As opposed to being met with, "Yes! Peer review and a statement of ethics and whatnot to let people know we’re honest and honourable!" we were met with "You’re trying to control us!", "You’re trying to tell us what to do!", and of course, "You’re trying to keep us down so you can be (fill in the blank here)!"

The other groups that have tried or thought about this met with resistance from us… because they would refuse to acknowledge the right to have any opinion other than "I BELIEVE!", or they seemed more interested in putting their logo or link on other people’s sites than actually whacking out a list of appropriate ‘legislation’ as to why the overall group is better/different, or worse yet, they were more interested in collecting some sort of dues or gaining personal media exposure then any sort of organising. (TAPS started this way, to be 100% truthful… which is one of the many reasons I am not and will not be a "fan"… I should tell you sometime of the bullying tactics attempted when they wanted Torontoghosts to be a "TAPS Family Member" and, pre-TV show, I said no because Toronto is not on the Atlantic (the "A" in TAPS is for Atlantic) and at the time, their site featured things like "Names for Common Demons" and "How To Tell if Your Orb is a Benign Ghost or Evil"… it was not good.)

The issues also stem from things like saying "non-profit" or "not-for-profit"… does this include being paid for media appearances? What about tours that might be run? How about "swag" from t-shirts to books?

Would you accept someone who was MOSTLY about media, tours, and swag?

If not, what kind of ratio would you expect?

Who would govern the group? Who would "police" it to ensure there’s no abuse? Who would appoint these people and would others be comfortable about that?

To be honest, especially in Canada when PSICAN was formed, there was a plethora of less-than-honourable or less-then-academic or only-thrill-seeking or only-media-whoring or only-out-for-the-almighty-dollar types of groups, PSICAN was meant to be an outlet for those escaping that and looking for honest academic study into things  considered/perceived to be "paranormal" in nature… limited to ghosts, ufology, cryptozoology, psychical abilities, and Fortean events… with no slant towards belief/faith, or non-belief… with never a "charge" to a witness or interested party for the data we collect or produce… and one of the first things we did was this…

http://www.facebook.com/l/9fe41hlmEhwyRkal7z2ddHXuXkA/www.psican.org/PSICAN_Gen-Inf_Codes.pdf

Now, NOT wanting to "control" anyone nor "tell anyone what to do" nor act as some sort of self-appointed executive to everyone (which is what some folks thought we WERE doing,) we’ve done this…

I am a member of the Society for Psychical Research… as I believe you are… but regardless, anyone CAN be…

Well, anyone CAN be an investigator or researcher for PSICAN… provided they agree to the document linked above and a little extra work… BUT… there’s no dues, "we" don’t expect anything from you save two initial articles and staying within the guidelines of it in your work (which DOES allow for "some profit" in this work if that’s a concern,)… and the clever bit… the bit that will help in the long run, we hope… You can be a PSICAN investigator or researcher and be a member or even form your own group that does not have to be a PSICAN group in any way, shape, or form…

We figure, it’s better to have individuals that will hopefully avoid fraudulent or "hoaxing" behaviour, work from the agnostic viewpoint, keep people around them honest (that’s really all it comes down to with us,) and generally add to the conversation, discussion, and general data about the paranormal… rather than trying to convince a wide-ranging and far too diverse collection of groups to even attempt to operate out of the same playbook.

So far, we’ve been more successful then we could imagine with this in this country… BUT… it’s taken over a decade to SHOW people we’re honestly FAR more interested in the phenomena, the study, and the witnesses then any sort-of quasi-fame or some sort of "power play" with other groups or investigators.

What’s a touch sad for us is the realisation that what we THOUGHT was a "localised" (North American) dilemma of would-be thrill, fame, and fortune seekers is not… I now see it’s really as bad (if not worse,) in Britain… and has seeped into areas and groups that I hoped would be above it… (I don’t want to mention anyone by name, but I recently ran into a problem in an austere setting that was quite… well… not good… and when I researched my opponent -who publicly accused me, falsely, of academic misconduct and then tried to back peddle when the evidence was brought to bear WITHOUT a public apology- and a little research into his background and work made me very unhappy I’d even bothered with this person whatsoever because they are little more than slightly better-educated fame seekers….)

Anyway, if you’ve toyed with the idea, this model has worked for us…

#1: Write down those things you would like to see a "professional body" adopt…

#2: Start a group, keep it diplomatic and democratic, but initially, it HAS to be a "benign dictatorship"… with the knowledge that those "rules" and ideas will always be adhered to until the group CAN be safely released into a complete democracy…

#3: Invite anyone to join, but make them WORK for it and prove themselves publicly. (We make ’em write two full articles which are peer-reviewed.)

…but you also have to offer something of an incentive to join…

With us, it was being a part of a group that’s been effectively "online" since 1997 (and traceable… because I’ve often said people can CLAIM being a part of the study since 1974 – even though they’re thirty-two years old themselves, but you need to show your work!) and a website already brimming with information…. so a head-start, so to speak.