3. Personnel in Parapsychology
In
his Presidential Address to the Society for Psychical Research in 1900,
Frederic
W. H. Myers noted that the early work of the Society had only a "small company
of labourers" that was not enough to accomplish the necessary work (Myers, 1900,
p. 123). In 1955 J. Fraser Nicol said that there were less than ten full-time
parapsychologists (Nicol, 1955). In the mid 1970s Lawrence LeShan (1976)
estimated that there were less than 30 full-time workers in the field. More
recently, Matthew Smith (1999) argued that the number of full-time
parapsychologists in the field was less than the number of people employed in a
medium-sized McDonald's fast food restaurant.
Historically speaking, the field of parapsychology has always depended on small
groups of individuals. During the early years of the SPR most of the research
work was conducted by Edmund Gurney and
Frederic W. H. Myers, as well as by
Eleanor Sidgwick and
William Barrett. The magnitude and range of this early work
was remarkable, as was its depth and quality. One only has to examine the two
major nineteenth century works of the Society (Gurney, Myers & Podmore, 1886;
Sidgwick et al., 1894) to realize how much attention was given by a small group
of psychical researchers to studies that helped to shape the course of
parapsychology.
The dependence of parapsychology on the work of a few individuals can be
documented in other countries and organizations. In the United States there was
a period when James H. Hyslop ran the American Society for Psychical Research.
An analysis I conducted of authors of the journal of the society for the
1907-1920 period when Hyslop was active showed that out of 331 articles, 220
(67%) were authored by Hyslop. Similarly, in 1926 French researcher
Eugène Osty
mentioned that he was the only researcher at the Institut Métapsychique
International at Paris, and he was only joined occasionally by other
collaborators (Osty, 1926, p. 23).
Similarly, another small group at Duke University constructed a new
parapsychology by carrying on an experimental research program of unprecedented
magnitude. Like the SPR, the work conducted at
J. B. Rhine's Parapsychology
Laboratory centered around a small group: Betty Humphrey, J. G. Pratt, J. B.
Rhine, L. E. Rhine (on occasion), and Charles Stuart (Mauskopf & McVaugh, 1980).
Their work focused on methodological and psychological issues and paved the way
for the development of modern experimental parapsychology.
Current research units and organizations around the world work with very small
staffs. Examples include the Rhine Research Center, the Division of Personality
Studies, and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory in the
United States, the Koestler Parapsychology Unit in Scotland, Inter Psi and the
Centro Integrado de Parapsicologia Experimental in Brazil, and the Instituto de
Psicología Paranormal in Argentina. Many modern examples of the relatively
important influence of a few individuals on the course of our field may also be
cited. There is no question, for example, that the systematic work of Gertrude
Schmeidler on beliefs in ESP and ESP scoring (Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958), of
Ian Stevenson (1974a) with reincarnation cases, of
William Roll (1972) with
poltergeist cases, and of
Charles Honorton with experimental explorations (e.g.,
Honorton,
1997) and with discipline-building literature reviews of ESP and
altered states of consciousness (e.g., Honorton, 1977), did much to develop the
field and to build research specialties in modern times. This reliance on a few
individuals encourages creativity from a few gifted researchers, but it also
brings us problems. Whole lines of work may surfer greatly or even disappear
with the death or retirement of a single individual. Such reliance on a few
workers deprives us of the work force and community that more established
disciplines have. This community is essential to produce basic research, to
replicate research, to refine our techniques and instruments, and to provide the
general correctives that other disciplines have but that are underdeveloped in
ours.
Most of the parapsychologists who are PA members and who present papers at PA
conventions are not full-time workers in the field. In a paper Tart presented in
1967 in which he surveyed PA members he found they spent only 10% of their time
in parapsychology (Parapsychology in 1967, 1969, p. 7). More recently,
Blackmore
(1989) reported an average percent working time in parapsychology of 49%, out of
a small sample of 18 parapsychologists. It seems that most of us only devote a
fraction of our working time to parapsychology. This is not surprising
considering the following well known facts. First, we have almost no
institutions that can afford to employ someone full-time. Second, there are very
few opportunities for financial support in parapsychological research. Third,
those employed in academia are usually expected to do more than parapsychology,
such as teaching other subject matters. Fourth, in many circles association with
parapsychology is a social and an intellectual stigma. As we all know, the
consequences of such a small work force are serious, and only a handful of
research projects are conducted every year, something that hinders our progress.
I believe that, under such conditions, we deserve to feel especially proud of
what we have accomplished.
Next part: 4. The Variety of
Members in Parapsychology
|