My approach to any research is simple: there is no bias on my part and I look at every aspect of the material presented. That is how you should do this. It is the scientific way.
When I decided to update the Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K)/Alien Entity records for the UK I was surprised greatly at the total amateur nature of research and investigation today. "He says he was abducted" and that was it. Acceptance because of what has come out since Budd Hopkins and, later, Dr David Jacobs revealed via their "alien abduction research". It started out well and then dived straight into the pit of "Let's just jump in and make stuff up as it goes along".
As long time Ufologists and researchers have pointed out, but tend to get ignored because they do not blindly accept post Hopkins/Jacobs claims, is that "Greys" (go online to hear Americans screaming over the keyboard "WHY are they spelling it 'Greys' like the English ~it should be "Grays"!!") as accepted by today's commercial exploiters of the subject never existed. I can cite hundreds of cases pre Hopkins/Jacobs and, yes, there are some small, large headed AE types described, however, they were not "Greys".
When you have, as previously discussed, UK UFO groups who seem to accept Trash TV shows as their training, accepting any light seen as hiding an abduction and claim to receive 100~200 new abduction cases each month you know something has gone wrong.
I offered to collate reports and make a free~for~all data base. What happened? Insults, no wish to cooperate and the claim that these were their reports and no one elses. So nothing has changed since 1977 in UK 'Ufology' and the amount of internet warring and nastiness (some quite evil claims made against some of their fellow researchers) going on...seems to follow a pattern you find in the US but my main concern is the UK.
You move on to paranormal groups. I once confronted two of these groups over why they had refused to work with me and had "put the word around"? Apparently, they were "a bit scared" of me!! Why? Because I had a reputation (I had no idea of this at the time) as someone who "critically tries to explain phenomena"...but that is part of Science. Only when you can eliminate every and any other possibility do you have data that demands further study. Science.
I responded to a note in a "ghost" group about a haunted house survey going on. I said:
Really? Without asking for an exact definition or example of the type of event I was referring to (I have several on file, two involving more than one witness and no "optical effect" was involved) this person has decided they are all "optical effects"? Perhaps this person needs to also remember the definition of "paranormal"?