Interpreting the Anomalous: Finding Meaning in Out-of-Body and Near-Death Experiences

Abstract

Much contemporary research on anomalous experiences has been focused on issues of confirming the authenticity of the phenomena, or to determine the underlying processes by which these phenomena may manifest themselves. This research has largely been nomothetic in nature relying mainly on laboratory experiments and/or questionnaire surveys. Traditionally, however, there has existed a third strand of exploration in this field of study–phenomenological research—which in recent times has been somewhat overlooked in this field of work. In an attempt to redress this shortcoming, the authors propose the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to research anomalous experience. IPA possesses strong theoretical and philosophical underpinnings and a focus on describing and interpreting the process, intricacy and novelty of personal experience. The authors argue that IPA appears ideally suited as a method of qualitative investigation to address important fundamental research questions posed by the study of anomalous experiences.

Keywords:

• anomalous experiences
• Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
• near-death experiences
• out-of-body experiences
• qualitative methodology

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Bial Foundation, a Parapsychological Association Research Endowment, and, in part, by a Faculty Scholarship Fund granted by the Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences at the University of Manchester. We would also like to express our gratitude to all. We would also like to thank the three reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Notes

¹It is beyond the scope of this article to consider this debate in any detail, but the interested reader may wish to consult Irwin and Watt (2007a) and Henry (2005) as useful starting guides to this discussion.

² Braud (2004) has criticized the use of the term “anomalous” as it may imply that a given experience may not be normal or natural, perhaps even automatically suggesting a pathology, that is, abnormal. The authors would like to stress that our conception of “anomalous” is simply as a term referring to experiences that are infrequent and unusual, without any predilection to pathologizing the experient. In our understanding, experients often report how normal their experiences feel to them and emphasize their positive, life-affirming aspects (Wilde & Murray 2009a).

³Synchronicity: “A coincidence that is acausal, wherein certain events do not seem to be connected by normal causal means, and that is also particularly meaningful to the experiencer” (Hanson & Klimo 1998, p. 281).

⁴Channeling: A phenomenon in which “a person purports to transmit information or messages directly from a personality or consciousness other than his or her own, usually through automatic writing or trance speaking; this other personality usually claims to be a nonphysical spirit or being” (Hastings 1990, p. 99).

⁵A small sample size in a study will usually raise questions about the generalizability of the findings to wider populations. While IPA is not opposed to more general claims for larger populations, it is “committed to the painstaking analysis of cases rather than jumping to generalizations” (Smith & Osborn 2008, p. 54). Although generalizable claims regarding a sample in a single IPA study are not made, as more studies with other samples are carried out with similar findings, more general claims become possible. Smith and Osborn (2008) refer to this as “theoretical generalizability” rather than “empirical generalizability.” While we do not make any claims that the experiences described herein are universal to all OB/NDEs or OB/NDErs, we have explicated the meanings of the OB/NDE which emerged for our participants.

⁶Further themes extracted from the analysis of the data so far are currently in various stages of publication. Two papers have been published: one discussing the findings of the NDE group (Wilde & Murray 2009a), and a second reporting the findings of the meditative group (Wilde & Murray 2009b). A third paper, focusing on the spontaneous group findings, Wilde & Murray, “The experience and management of anomalous experience: An Examination of the Out-of-Body Experience Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis,” is currently undergoing revision.

⁷The brief discussion about embodiment herein naturally raises questions about the veridicality of OBEs. This is a hotly debated topic in psychology and parapsychology and one which currently resists explanation. What we are more interested in here is the interrelated role the body and the sense of being-in-the-world plays in our participants OBEs. The accounts of OBEs often contain reported content of altered perceptions that cannot be readily explained by the everyday functioning of a person's usual six senses–at least as is understood by classical philosophy. OBErs appear to have different perceptions regarding their body boundaries, which require further exploration and explanation. Studies in other fields investigating embodiment issues in people with disrupted body boundaries, for example, people with disabilities (see Murray & Sixsmith 1999), have shown that, for some at people at least, the body boundary does not “stop” at the skin surface, but is in fact much more acquiescent. Furthermore, as Langer (1989) notes, research has shown how the experience of a phantom limb is inextricably linked with the personal history of the experient, such that the limb can “appear” when the experient reminisces about the time when the limb was lost, thus completing the intentional arc between the body-subject and the world.