually may apply. [SIC THE WHOLE THING]

There are just two points I wish to raise in response to this:

1) The globe symbol next to Don’s name means this is a public post and anyone can see it. He is claiming only his Facebook friends can. The reach of such a post is wider than he thinks it is.

2) Don states “if a little girl wishes to speak to me whilst im there then thats her business and mike and feck all to do with you!” However, he made this alleged communication with a ghost public and made it everybody’s business – potentially including people who may have a child buried in that graveyard. Most ghost researchers – no matter how much they do or do not believe in ghosts – would not disclose that sort of information about the ghost they thought they had contacted if it was likely that living relatives of the deceased were still a) alive and b) local.

It’s a matter of sensitivity. Of course it is your right to go and talk to ghosts if that is what you think you are doing, but you should always consider the impact releasing that sort of information might have on those around you – particularly if you’re visiting graveyards in your local area.

That is what people meant when they spoke about Don being unethical with this posting. It’s a shame he doesn’t get that because this is basic ghost research ethics right here!

flattr this!

Posted in: musings, paranormal / Tagged: , , , ,

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.

flattr this!

Posted in: paranormal, Skepticism / Tagged: , ,
Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: