Being Unbiased in a Paranormal Investigation

In an investigation, there is always a certain amount of research needed; you need to find out whether the location is haunted or not. However, it is important to stay unbiased in the investigation. For example, if there is an alleged haunting that causes laughing or noises then you would always be listening for that noise or as another example, if you consider yourself to be ‘sensitive’ to the spirit world, and you have picked up on a spirit in the same location as a recorded haunting, it is very easy for ones mind to play tricks and therefore you could convince yourself that the spirit you are sensing, is the same spirit you have read about however, it could be someone completely different.

So, back to my original point, it is important to stay unbiased. A possibility for this, is having a specific person who researchers investigation locations and then doesn’t pass on the information found to other people. As a paranormal investigator, I never research the history of locations until after I have been there. This way, anything I pick up on or experience is more likely to be due to paranormal activity, and not due to my expectations.

The argument of whether to research or not becomes one of a circular nature. By researching, people can accuse that the information you are giving is simply that which has been read previously therefore the evidence becomes questionable. By not researching, it is nearly impossible to validate what is found. It could even be impossible to investigate full stop, as you would not know what buildings or what specific areas where considered to be haunted and had reported activity. Therefore, some amount of information is needed before the investigation.

However, I have always wondered would it be possible to find activity without knowing anything about a building, even without knowing whether the building had reported activity or not. No research, no interviews, just an investigation. Interviews and reading could be carried out later and information could then be validated afterwards. I have yet to try this method.

When thinking about this it is very difficult to reach an answer and a conclusion. Even if one person is in charge of research, there is still a chance that participants in the investigation could have found out what the ‘researcher’ found, as the information must be readily available. So, the only way around this is to investigate somewhere where the information is not readily available. In this case, nothing can be validated except through interviews which are always questionable in people’s eyes as it is possible to get researcher bias through leading questions or even through the presence of the researcher causing people to lie. Therefore, are the findings credible?