“WeAllHadanExperienceinThereTogether”:ADiscursivePsychologicalAnalysisofCollaborativeParanormal Accountsby ParanormalInvestigationTeamMembers
Carrie Childs1AndCraig D. Murray2
1Department ofSocialSciences,LoughboroughUniversity,Leicestershire,UK
2SchoolofHealthandMedicine,LancasterUniversity, Lancaster,UK
This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published inChilds, C., & Murray, C. (2010). 'We all had an experience in there together': A discursive psychological analysis of collaborative paranormal accounts by paranormal investigation team members. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7: 1-13.as published in Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2010 [copyright Taylor & Francis], available online at
This isastudyoftheverbalaccountsofparanormalinvestigators.The focusof analysisisupontherhetoricalorganizationofeventdescriptionsinwaysthatestablish thefactualstatusofreportsinordertohighlighttheinherentproblemsassociatedwith currentunderstandingsofreportsof spontaneouscases.Drawinguponacorpusof interviewsconductedwithsixinvestigationgroupmembers,analysiswasconducted usingdiscursivepsychology,inparticulartherhetoricalapproach,withanexaminationofthewaysinwhichaccountswerepresentedandtheinteractionalconsequences ofdescribingeventsinparticularways.Analysisrevealed howspeakersworkedto implytheparanormalstatusofeventswhileavoidingexplicitlylabellingexperiences as “paranormal.” By focussing upon the production of event descriptions, the constructionofintersubjectivityandtheimportanceofthecontextinwhichaccounts areelicited,thecurrentwork hasimplicationsforthe wayinwhichparapsychologists currently utilize andunderstandaccounts ofspontaneous cases.
Introduction
Fromtheinceptionofthedisciplineofexperimentalparapsychology, therehasbeen relianceuponreportsofpersonalexperiences.LouisaRhine,whoalong withherhusband J.B.Rhinefoundedthefield,wasapioneeringresearcher ofspontaneouspsychicexperiences.Herexperimental workwaslargelyinformedbyacollectionofmorethan30,000 letterssenttoherfromindividualsdetailingsuchexperiences.Whilethefocusofher studywasnottoprovetheexistenceofparanormal phenomena,itwashopedthatthese caseswouldprovide inspirationthatmightformthe basisofexperimentalworkunder controlledconditions(Rao1986).Thetraditionofutilizingspontaneouscases toinform experimentalstudies hascontinued withinthediscipline, withcase collections beingused toinformandtesthypotheses(e.g.,Schouten 1979,1981).Otherwise,asthediscipline largelyadoptsanexperimental, proof-orientatedapproach(Utts1991),studies havebeen conductedintotheauthenticityofparticularspontaneouscases(e.g.,Maher2000;MaherHansen1995).Althoughseveralresearchershaveacknowledgedtheimportanceof studyingspontaneous cases(Alvarado 1996a,1996b; Irwin1994),thereremainsalack of
literaturewithinthisarea(Alvarado2002).Furthermore,examinationofexampleswithin theparapsychologicalliteraturewhichdofocusuponspontaneouscasesindicatesthatcur- rentapproachesmaybeproblematic.
One exampleisthat of Maherand Hansen(1995),whoprovideda narrativebasedon informationfrom various witnesseswhoexperienced unusualphenomenaatareportedly hauntedcastle.ThereportsgivenbywitnessesareunderstoodbyMaher and Hansenas accuratereflections ofspeakers’thoughts,withnoconsideration ofthecontextwithin whichaccountsareproduced.However,thisuncriticalapproach hasbeenshowntobe problematic bytheemergenceofdiscursivepsychology.
Discursivepsychology(DP)isanapproachwhichhasgrownoutofseveralperspectivesincluding ethnomethodology,conversationanalysis (CA), andthe sociologyofscience. OneofthemainprinciplesofDPistotreattalknotasa routetocognitiveprocesses suchas“memory” orasadirectreflectionofthought,butasaformofsocialaction (Edwards1997;EdwardsPotter1992).Theapproachappliesthemethodologicalprinci- plesofdiscourseanalysis(DA)andCAtotheanalysisofpsychologicalthemes(Edwards
2005).Itisproposedthattopicssuchasmemoryareinherentlysocialactivities(Middleton
Edwards1990),and bypursuingtheaction orientationoftalk(EdwardsPotter 1992) activitiessuchas“remembering”anddescribing eventshavebeen showntobearenas where“psychologicalbusiness” suchasblaming,managingattitudes,andattributing responsibilityareallconstructed(Wooffitt1992).ThecurrentstudydrawsuponthemethodologyofCA,whichisanempirical,cumulative researchprogramconcernedwiththe structuralorganizationofconversationandwhichisfrequentlyrecruitedwithinDPforthe studyoftalk-in-interaction.Thecurrent studyalsodrawsuponDA,whichasPotterand Wetherell(1987)note,isnotsimplyamethodologybutalsoabroadtheoretical frameworkconcerningthenatureofdiscourse anditsroleinsociallife.Withinthisview, itis proposedthataccounts arealwaystiedtothecontextinwhichtheyareproduced andthat languageisusedvariablydependentuponcontextandthefunctionsitperforms(Wooffitt
2005).Itis proposedthatexamining speechin thecontextof itsproduction canreveal whatisbeingdone withlanguageandthattheperformativequalitiesofdiscourse canbe revealed (Willig2001).
FromwithinDP,thenotionthatlanguageisadirectreflectionofthoughtratherthana formofsocialaction(Edwards 1997)hasbeenextensivelycritiqued viaconsideration of howintheireveryday activities, peopleordinarilyreportandexplainactionsandevents (EdwardsPotter2005).Adefiningfeature ofDP isthenotionthat whenreporting eventspeoplehave astake orinterestsuch as todisplaytheirversionofeventsasfactual, anditisproposedthatdescriptionsareconstructedinwayswhichachieve this(Edwards, PotterMiddleton 1992).Furthermore,itisarguedthatthecontextinwhich remembering “getsdone”hasa criticalinfluenceuponthetalkproduced.
AsBartlett(ascitedinMiddleton &Edwards1990)notes,peopleproduceaccounts forarangeofreasons,amongstwhichaconcernfordispassionateaccuracy israre.The accountsthatform thebasisofsuch studiesarefrequentlyelicitedininterviewsituations, whichsubsequently hasacriticalinfluenceupontheproductionofaccountsasintervieweesworktomanagearange ofconsiderationssuchasstake andinterest;thatis,they mayrespondbasedonparticularinterestsandmaymanageissuesofinterests withintheir talk(PotterHepburn2005).Anadditionalproblemisthatreportsofexperiencesarefrequentlysummarizedandpresented inresearchers’wordsratherthoseoftheoriginal speaker.Such summariesare shorterandtidier,loseinformation,andaddnone(Antaki, Billig,EdwardsPotter2003).Therefore,itcan bearguedthatthe use ofapproaches whichrelyupon summariesofaccountsproduced byresearchersareproblematic.
Inrelationtoparanormalexperiences(suchashauntings),ithasbeenarguedthat whatpeoplereporttohaveexperienced isalogicalwaytobegin inquiry,andthatwhat peoplebelieveaboutthoseexperiencesisaproperpointtobegininterpretation(Hufford
2001).However, discoursebasedworkwithitsfocusuponvariabilityasafeatureofcon- text,hashighlightedtheproblemsassociated withdeterminingunderlying,stablebeliefs, asithasbeensuggestedthatpeopleperformactionsofdifferent kindsthroughtheirtalk, andthustherewill besignificantvariationindescriptionsand accountsas people perform differentkinds ofactions (PotterWetherell1987,1994).Ithasbeensuggestedthat somethingcanbelearnedfromstudyingthefeaturesofspontaneouspsychicexperiences, thevariationwithinandbetweentheseexperiences(Alvarado1996a,1996b,2002)and thevariablesthatarerelatedtothis,suchaspersonality (e.g.,Zingrone,AlvaradoDalton 1998). HoweverDP makesproblematic the notion of dispassionateaccurate recordswhichcanbe“collected”from individualsandexplainedwithreferencetounder- lyingcognitionor“personality variables.”Rather,examinationoftherhetoricalorganizationofaccountswithintalk-in-interactionallowsonetoobservethewaysinwhichreports are constructedandthefunctionsofdoingthis.
Recentstudies within DP andCAthat havefocuseduponindividuals’ accounts of spontaneous caseshave begun tohighlight thegains associated with adopting such an approach.For example, onefeature of descriptions of paranormal eventsis thatthey frequentlyfollowan acknowledgment ofinitialscepticismabouttherealityof paranormalphenomena (Allcock1981).Ithas been arguedthatwhile suchdeclarations may accurately reflect speakers’priorposition,it is necessaryto examinethefunctional aspects of such declarations of belief (Lamont 2007).Consequently, it hasbeensug- gested thatsuch claims workto heighten the factuality of theaccount by providing evidenceof critical thinking and a reluctanceto believe too easily (Lamont 2007). Oneway inwhich accountsareconstructedtocounterpotential criticismsof stakeor interestis through“stake inoculation” (Potter 1996). Initial scepticismencourages usto treat con- clusionsas factual as they arecountertooriginal interests(Potter2004) andarethusa product of thestrength ofthefacts themselves,ratherthan an expectationofthespeaker (Potter1996).
Devicesforheighteningthefactualityofparanormal accountshavealsobeenexaminedinthecontextofinterviewswithsinglespeakers, whereithasbeenfoundthatwhen reportingexperiencesspeakers frequentlyprovidedetailsofthemundaneactivitiesthey werecarryingoutpriortotheevent(Wooffitt1991,1992).Thistwo-partstructure has beenconceptualizedas“IwasjustX.....whenY,”where“X”representsthemundane activitiespriorto the onsetof “Y,”theparanormalphenomena.Here,Wooffitt claims,the mundaneactivitiesreportedarenotthetypeofeventswhichareparticularlymemorableor reportable,andtherefore theinclusionofsuchdetailswithinreportsaddressesparticular inferentialtasks.Namely,thistwo partstructureemphasizestheparanormalnatureof the eventwhilesimultaneouslyhighlightingthat,atthetime,speakers’circumstancesallowed themtohavea clearviewofthephenomena.
Anotherfeature ofparanormalaccountsisthatofnotnaming thephenomenon. Wooffitt(1992)arguesthat,alongwithdisplayingappropriateandrelevant knowledge, naminganeventatthestartofanaccountmaybetakenasanindication ofthespeaker’s knowledgeofandinterestinthephenomenon.Forparanormal accounts,wherethereis widespread scepticismregardingthe phenomenadescribed,Wooffittarguesthat the speaker“cannotbeseentooreadilytoaccepttheexistence ofthephenomenonthey believetheyhaveencountered”(Wooffitt1992,p.105).Naming thedescribedphenomena asparanormalratherthanbeingasimpleactoflabellingdisplaysanimplicitcommitmentto
theveridicalexistenceofthephenomenadescribed(andonewhich,asLamont[2007]
infers,thespeaker willwanttoavoid).
Thesestudieshighlightanimportant pointregardingspokenaccounts, whichisthat ratherthanrepresenting adirectreflectionofspeakers’memory,versionsofeventsare producedinparticularwaysinordertoachieveparticular functions.Thatis,thereisan action orientationoftalkandthatvarioussocialactions,orinteractionalwork, aredonein discourse(EdwardsPotter1992).Asthere arearangeofaspectsandcharacteristics whichspeakers canconceivablyincludewithinreports,onecanexaminethewaysin whichaccountsareconstructedandwhatinteractionalbusinessisbeingattendedtowhen speakers choosetoincludeparticularfeatureswithinaccounts(Wooffitt1991).
Severalparapsychologistshavebeguntoacknowledge the benefitsofdeveloping linkswithotherdisciplines (WooffittAllistone2005).Indeed,outsideofDP,many scholarshavebegun toutilizequalitative methodologies, in particulartoexamine the phenomenology ofanomalousexperiences(e.g.,Heath2000;Stowell1997a,1997b; WildeMurray2009).However,ashighlightedhere,therearebenefitsassociated with adoptingadiscursive psychologicalapproach.Muchofparapsychologyisbasedupon communicativepractices,withproceduressuchas GanzfieldESPexperiments,whichtest individualsforextra-sensory-perception,reliantuponeveryday languagetocarryouta variety of interactional tasks(Wooffitt 2003).Qualitative case studiesare mediated through verbalinteractionandarereliantuponthespokenaccountsofexperiencers.Thus, itcanbeargued,parapsychologynecessarilyinvolvesthestudyofdiscourse.Indeed,it hasbeensuggestedthatanysuspicionofthebenefitsassociatedwith thestudyofcommunicativepracticeswithinparapsychologyis misplaced andthatDP,withitsformaltechnicalaccountofthewayinwhichcommunicativecompetencies areusedandwithwhat effects, canofferrealbenefitstoparapsychologists(WooffittAllistone2005).
Inthismanner,thepresentstudyfocusesontheverbalaccountsprovidedbyparanormalinvestigators.There isaproliferationofparanormalinvestigativegroups,oftencomprisingmemberswithdisparatebackgrounds whoinvestigatelocations reputed or suspectedtohostparanormalphenomena.Therecent popularityofsuchgroupshasbeen implicatedinrecentproblems associatedwithfinding detailedspontaneouscasereports uponwhichtobasefurtherexperimentalresearch (WinsperParsons 2007).Inaddition torepresentingaconvenient meansbywhich toelicitnarrativesofcollaborativeexperi- ences,theaccountsofthese“layparapsychologists” (Allison1979)andthetechniques used toestablishcredibilityandfactuality isofparticularinterest.
The aim ofthis researchisnot toattempt todetermine thetruthfulnessor validityof theaccounts of interviewees,nor isit toinvestigatetheimpliedparanormalstatus of events.Ratherthanattemptingtodeterminetheauthenticity ofreports,thefocusisupon thesocialorganizationofmemoryandhowspeakers“workup”eventsasparanormal.Itis arguedthattheprocessofremembering isasocialratherthanindividualone;therefore, thefocusisuponhow rememberinggetsdoneintalkandhowspeakers collaboratively create descriptionsofevents.Furthermore,consistentwiththeapproachoutlinedby Wooffitt (1992),examiningtherhetoricalorganizationoftalkisnottosuggestthatparticipantspurposelypresentaccounts inordertodeliberatelydeceive. Ratherthisarticleis concernedwithcommonsense communicative practicesandthewaysinwhichaccounts arejointlynegotiated,constructed,andtheinteractionaleffectsoftheseconstructions. In summary,theaimofthisarticleistohighlighttheinherentproblemsassociated withthe waysinwhichreportsofpersonalexperiencesarecurrentlyunderstoodandutilizedwithin parapsychologyand toexaminehowadiscursivepsychological approachcanoffer an understanding oftheseproblems.
DataCollectionandMethodology
ParticipantsandInterview Procedure
Analysisdrawsuponacorpus ofopen-endedinterviewsconductedwithsixmembersof twodifferentparanormal investigationgroupsintheNorthofEngland.Groupswere locatedviatheirWebpresencesontheInternetandcontactedbye-mail.Priortoarranging interviewswithparticularindividuals,groupmeetings wereattended inordertoidentify memberswhohadsharedexperiences theywerewillingtodiscuss.Thesixparticipants wereinterviewedin pairs.Inaddition fourparticipantswereaskedto speakfreelyabouta particularsharedexperiencewithoutanyinputduringthissession,althoughtheresearcher was presentinthe room.
Themainfocusoftheinterviewschedulewastoelicitcollaborativeexperiencesthat the participantshadshared.However,aseachinterviewproceededwithencouragementto discuss experiencesfreely, rather than viewing the situation as a formal interview, participants providedfullaccountsoftheirexperienceswith littleprompting.
TranscriptionandData Analysis
Eachinterviewwasaudiorecorded,andthetapesweresubsequentlytranscribed. The transcriptionusedisasimplifiedversionoftheJeffersoniannotationsystem(seeAtkinson
Heritage1984), whichconsistsof aseries of symbols designed tohighlightthesequentialfeaturesoftalkandthewayinwhich utterancesaremade(seetheappendixfor detaileddescriptionoftheconventionsused).
AnalysiswasinformedbyDP,drawing uponthemethodologiesofCAandDA.In particular,analysisdraws upontherhetoricalaspectofDPandthenotionthatspeakers mayresistargumentsby constructingcounterargumentswhichrepresentthe inevitable othersidetoeachquestion(Billig1991).Thusanystatementmadebyaspeaker is designedtodealwithapossibleoractualcounterstatement(Billig1996).
Analysis
Incontrasttoviews oflanguageasa directroutetowhat is occurringwithinindividuals’ minds,analysisrevealedthatversionsofeventswerecollaborativelybuiltthroughinteractionwithintheinterviewprocess.Analysis willfirstfocusupontheinteractionalfeatures ofinstances inwhichtheterm“paranormal”isusedbyintervieweesandthemitigation worksurroundingthesereferences.Second,therhetorical organizationofeventdescriptionsandtheattributionalwork donetoimply theparanormalstatusofeventswillbeconsidered.Furthermore,itwillbedemonstrated thatratherthantheresearchinterview servingas amethodforgainingaccessto whatisoccurringwithinindividual’s minds,the productionofaccountsisaninteractiveprocessco-constructedbytheintervieweesand the interviewer.
ProblematicNatureoftheParanormal
Theanalysisinthisfirstsectionwillfocusoninstancesinwhichintervieweesusetheterm paranormal.Asdiscussedearlier, the“notnamingphenomenon”isarobustfeatureof paranormalaccounts, asexplicitlylabellingeventsasparanormal atthebeginningofa reportmaybetakenasanindicationofspeakers’interest(Wooffitt1992).Although
participantswere recruitedonthebasisthatthey hadwitnessedparanormalphenomena, difficultywasdisplayedinusingtheterm.Ineachcase,references arenotovertordirect but aremitigatedinsome way.
Extract 1
01. Ad:↓[ye::]ahso Imeanpar- ee:
02.paranormal(0.2) we ca:n’tsay(.) b’cause we can’t
03.prove itwa:s, but we can’t proveat themo:ment, we
04.can’t proveitwa:snt,(.) neither. (0.2)
This extractoccurs nineteenandahalf minutesintothegroup sessionandcontains the firstexplicit reference totheparanormal.Thediscoursemarker“I mean”marksthisasan expressionofsubjectivity,asifAdis”thinkingaloud”andconsidering possibleoptions, ratherthanmakingafactual statement.Inlines1and2herestarts“paranormal,” display- ingdifficultyinproducingthe nextutterance,orientingtotheproblematic natureofthe useoftheterm.Ratherthanexplicitlylabellingeventsasparanormal,heproducesathree- partstructure inwhichhestatesthatitisnotpossibletodeterminewhethereventswere paranormal, concedesthispoint,andthenoverturnsit(lines1–4),whichhastherhetorical effectofsupportingandbolsteringhisposition(AntakiWetherell1999).Thisthree-part structurehighlightsthatAdisawareofthechallengetotheparanormal statusofevents (“wecan’tsaybecause wecan’tprovethatitwas”)butthatthisissomething whichcan easilyberebutted (“butwecan’tproveatthemoment, wecan’tprovethatitwasn’t”). Thismakestheclaim soundstrongandwelldefended,while attendingtomattersofstake andinterest(EdwardsPotter1992).Theclaimthat“wecantprovethatitwasn’t” isan exampleofstakeinoculation(Potter1996);thatis,Adheadsofftheattributionofpersonal interestashepresentshisclaimsnotasamatterofpersonalopinionbutrather asaresult of thestrength ofthefactsandproofitself.
Extract2istakenfromthesamegroupsessionastheprevious extractandoccursat thevery endof thesession.Thiscontainsthesecondreferencewithintheinterview tothe paranormalandcontainsseveralmitigatingfeaturesthatarecomparabletoextract1.
Extract 2
01. Ad: ↓personallyhaving bee:n there↓.h I thinkthat
02.renownedness: uh certainly holds up to its name.(0.8)
03.fuu:fuh-for< di:ff’rentaspects,↑paranormal↑or
04.not paranormal. (0.4) be: what itmay be,(0.2)
Apreliminaryobservationisthatthestatementregardingthe“renowndness”ofaparticular venuewhich the grouphaveinvestigated ispresentedas apersonalopinionbasedupon experience.As inextract1,Ad’s“personallyhavingbeenthere,Ithink”marksthisasan expressionofsubjectivityandpresentshimasexpressinga personalopinionratherthan makingadefinitiveavowal.Thereferenceto“havingbeenthere”invokesperceptualclar- ityandwarrantsfactuality(EdwardsPotter1993),givingtheaccountanairofcredibil- ity.Atline3herestarts“for,”displayingdifficultyinproducinghisnextutterance,whichis formulatedas“differentaspects.”Inamannerwhichiscomparabletoextract1,ratherthan declaringthesedifferentaspects to be basedupon paranormal activity,he introduces the termparanormalaspartofacontraststructure“paranormalornotparanormal.”Therhetor- icaleffectofthisistoprovideevidenceoflogicalthinking, refutingthenotionofanaïve readinessto believein theparanormal.The invocationof thepossibilitythatexplanations foreventsmaybe“notparanormal”highlightsthatthisisaliveconcernforthegroup.
These sequencesdisplaysomeimportantfeatures.Althoughgroup memberswere recruitedonthebasisthattheyhaveexperiencedparanormal phenomena,participants demonstratedadifficultyinusingthetermparanormal,afindingwhichisinaccordwith previousresearch(Wooffitt 1992).Instancesinwhichtheterm paranormalwasused,this wasintroducedaspartofacontraststructure,demonstrating thattheconsiderationof nonparanormalexplanationsisaliveconcern forgroupmembers.Furthermore,these utterancesareformulated insubjectiveterms,asanexpressionofopinionratherthanan attempttoswayorinfluencelisteners.Presentingaccounts inthiswaydoestheinterac- tionalworkofstakeinoculation(Potter1996)byrefutingnotionsofanaïvewillingnessto believeintheparanormalandaninterestinpersuadingpeopleoftheexistenceofparanormal phenomena.
ConstructionofCollaborationandNonnormativity
Asdemonstratedintheprevioussection, groupmembers displayeddifficultyinlabelling eventsasparanormal.Analysiswillnowfocusuponthewayinwhichparticulareventsare workedupasnonnormativeduringtheirdiscussion, implyingtheparanormalstatusof eventswithoutexplicitlylabellingthemassuch.Inaddition,analysis willalsoexamine howintersubjectivityisapervasivefeatureoftalk(Edwards2004)asintervieweeswork todemonstratethecollective,shared natureof accounts.Inthisway,speakerscanbeseen tobeorientingtothecontextoftheresearchinterviewandinstructionsgiventodiscussa shared experience.
Onemajorargumentthatcanbemadetochallengeclaimstohaveexperiencedparanormalphenomenaisthatthereisanalternative,mundaneexplanationfortheevent. Withinthefollowingextract,inwhichKarenandSheiladescribehearingfootstepsduring aninvestigation,speakersorienttopossiblealternativeexplanationsastheydosomework torefutethis and thusbolsterthefactualstatusoftheiraccount.Furthermore,bothspeakersworktodemonstratetheirintersubjectivityandthecollaborativenatureoftheaccount.
Extract 3
01. Kar:so weradioed down to the manager.h a:nd said isthey
02.anyoneelse in thethea:tre <other thanus:. one
03.half were of uswasinthe uhm (.) [stall:] :s
04. She:st[a::lls]
05. Kar:thee stall:sandthe cir:clesn: all that<. .h n: we
06.was atthe backen:d(.)°uvthe uh-uv thestage.° ser
07.the manager said (.) no:th’sno-one elseinthe
08.thea:tre but yo:u.so tha:t’s that was
09.rea:l[lystr]angeweren’tit=
10. She:[yea::h]
Theinvocationofanalternativeexplanationwhichisthenrefutedoccursinlines1–8.The pluralpersonpronoun“we”makesit unclear which oftheinterviewees radioedandspoke tothemanager,highlightingthatbothspeakers takejointcreditfortheauthorshipofthe account.Here,thepossibility thatthefootstepsmayhavebelongedtoanotherpersonin thebuildingisoriented to anddismissed. In doingso, intervieweesdisplayareluctanceto believetooeasily, countering thenotion ofgullibilitybyhighlighting thatanalternative explanationwasattendedto.Ratherthanformulating thisasanarrativewithinthepast tense,theuseofdirectreportedspeech(lines1and2,7and8)invokes theoriginal situation,heighteningthefactualstatusofeventsbyprovidingevidenceandconfirming
objectivity, whileallowinglistenerstomaketheirownassessmentsandreachtheirown conclusions(Holt1996,2000). However,althoughafunction ofreported speechisto confirmobjectivity,itisnevertheless tiedtoassessment(Buttny1998;Holt2000),and Sheila’sownassessment“sothatwasreallystrange”informsrecipients ofhowthestory shouldbeheard,thatis,asnonnormativeandunusual.Thusinpresentingtheaccount in thismannerrecipientsareinvited toreachtheirownconclusions,whilethenonnormativityoftheaccount isimpliedthroughtheinvocationanddismissalofanalternative explanation.
Afurther notablefeatureoftheextractisthewayinwhichtheaccount iscollaborativelyconstructedasintervieweesworkuptheirintersubjectivity. Atline3,thehesitation marker“uh”indicates troubleinfindingaparticularword.Thisdisplayofuncertainty invites Sheila toparticipateinfindingtheword (Schegloff2000), whichshe doesat line 4 afteronlyaslightdelay, demonstratingthatshehasindependentknowledgeofthesituation.ThisisimmediatelyconfirmedbyKarenwhorepeatsthewordinoverlap(line3)and thensubstantially intheclear(line 5),displayingrecognition andratifyingintersubjectiv- ity.Afurthernotablefeature oftheextract isthatatline10,inoverlapwithKaren’s assessmentoftheeventas“reallystrange,”Sheilaproduces anagreementtoken,“yeah.” Notably,thisoccurs partwaythroughKaren’sturn,overlappingwithherproductionof “really.”Theagreement tokenisbaseduponaprojectionofthelatterpartoftheturn. Providingconfirmationinoverlapinthismannerhighlights theintersubjectivityof the speakers,demonstratingsharedknowledgeandthecollaborativenatureoftheaccount.In addition,thedesignfeatures ofKaren’sturnatline9andtheuseofanegativeinterroga- tive,whichstronglyprojectsagreement (Heritage2002)fromSheila,isafurtherwayof ratifyingintersubjectivity.
Withinthefollowingextractregardingaséance,speakers useafurtherrangeof strategiestoconstructintersubjectivity.There isanorientationtotheimplicationofthe paranormalstatusofeventsasspeakershighlightthenonnormativityoftheaccount.
Extract 4
01. Rob:(0.6)↓theroo::m(0.4) eh after a short
02.whi:u[l](0.5) <the roomchanged=(.)
03. Kar:°[heh]°=°hehhehheh°=
04. Ad:=((incoherentmumbling))=
05. Rob:↑erndthis iswhere IWILLLEAVE YOU TO:: (.)uheha
06.colle:agueof mi::ne ::erm<which was(0.2)thefirst
07.person Iactuallynot::iced wus the::re (.) ((had
08.wa[:y]))(0.6)
09. Kar:[hehheh]
10. Rob:hernat:ure had act:uallychangedwhile ‘a
11.started to::(0.2) um callou:tthuséance. anduhm
12.from uhquitea ↑li::velyandbubb:lylay:dee to
13.some:body: thutwas(0.2) for me:: a stri:ct
14.ste:rn (.) ↑che:echa:a.=
15. She:=hm:mmeh .hhhh(0.4) erm::itwas verystrange.
Speakers workupthecollaborative natureoftheaccountasSheilaisco-optedintothe processoftellingofthestory. Sheila isintroducedastheauthoritativesource forthe unpackingofeventsandisselectedasthenextspeakerwithoutanexplicitreference by name.Rather,sheisintroduced as“acolleagueofmine.”Nevertheless,theprocessof speaker transitionisunproblematicasSheilabeginsherturnwithlatchedtiming (line15),
displayingalignmentandintersubjectivity. Consensusisbuiltintotheaccountatlines3 and9,asKarenproducesself-initiatedoverlappinglaughter(Jefferson1979),providing anassessmentof Rob’s turnand puttinga“stampof approval”on that aspectof the story, demonstrating sharedknowledge(Lerner1992).
Thereference toachangeinSheila’s“nature”atline10formulatesadispositional, routineaspectofSheila’s“personality,” whichchangedinexplicably duringtheséance. Therepetitionof“actually”(lines7and11)marksthisassomethingobjective, which actuallyoccurred,despitethenonnormativityoftheaccount. Buildinguponthenotionof achangeinSheila’snatureRobcontrasts Sheila’susual“livelyandbubbly”disposition withthatofa “strictsternteacher,”anotionthatemphasisestheextremeandthusunusual natureof theeventandwhichisnot resistedbySheila.Indeed,she aligns with Robin her turnatline15asshedisplaysagreement“itwas verystrange,”building upontheinexpli- cability oftheevent.
Insummary,withinthisextractSheila’snatureiscollaboratively negotiatedand discursivelydeployed tohighlightthe atypicalnatureofevents.Alignmentandintersub- jectivityisdisplayedthroughtheorganisationofturntaking,whichproceeds unproblem- atically withouttheneedto introduceco-speakersbyname.
Discussion
Ratherthanremembering eventsinwaysthatreflectbestattemptsataccuraterecall, speakersproducedaccountsinwaysthatattendedtoparticularinteractional business. Groupmembersworkedtorefutenegativeimplicationsassociatedwithmembershipof thecategoryparanormalinvestigator,suchasgullibilityandirrationality.Explicitusesof theterm paranormaldisplayed interactionaltrouble,afindingwhichbuilds upon previous work conductedbyWooffitt(1992).Turnswhichfeaturedthetermparanormalweremiti- gatedandwerepresented aspersonalopinionsratherthandefinitive,factualstatements. Furthermore,thetermwasintroducedaspartofacontraststructure,providingevidenceof logicalthinkingandrefuting thenotionof naïvegullibility.Althoughitisbeyondthe scopeofthisarticle,thesefeatureswhichcontain thetermparanormal deservefurther study.
Afurtherfindingwasthateventsweredescribedinwayswhichimplytheirparanormalstatuswithoutexplicitlabellingassuch.Thiswasachievedthroughtheinvocation and dismissal ofalternativeexplanations,which allowsspeakers todisplayareluctanceto believetooeasily.Onewayofmanaging factualityistoexternalizeaccounts andplace events“intheworld”(EdwardsPotter 1993).Byorganizingaccountsinwayswhich counterplausiblealternative explanations, theparanormal statusofeventsisimplied, however,byavoidinglabellingexperiencesassuch,listenersareinvitedto“makeuptheir ownminds”andreachtheirownconclusions. Theconsequenceofthisistodemonstrate thatparanormalattributionsarejustifiedbythefacts“outthere” ratherthanbeingbased uponthesubjectivitiesofspeakers.
Crucially,throughanexaminationofdisplaysofintersubjectivity andtheconstruc- tionof thecollaborativenatureofaccounts,itwasdemonstratedthatparticipantsorientto thecontextoftheresearchprojectandpresentaccountsinparticularwaysdepending on instructionsgiven.Thesefindingsarenoteworthybecausetheydemonstrate thecritical influenceoftheinterviewsetupuponthetalkproduced, amatterthathasbeenlargely ignored withinparapsychology.
Ithas beensuggestedthat objective,prooforientatedresearchwithinparapsychology shouldbeabandonedinfavouroftheincreasedstudyofspontaneouscases(Braud,as
citedinStokes1997)andthatexaminationoftheprocessesandphenomenologyofexperiencesandrelated variablesmaydeepen understandingofoccurrences (Alvarado1996b). However,byhighlightingthecommunicativepractices involvedintheproduction of accounts,thecurrentworkmakesproblematic thenotionofelicitingobjectiveaccounts withininterviewsituations,whichcanthenbeexplainedwithreferencetounderlyingcog- nition.“Truth,”ratherthansomethingwhich can bedetermined objectively,issomething orientedtoduringtheproductionofaccounts(Edwards &Potter1992).Thecommon sensecommunicativepracticesofpresentingversionsofeventsinparticularways aretied tocontext,andtogethertheyhavea critical influenceuponthetalk produced.
Thepresentresearchcallsfortheadoptionofqualitativemethodologytocomplement thecurrentemphasisuponquantificationwithinthefieldofparapsychology(Alvarado
1996a).However,thecurrentworkhighlightstheproblemsassociated withassumptions oflanguageas adirectroutetowhatisoccurringwithinspeakersmindsas the production ofaccountsisacollaborative,ratherthanindividual,process.Notonlyisthisrelevantfor workthatfocusesontheaccounts ofmultiplepeople, assinglespeakeraccounts“col- lected”throughinterviewsareacollaborativeconstruction betweentheparticipantand researcher,andmaybeseenantheoutcome oftheactivityof“doinginterviews.”Ithas beenshownthattheinteractionbetweentheinterviewer andinterviewee,suchasthe instructionsgiventoparticipantspriortotheactualinterview,hasacrucialinfluenceupon thetalkproduced.
Incontrasttoapproacheswhichattempttodeterminethe‘truth’ ofclaims,DPoffers analysisofthewaysinwhichparapsychological workismanagedthroughinteraction (Wooffitt2005).Itcanbearguedthatattemptingtoexplain experienceswithreferenceto underlyingvariables, withtheaimofdevelopingtheoreticalmodelsinordertomake predictions(Alvarado 1996a),reproducesthepositivistepistemologyassociatedwith parapsychology.Consideration ofthewaysinwhichaccountsareproducedislikelyto revealmoreabouttheinfluenceuponthecontentsofexperiences thanthesuggested approachofanexaminationofrelatedpsychologicalvariables(e.g.,Alvarado1996a).As hasbeenhighlightedbypreviousattemptstorefutetheexistenceofparanormalprocesses, byexplicatingthefactors whicherroneouslyleadpeopletobelievetheyhavewitnessed phenomena(e.g., AarnioLindeman2005;Goode2002;MuschEhrenberg2002), theremaybebiasesassociatedwithsuchapproaches,anditcanbearguedthatabandoning questionsconcerning the“truth”ofclaimsmayrepresentastep forwardforthediscipline. AsDP adoptsamethodological relativismwithrespecttothe topic oftalk (WooffittAllistone2005),theapproach mayrepresenta fruitfulway forwardforparapsychology.
References
Aarnio, K., & Lindeman, L. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, education and thinking styles.Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1227-1236.
Allison, P.D. (1979). Experimental parapsychology as a rejected science. In R. Wallis (Ed.), On the margins of science: The social construction of rejected knowledge (pp. 271-291).Staffordshire: J.H. Brookes Limited.
Allcock, J. (1981). Parapsychology: Science or magic? New York: Permagon.
Alvarado, C. S. (1996a). Exploring the features of spontaneous psychic experiences. European Journal of Parapsychology, 12, 61-74.
Alvarado, C. S. (1996b). Proof and process approaches to the study of spontaneous phenomena.Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 61, 221-234.
Alvarado, C. S. (2002). Guest editorial: Thoughts on the study of spontaneous cases- Editorial. The Journal of Parapsychology, 66, 115.
Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., Potter, J., 2003, Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings, Discourse Analysis Online, 1. Retrieved June, 16, from
Antaki, C., & Wetherell, M. (1999). Show concessions. Discourse Studies, 1, 7-27.
Atkinson, J.M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Avery, C., & Antaki, C. (1997). Conversational devices in stories turning appearance versus reality.Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 17, 1-24.
Buttny, R. (1998). Putting prior speech into context: Reported speech and the reporting context. Research on language and social interaction, 31, 45-58.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition.London: Sage.
Edwards, D. (2004). Shared knowledge as a performative category in conversation. RivistaPscicololinguistaApplicata, 4, 41-53.
Edwards, D. (2005). Discursive Psychology. In Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 257-273). London: Routledge.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 23-41.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2005). Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In H. te Molder, H. & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 241-259).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D., Potter, J.,& Middleton, D. (1992). Towards a discursive psychology of remembering.The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 5, 441-446.
Goode, E. (2002).Education, scientific knowledge and belief in the paranormal.Skeptical Inquirer,26.1, 24-28.
Heath, P. R. (2000). The PK zone: A phenomenological study. Journal of Parapsychology, 64, 53-72.
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The uses of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 219-245.
Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to direct reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 425-454.
Hufford, D.J. (2001). An experience centred approach to hauntings. In J. Houran, & R. Lange, (Eds.), Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisiplinary perspectives (pp. 18-40). Jefferson: McFarland.
Irwin, H.J. (1994). The phenomenology of parapsychological experiences. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research 7 (pp. 10-76). Jefferson: McFarland.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination in everyday language. In, G. Psathas (Ed.), Studies in Ethnomethodolog,y (pp.79–96). New York: Irvington Publishers Inc.
Jones, C. M. (2003). Utterance restarts in telephone conversation: Marking topic initiation and reluctance. In P.J. Glenn, C.D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 137-150). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Lamont, P. (2007). Paranormal belief and the avowal of prior scepticism.Theory and Psychology, 17, 681-696.
Lerner, G. (1992). Assisted story telling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 247-271.
Maher, C. (2000). Quantitative investigation of the General Wayne Inn.The Journal of Parapsychology, 64, 365-390.
Maher, C., & Hansen, G. (1995). Quantitative investigation of a ‘haunted castle’ in New Jersey.The American Journal for Psychical Research, 89, 19-50.
Middleton, D., & Edwards, D. (1990). Introduction. In D. Middleton, & D. Edwards, (Eds.), Collective remembering (pp. 1-22). London: Sage.
Musch, K., & Ehrenberg, J. (2002). Probability misjudgement, cognitive ability and belief in the paranormal.British Journal of Psychology, 93, 169-177.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 200-221). London: Sage.
Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 281-307.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1994). Analyzing discourse. In A. Bryman & R.G. Burgess (Eds.).Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 47-66). London: Routledge.
Radford, B. (n.d.). Reality check: Ghost hunter and ghost ‘detectors’. Retrieved July 11th, 2008, from Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Web site:
Rao, K. R. (1986). Louisa E. Rhine: 1891-1983. In K. R. Rao (Ed.), Case studies in parapsychology: In honor of Dr. Louisa E. Rhine (pp. 1-4) .Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Schegloff, E. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1-63.
Schouten, S. A. (1979). Analysis of spontaneous cases as reported in Phantasms of the Living.European Journal of Parapsychology, 2, 408-455.
Schouten, S. A. (1981). Analyzing spontaneous cases: A replication based on the Sannwaldcollection. European Journal of Parapsychology, 4, 9-48.
Stokes, D.M. (1997). Research in parapsychology from 1992: Abstracts and papers from the thirty-fifth annual convention of the Parapsychological Association. The Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 75.
Stowell, M.S. (1997a). Precognitive dreams: A phenomenological study, Part I: Methodology and sample cases. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 91, 163-220.
Stowell, M.S. (1997b). Precognitive dreams: A phenomenological study, Part II: Discussion. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 91, 163-220.
Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology.Statistical Science, 6, 363-378.
Wilde, D.J., Murray, C.D. (2009). The evolving self: finding meaning in near-death experiences using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 12, 223-239.
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Winsper, A.R., & Parsons, S.T. (2007, August). A survey of spontaneous apparitional experiences.Paper presented at International Conference of the Society for Psychical Research, Cardiff.
Wooffitt, R. (1991). ‘I was just doing X…..when Y’: Some inferential properties of a device in accounts of paranormal experiences. Text, 11, 267-288.
Wooffitt, R. (1992). Telling tales of the unexpected: The organization of factual discourse. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wooffitt, R. (2003). Conversation analysis and parapsychology: Experimenter-subject interaction in Ganzfield experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 67, 299-323.