Dr Leo Ruickbie’s editorial in
Issue 92 of the Society for Psychical Research’s magazine Paranormal Review, which was published recently, seeks to stimulate
a debate on the direction the Society should take. Currently, as he puts it, the organisation
‘stands on one side of a bridge into the unknown.’ Prompted by Lew Sutton’s account in the
magazine of the home circle he has been running for several years in Devon, Leo
begins by looking at the role of the SPR in a changing paranormal landscape. Lew’s project, which Leo characterises as ‘citizen
science’, is the sort of thing the SPR used to do itself, along with such
activities as thought transference experiments, surveys, and other forms of
investigation that by and large it no longer conducts. This observation leads Leo to muse on the role
of the SPR and how it can maintain its relevance.
He notes that the SPR is being
squeezed on two fronts: from below, by the proliferation of ghost-hunting
groups tackling the kinds of cases that at one time would have been the sole
province of the SPR; and from above, by academia engaging in (though still not
as much as one might wish) the sort of controlled experimentation the SPR also
used to do. Both sets publish, organise
meetings, network – in short undertake what the SPR has always done. Consequently, on one side the SPR’s Spontaneous
Cases Committee has a reduced role in active investigation; while on the other
the SPR’s role in research is mainly focused on facilitating academics’
projects through its dedicated research funds (out of which only a limited
number of grants are awarded annually), publishing papers and providing a venue
for lectures. So, how should the SPR
respond to challenges posed by these two currents?
Looking at how members receive
information, Leo refers to the SPR’s active programme of events, but notes these
reach only a small number of attendees, and not many extra through recordings. He does mention the SPR’s website and its
social media presence, but despite expanding content on the website, in the
grand scheme of things their reach is fairly limited and members are not
guaranteed to look at them. What they do
see is its magazines, the Journal and
Paranormal Review. As Leo says, for many members, those
publications are the SPR, but they
are actually quite limited in what they can communicate considering the wide
range of SPR activities. There is an
opportunity for the Society to do more with what it has, Leo argues, even if it
is not leading research itself. He ends
by asking if the SPR needs to debate its purpose and develop a strategy for the
future, requesting members to get in touch with ideas (and I am sure he would
welcome the constructive thoughts of non-members as well).
SPR membership has been
increasing in recent years, but Leo’s question asking about the future
direction of the Society is highly pertinent.
Unfortunately I am not certain what the answers are. The spontaneous cases side is probably the
easiest to address, with the Spontaneous Cases Committee being more proactive
than it is at present. There are signs
of this, but more could be done to carry out investigations in a manner that
would set a benchmark for others, particularly those who follow what they see
on television shows. The experimental
side is more problematic. When reading
old issues of the Society’s Journal
and Proceedings, with experiments
being conducted in the Society’s offices, I have thought how nice it would be to
have work undertaken there now. But for a
variety of reasons such efforts by and large moved into university departments.
So could the Society be more
active in promoting what it does do? Leo
is correct in saying the SPR’s publications only cover a narrow range of the
Society’s activities. But it would be
simplistic to conclude the answer is to increase the volume of its own print publications. The Journal
and Paranormal Review are expensive
to produce, and apart from a few individual and institutional subscriptions
only reach members. A hint (I think) in
the editorial of a possible future initiative is the reference to commercial publishing,
preferably self-financing. We have had
many books based on SPR material in the past.
These include SPR-published pamphlets, and one-off books and series from
commercial publishers, for example the G Bell & Sons volumes in 1937-9 and
the Heinemann books edited by Brian Inglis to commemorate the SPR’s centenary
in 1982. Resurrecting a publishing
programme is an idea that has come up from time to time, but somehow never
comes to fruition, mainly it seems because it is difficult to make much money
from serious books on paranormal subjects.
That was the reason for the failure of the Athlone Press series edited
by John Beloff in the late 1990s.
However, if a new venture were successful it would be an ideal way to
promote the subject and generate some income.
Yet while a publishing programme
will have some impact in assisting the SPR to raise its profile and is worth
reconsidering, it is not the entire answer.
After all, a similar function is being fulfilled by the SPR’s Psi Encyclopedia, and while it is a
valuable source of reliable information and is well-regarded, it cannot be said
to have been a game-changer in psychical research education. I agree that the SPR needs to leverage what
it has now, such as seeing more from those researchers who receive money from
it. For an organisation with research in
the title we ought to be spending more on it, but we live in a world of finite
resources and lab research is expensive (especially when you have universities
insisting on the inclusion of generous overheads in grant applications). Recipients’ results could definitely be disseminated
by them to a greater extent than they are to publicise what the SPR does to
support research.
The alternative to formal
institutional research is the citizen science approach exemplified by Lew
Sutton. I suspect there is a reservoir
of interest among members waiting to be tapped, if only it could be directed by
those with the necessary expertise and bearing in mind that, to achieve results
the scientific community will consider, it needs to be done properly. The SPR could act as a clearing house for
results, publishing and archiving them as appropriate. A product of the Buckmaster bequest, in
addition to the Psi Encyclopedia, is
the SPR’s Psi Open Data project, billing
itself as ‘an open repository for the storage of parapsychological and
psychical research data.’ It is adding
value to the academic research process, and perhaps this approach could be
extended to a wider range of well-conducted citizen science.
There are of course practical
obstacles, not only financial but in terms of labour. Those who would be qualified to oversee such
efforts, and exercise quality control, are busy with their own work, and this
would be a considerable commitment. It
is certainly worth discussing, however.
We may never see the heroic levels of activity achieved by the early
SPR, but there is much potential over and above what it is doing currently, and
an expansion of its remit would a major contribution to the subject. If it stays on its present course I don’t
think the future for the SPR is bad, but it will not be fulfilling its
potential. I shall follow the debate Leo
has started with interest, and I hope it produces both good ideas and offers to
implement them.
