Overview

Roe’s research into mediumship represents a distinctive approach within parapsychology: rather than focusing exclusively on whether mediums possess genuine paranormal abilities, he has investigated mediumship as a complex psychological and phenomenological phenomenon. This framework allows for systematic empirical study of mediumistic experience without requiring prior commitment to any particular ontological position regarding the reality of spirit communication.

His work, often conducted in collaboration with Elaine Roxburgh, has employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to examine how mediums understand their experiences, what psychological characteristics correlate with mediumistic practice, and how spiritual and transpersonal frameworks can illuminate anomalous experiences that might otherwise be pathologized. This approach situates mediumship within the broader study of anomalous psychological processes, the core mission of the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes (CSAPP) at the University of Northampton, which Roe directs.

Phenomenological approach to mediumship

A central contribution of Roe’s research has been the application of phenomenological and interpretative methods to understand mediumship from the mediums’ own perspective. Rather than imposing external theoretical frameworks, Roe and Roxburgh conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with spiritualist mediums to explore their lived experience, how they report communicating with the deceased, the meaning they attribute to spirit guide phenomena, and the role mediumship plays in their lives.²

This phenomenological approach revealed that mediumistic experience involves states of consciousness related to transcendence and what mediums describe as connection to a Higher Self.² By treating mediums as reliable reporters of their own subjective experience (rather than as either fraudsters or passive channels) Roe’s work opened space for understanding mediumship as a genuine psychological phenomenon worthy of serious investigation, regardless of metaphysical claims about spirit survival.

The interviews identified three major themes in how mediums make sense of their practice: their explanatory systems for understanding mediumship itself, their conceptualization of spirit guides (whether as external beings or as aspects of the self), and their understanding of mediumship’s purpose and social role.² These themes illuminate the cognitive and experiential structures through which mediums organize their anomalous experiences.

Explanatory systems and spirit guides

One of Roe’s key findings concerns the diversity of explanatory systems mediums employ to account for their experiences. Rather than a monolithic belief in literal spirit communication, mediums draw on multiple frameworks, some explicitly spiritual, others more psychological or transpersonal in nature.¹

Particularly significant is the variation in how mediums conceptualize spirit guides. Some mediums understand these as external, autonomous beings (deceased individuals or higher spiritual entities) while others interpret them as aspects of their own consciousness, higher self, or transpersonal dimensions of mind.² This diversity suggests that mediumship is not a unitary phenomenon but rather a complex experiential domain that different practitioners interpret through different cognitive and spiritual lenses.

Roe’s research also examined non-parapsychological explanations for ostensible mediumship, considering psychological, social, and cultural factors that might account for mediumistic experiences and the apparent accuracy of mediumistic readings.⁶ This balanced approach (examining both paranormal and non-paranormal explanatory possibilities) reflects the methodological rigor necessary for studying anomalous phenomena without either credulous acceptance or dismissive skepticism.

Psychological characteristics of mediums

Roe’s quantitative research has identified psychological characteristics associated with mediumistic practice. A survey of spiritualist mental mediums found elevated levels of dissociation and boundary-thinness, psychological traits related to permeable cognitive boundaries and absorption in experience, compared to general population samples.³

Importantly, Roe’s findings indicate that while mediums do show these distinctive psychological profiles, their overall psychological wellbeing is variable.³ This nuanced result suggests that dissociation and boundary-thinness, while correlated with mediumship, do not necessarily indicate pathology or psychological dysfunction. Instead, these traits may represent individual differences in cognitive style and perceptual openness that facilitate mediumistic experience without necessarily compromising mental health.

This finding has important implications for how anomalous experiences are understood in clinical and psychological contexts. Rather than automatically interpreting voices, visions, or experiences of contact with non-ordinary beings as symptoms of mental illness, Roe’s work suggests that such experiences can be reframed using spiritual and transpersonal models.⁴ This does not deny the reality of mental illness but rather recognizes that similar phenomenology can arise from different sources (pathological, spiritual, or some combination) and that context, functionality, and the individual’s own interpretive framework matter significantly.

Methodological framework

Roe’s approach to mediumship research exemplifies the mixed-methods paradigm increasingly important in parapsychology and anomalous psychology. By combining qualitative phenomenological interviews with quantitative psychological assessment, his research captures both the richness of subjective experience and the measurable psychological correlates of mediumistic practice.⁵

This methodological integration allows for several advantages: qualitative data reveals the lived meaning and complexity of mediumship as experienced by practitioners; quantitative data identifies reliable psychological characteristics; and the combination provides a more complete picture than either method alone. The approach also models how parapsychology can engage seriously with subjective, first-person phenomena while maintaining empirical rigor.

Roe’s research demonstrates that mediumship can be studied scientifically without reducing it to either paranormal or purely psychological explanation. By treating mediumship as an anomalous psychological process (a phenomenon that deviates from ordinary experience and warrants investigation) Roe has contributed to establishing mediumship research as a legitimate domain within parapsychology and the broader study of consciousness and human experience.