Please feel free to print out or "Save as... Text" this
article to your hard drive.
(Microsoft Explorer browsers may lose spacing between paragraphs.)
To the Editor of the IANDS Journal of Near-Death Studies:
When I wrote my review of Children of the New Millennium (Atwater, 1999), which appeared in the summer issue of this journal (Widdison, 2001), my intent was to examine the methodology used to collect the materials cited in the book. P.M.H.Atwater had claimed (1999, p. 8) that this methodology raised her book from a collection of anecdotal cases to one of empirical substance. In my review, I pointed out not only that she misused statistical analysis but that her methodology was inadequate and faulty. But somehow Atwater projected my critique of the methodology used in this book to all her other books and research. This I did not do -- and I clearly stated so in the first paragraph of my review. My review was not intended to invalidate the conclusions she drew, but to assess the methodology she used. If the methodology were sound, then the next step would be to evaluate her conclusions. If it were inadequate or faulty, then the data she used would not support any conclusions made. Her response seems less directed toward my review than to a review of her ideology and beliefs concerning children and the impact on them of a near-death experience.
Atwater claims to be one of the first researchers of the near-death experience (NDE). But it is not exactly clear what she means by researcher. She seems to think the model of scientific research is tied to a specific research strategy, specifically that of utilizing a control group to compare with an experimental group. I agree that this type of research does not lend itself well to certain research areas, including NDEs. However, there are two major categories of research: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative research is usually associated with the collection of cases in which information about the respondents is collected, counted, classified, and analyzed. Tools used to collect this type of data include, but are not limited to, controlled experiments, questionnaires, and interview schedules. Qualitative research is designed to identify and understand various activities as viewed by those that are or have engaged in them. Most research done on NDEs, including that of Atwater, has utilized qualitative research. Which technique is the most efficient and effective depends on what the researcher is trying to accomplish. In order to advance understanding of a specific phenomena, researchers need to specify what they did and why. In this way, subsequent researchers can build on what has already been done. This makes it possible for other researchers to identify inadequacies or mistakes, make corrections, and add to the growing body of information. It also helps readers to understand the basis for statements made and the populations to which they apply. Just because someone claiming to be a researcher states that something is the case, that does not make it so. The basis for the statement must be identified and justified. Citing other people who hold the same views does not legitimize ones statements, unless their ideas are grounded in research -- which should then be noted. Now let me address specific observations Atwater made:
1. She claims that the definitive tone of her book was mandated by her publisher. This might have been believable if it were not for the fact that Atwater has always written with definitive statements and spoken the same way when she presents at conferences. Listening to the tapes of her conference presentations, many of which are recorded and made available by the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS), will quickly verify this fact.
2. Atwater writes that the scientific method is not designed to address an unknown range of variables. This is not true. Correctly designed research projects do precisely this, through techniques such as random sampling and statistical confounding techniques.
3. She further states that Never have I based any of my studies on a questionnaire. This also is not true. Wherever statistics were mentioned in the book, she reported that they were taken from the questionnaire. Her questionnaire data were used as primary evidence to support her conclusions, not as ancillary support. In this regard, she writes that The research in Children of the New Millennium is based on my study of 277 child experiencers, not the questionnaire. But that is not the way they were presented in the book, despite her disclaimers: see, for example, pages 68-69 and especially pages 105-107.
4. Atwater writes that It was the families who verified how different their children were, yet this information was not presented in the book. If it were true that her publisher eliminated this type of information, it was not a total elimination, as there were a number of cases where Atwater cited parents. It would seem that if this type of information existed, any responsible editor or publisher would insist that it be included, not deleted. But given the fact that the majority of the children in the sample of 44 were less than 5 years old when they had their NDEs, it seems doubtful that even parents would be able to address many items in the questionnaire completely and accurately.
5. Atwater makes the observation that she was hesitant in pursuing an understanding of differences in childrens processing and integrating their NDEs because of her lack of medical training. However, one need not be a physician to assess this. Was she assuming that these differences could only be studied as if there were some biological change in their brains after an NDE?
6. Statements such as the younger the child when the experience occurred, the more apt he or she was to abstract early and score in the range of genius when old enough to take an intelligence test. What was the basis for this observation? I could find no data in her book that even suggested this. Statements such as this need documentation. Also, is there any evidence that the phenomena she is studying are not going on in the general population and are only becoming evident in the NDE population?
7. Throughout the book and in her reply, Atwater used numbers such as six times, more than 70 percent, 50 percent, 33 percent, and so on. Nowhere in her book did she show the numbers on which she based these figures. She did state that they came from the sample of 277, but I am sure that not every case was represented in all the percentages she reported. She needs to show the actual numbers making up the percentages and how she collected the data from which they were derived. For example, were the numbers drawn from her sample of 44 (which was the sample identified wherever numbers were listed), or from the 63 individuals I counted, or from the larger sample of 277? It could also be that the individuals that comprised the 277 child experiencers were systematically different from all children who have had such an experience. If that is the case, then one cannot generalize from them to all NDErs. Nowhere in Atwaters book could I find any demographic breakdown of any of her three samples, such as religious background of the childs parents, residence, social class, race, or ethnicity. Also, does she have any evidence that the children who have had NDEs are any different from those who have not? Just saying that differences exist is not evidence. On page 207 of her book, she quoted William Strauss and Neil Howe (1991) concerning the emergence of a new generation that is different in significant ways from all prior generations. Without questioning how they came up with this conclusion, if true, there is still no evidence that NDEs are doing more than just identifying a few individuals who are part of this grand evolution. If changes are occurring, we need to know what the children were like both before and after the experience to determine if any change occurred. Then, if differences are discovered, researchers must be able to show that they were because of having an NDE and not something else.
8. Atwater makes the statement that the public believes that what was originally described in Life after Life is gospel, referring to Raymond Moodys book (1975). This reflects a myopic view of what the public knows about NDEs. It is my experience, from teaching courses on death, grief, and bereavement for more than 20 years, that most individuals have never heard of Moody and are certainly not aware that NDEs are supposed to have stages. Many people do not even know what an NDE is. With all the media exposure over the years, I too, felt that everyone had to be aware of the phenomenon. But in surveying my classes, I discovered I was wrong. An increasing number may be aware of NDEs, but definitely not the majority. In conclusion, Atwaters account of her confrontation with Bruce Greyson, when he insisted that she document a point she had made, was important. We should not make definitive statements without being able to support them. We should take the time to record specific cases, observations, and situations to see what they are telling us. Documentation helps us to recognize when our theories need to be modified, expanded, or segments deleted. If we do not constantly keep reading, interviewing, and documenting, we run the risk of projecting blatant errors as fact. It is the researchers responsibility to keep an open mind, to avoid premature closure, to assure themselves that what they report is actually what is going on.
It is very easy to get excited about what preliminary research reveals and to report it as fact, when, once all the data are in, we discover that a very different picture emerges. We need to keep very detailed case notes recording what we learned about specific ideas, how we came up with specific conclusions, and which tools we used to analyze the data. In this manner, we can backtrack and check out how we got to where we are, locate omissions and errors, and make it possible for others to check the validity of our observations and conclusions. If we are to approach near-death phenomena from the 360 degree perspective -- a term Atwater is fond of using -- it is imperative that we document what we have done or are doing. Atwater concludes her response by posing a lament relating to the propensity of researchers to criticize one another: to what extent can we really cleanse our own field and judge each other? Judging each other is not a weakness of any field but a sign of growing maturity. We should question each others research. Then, if we find weaknesses, we can correct them and do more research. So brick by brick correctly placed, we create a theoretical model that fits and helps to understand near-death phenomena. But this is only possible if we let others know where we got our data, how we analyzed them, and how we came up with our conclusions. Constructive criticism is not the mark of weakness and discord, but an opportunity to have others check our work and help us fill in chinks that may exist in our theoretical model. Because Atwater did not document the fact that millennial children were a product of having NDEs, the contributions of this book to an understanding of near-death phenomena are suggested relationships, hypotheses yet to be tested, and a set of new and interesting cases.
References
Atwater, P.M.H.(1999). Children of the new millennium: Near-death experiences and the evolution of humankind. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Moody, R. A. (1975). Life after life. Covington, GA: Mockingbird Books. Strauss, W., and Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of Americas future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: William Morrow. Widdison, H. A. (2001). [Review of Children of the new millennium: Near-death experiences and the evolution of humankind]. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 19, 257-268.
Harold A. Widdison, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The review of CHILDREN OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM by Thomas A. Angerpointner, M.D., a pediatric surgeon.
My unedited defense of my work.
A letter received from Theresa A. Csanady
Visitors to this site.