Psychic
Events Workshop Fails APA Curriculum Requirement
Yancy
B. McDougal
Yancy
B. McDougal is a professor and the chair of the Department of Psychology, University
of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, South Carolina.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A
continuing-education workshop titled “Coming to Our Senses: Psychic Events
in the Lives of Clinicians and Clients” was touted in North Carolina this
year by Beth Wechsler, MSW. According to the brochure, the topics to be covered
included an account of the nature of ESP (with perspectives from parapsychology
and quantum physics, as well as material from Einstein, Edison, and Jung), ESP
and medicine, psychics and mediums (and how to detect fakes!), telepathy, precognition,
and apparitions. Personal experiences of individuals such as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross
and Jane Goodall also would be presented.
The
workshop’s sponsor was PESI, LLC, which, according to its Web site, provides
“quality continuing education to nursing, mental health, legal, business,
education, real estate, and other professionals nationwide.” Contacted about
the content of the workshop, Cindy King, of PESI customer service, stated that
PESI, LLC, makes no claims about the scientific basis of the research provided
in the psychic events workshop. She indicated that PESI, LLC, provides a number
of other workshops that are scientifically based but that many customers enjoy
other types of workshops.
It’s
disconcerting that a psychic events workshop that the sponsor indicates is not
necessarily scientifically based is offered simply because it is enjoyed by customers.
The fact that continuing education credit for this workshop would be granted to
psychologists, counselors, nurses, social workers, and marriage and family therapists
is appalling. An e-mail addressing the content of the workshop was sent to the
associations and boards that had designated PESI as an approved provider. Karen
Kanefield, the director of the Continuing Education Sponsor Approval System of
the American Psychological Association, responded immediately. She said that the
content of the psychic-events workshop does not meet the curriculum-content requirements
of the APA and that PESI would be informed that the workshop “is not suitable
as continuing education for psychologists.”
An
answer from Anne Garfield, Recertification and Continuing Education Assistant
for the National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC), was not so direct. Garland
indicated that she would followup with PESI to get further information. Garland
and Pamela Leary, NBCC Credentialing Services Department administrator, reviewed
the presentation materials and concluded that although the topic of psychic events
is “uncomfortable” for many people and not “completely in the mainstream”
the information to be presented came from “noteworthy sources” including
Einstein, Edison, Freud, Jung, Margaret Mead, and Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Garland
said the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the American Journal
of Psychiatry are referenced throughout the presentation and that much of the
presentation is based on work from the Rhine Research Center at Duke University.
In
a follow-up e-mail to Garland, it was pointed out that the fact that Jane Goodall
and other “noted and respected” individuals believe that they have experienced
psychic events does not make such events scientifically valid. Furthermore, the
Rhine Research Center is no longer affiliated with Duke University, and the most
recent research conducted at the Rhine Center—in the words of the parapsychological
researchers themselves—reveals weak effects, no effects, or “controversial”
results. Furthermore, Garland was informed that a search of JAMA and the American
Journal of Psychiatry for information on psychic phenomena revealed eleven articles
published between 1972 and 1985. Of the eleven articles, seven report on actual
studies of psychic phenomena.
Without
exception, the research involved retrospective, anecdotal accounts of events—weak
methodology with virtually no controls. Garland responded immediately and said
that they would reexamine the presentation “in greater detail” based
on the additional information that had been provided. However, a follow-up e-mail
to Garland regarding the results of the reexamination went unanswered. To have
such a workshop considered for presentation is cause for alarm. But the fact that
the APA deemed the workshop inappropriate for continuing-education credit and
that the NBCC agreed to reexamine the workshop are promising and positive steps.
Perhaps we have taken a step toward indeed “coming to our senses.”
