Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400100009-4 this tends to be the language used when one is trying to reach a broad European audience. Hence, the European Journal of Parapsychology (EJP) is published in English, as are a few other parapsychologically~oriented European journals and bulletins (e.g., the Sychronicity Research Unit Bulletin, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research and Theoretical Parapsychology). But, many Europeans, even those who are multi-lingual, do not have a truly fluent command of English. This can make direct cammunication between individual researchers very difficult, as one may lack the necessary vocabulary with which to express one’s ideas and/or comprehend those of others. These difficulties can defeat attempts at communication and make any form of collaboration exceedingly difficult. Another problem which hinders communication and collaboration among researchers involves the geographic isolation of researchers fram each other and from centers of research. The lone researcher often lacks the facilities, technical knowledge, and equipment necessary to conduct research which would be considered competent by current, justifiably demanding, standards. And, as shall he discussed, research centers which could supply these are an increasingly rare commodity in Europe, as elsewhere. Also the psychological effects of being isolated from one’s colleagues can be very demoralizing. One needs colleagues who understand the camplexities of our field, with whan one can explore new ideas, etc. Communicating with distant colleagues, even when no language barrier is present, can still bea difficult undertaking. While modern technology has provided us with some excellent communication aids, many individual researchers do not have access to a fax machine ér computerized electronic mail, and the telephone can be prohibitively expensive. The postal services can provide an affordable alternative, but it is nonetheless a very time-consuming and frustrating means of exchanging information, as it entails long delays between each communication. The lack of reseach centers in Europe is another major obstacle to communication and collaboration between European researchers. With the recent demise of the Parapsychology Laboratory at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, the only remaining parapsychological research center, headed and staffed by full-time personnel who are PA members/associates, which has the facilities and equipment necessary to carry out a wide variety of research is the Koestler Chair of Parapsychology, located at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Unfortunately Scotland, whilst a very favorable location in many respects, is not centrally located with respect to continental Europe. And regretably, the Koestler Chair does not currently have the resources necessary to sponsor research in other countries nor to have guest researchers come and work at Edinburgh. This lack of reseach centers also results in employment opportunities within the field of parapsychology in Europe being virtually non-existent. There are several other research groups in Europe. These groups generally lack the resources associated with a fully functioning research laboratory, and are most commonly “staffed” by dedicated part~time researchers, who must look to other full-time occupations to support themselves and their families. Given the limited resources of these groups, they tend, quite sensibly, to concentrate upon fairly specific 65 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400100009-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R00040010 lines of research. This can sometimes have the result of further isolating other researchers/research 9TOUPS; who although living in relative proximity to the research group, have differing research interests and/or perspectives. Nonetheless, despite the many obstacles which confront such groups, they continue to play a very important role in European research, The lack of funding is undoubtably the greatest problem facing European parapsychology, a problem shared by the field in general. This problem underlies all the others mentioned thus far, and is the main contributor to the difficulty of solving them. we lack the funds to hire translators which could help resolve the problems raised by differing languages. And while many European researchers are multi-lingual, being (relatively) fluent ina language(s) does hot necessarily involve having the skil] required to accurately translate carefully worded technical papers, Furthermore, most multi~lingual researchers are unable to support themselves via Parapsychology (due to lack of funding), and must turn to other occupations for their livelihood, Thus, even those that do have the ability usually do not have the time to act as translators, either for their own work, or that of others. The lack of funding also means that most individual researchers and research groups lack the resources necessary to conduct many types of work and are unable to cammunicate with others as readily as is desirable. Indeed, most Furopean researchers find it impossible even to attend conferences which are not “located in their vicinity. The lack of research laboratories in Europe is a direct consequence of the lack of funding, which subsequently leads to the Europe. Furthermore, lest we become myopic, it must be remembered that in Europe generally, there has been a marked reduction in funding for academic and research purposes for all fields in recent years. This reduction, whilst affecting all fields, will be especially felt in areas such as Parapsychology which, at the best of times, has never enjoyed more than a subsistence level of funding. Opportunity for greater communication and collaboration between researchers. This idea was put forth by Martin Johnson, who proposed creating a European branch of the PA, in 1976 (Johnson, 1976), Johnson (1978) raised the issue again in 1978, and in 1979 he announced the formation of a Furopean regional branch of the Parapsychological Association (ERPA) (Johnson, 1979), One objective of this group was to arrange regional colloquia for PA members/associates, active in research, where they could exchange ideas and receive constructive criticism of Proposed research projects. The other primary objective was “to stimulate and guide students and persons interested in Carrying out same piece of research but living in areas which are less integrated in the main stream of Parapsychological research’ (Johnson, 1979, p.2), According to John Beloff, who was elected to the working-committee, the ERPA met a few times at other conferences (pa conventions and SPR conferences), but never held a meeting independent ly of another organization. Apparently, even these rather informal meetings ceased in the early 1980’s (Beloff£, 1990). R 00100009-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0004
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400100009-4 The idea of having a_ specific meeting for European parapsychologists was revived in the late 1980‘s. Again, it was thought that a conference for European PA members and researchers would help address same of the communication/collaboration problems discussed above. The necessity for a European parapsychology conference, in addition to the annual PA convention, stemmed from many European parapsychologists being unable to afford either the time or the money to travel to the PA conferences when they are held outside of Europe, as is usually the case. Thus, it was decided to hold a three day conference for European PA members and associates who were actively pursuing parapsychological research. This conference was brought about by the canbined efforts of Jeff Jacobs and Hans Michels of the Synchroncity Research Unit (SRU), Dick Bierman of Amsterdam, and Robert Morris from the Fdinburgh research unit. The first meeting of European members/associates of the Parapsychology Association (Euro-PA) was held during October 1988, in Holland. The format for the first conference was that each participant was required to make a brief presentation lasting no longer than fifteen minutes, which would be followed by a lengthy discussion period of approximately 30 minutes. With the format being aimed at encouraging open discussion, attendance was to be limited to 25 participants, and in fact, only 23 attended. Given the funding situation in Europe, conference costs were kept to aminimm. Holland was chosen as a venue as it occupies a relatively central European location, thus being readily, and relatively inexpensively, accessible to many Europeans. There were no registration fees, anda very pleasant yet inexpensive venue was found for the conference. Costs were further reduced by having participants make their own bed, assist with serving food and clearing tables, and performing our own bar catering. These measures resulted in an eminently affordable conference, a necessary and much appreciated feature. A wide variety of primarily theoretical and methodological topics were discussed the first two days of the conference, and the half-day session of the third day was devoted to a roundtable discussion about inter-laboratory research (for further details of the conference see Blackmore, 1989). The primary outcame of this first conference was that communication between researchers was greatly improved. The lengthy discussions which followed each presentation, and continued during the breaks, over meals, and at the bar into the not-so-wee hours of the morning, resulted in all of us having a much better knowledge and understanding of each other, our ideas and perspectives, and our individual problems in pursuing parapsychological research. In short, it was a great success and it was unanimously decided to hold a second conference. Further, it is thought that most participants would agree they left the conference with renewed enthusiasm and increased impetus to continue pursuing their parapsychological work, despite the many difficulties this entailed. Before holding the second Euro-PA conference the Edinburgh research unit circulated a questionnaire to all European members and associates of the PA, eliciting their opinions ona variety of issues concerning the 67 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400100009-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-0079 organization of the Euro~PA and other topics relevant to European Parapsychological research, Of 58 questionnaires distributed, 28 were returned. Those who returned questionnaires tended to be those most actively engaged in conducting Parapsychological research. The answers received to the questionnaire were to be adopted as policy in those cases where a clear Majority opinion had been expressed, and in other cases, these issues would be discussed and decisions made at a business meeting which was held at the end of the next Euro~PA conference (which occurred in November 1989). It shoulg perhaps be mentioned, that at the second annual Furo-PA meeting there was no restriction on the number of people attending the conference, excepting that one had to be a member or associate of the Pa, The main points raised by this questionnaire which the main goals of the Euro-PA and its administration/coordination (See Appendix 1 for a copy of the questionnaire and a summary of the responses received). importance. A key question regarded whether European parapsychologists should establish a formal Organization. A related question involved whether to organize by country. Given the many different countries represented by the Euro-PA members and the different, sanetimes divergent, research interests contained in each country, was it best to have a committee established in each country, elected by the PA members and associates of that country, to coordinate communication within that country, or would it be preferable to have a central organizational committee? The responses to the ahove questions were clear cut. Approximately 65 per cent of the responses favored having one central committee whose membership would rotate annually, and only one respondent wished to see committees organized by country. Furthermore, the majority Opinion was against establishing a formal organization, the primary Teason for this appearing to be the lack of resources to support such an Other questions were asked regarding whether there should be an annual conference. Twenty-five (89 per cent) of the respondents favored having an annual conference, Other decisions regarding the conference were: the short paper, long discussion format would be retained; the conference i would be open to all PA members, associates, affiliates and a limited number of invited guests; each conference would focus on a wide variety of issues as opposed to one Specific topic; conference Presentations would be refereed, the location of the conferences should vary throughout Burope; and a major priority was that conference costs should be kept as low as possible, , - eR nt Other questions posed regarded fund-raising, public relations, inter-lab research, and publications. with regard to fund-raising, ten (36 per cent) of the respondents were in favor of conducting fund-raising brojects, but only one was Willing to help with the organization and administration of such projects. Tt was ultimately decided that fund-raising activites were outside the scope of an informal organization with an annually rotating committee, However, it was stated at the ia 00009-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0004001