Approaches to Paranormal Investigation

I know this media coverage comes across a little more touchy-feely than usual, since we have a reputation as more science-oriented and somewhat skeptical paranormal investigators. It was a Monday evening when we did the investigation, and I'd just come from work where I'd been for 10 or 11 hours straight. It was quite challenging to then switch to doing a paranormal investigation in front of a journo and a video camera operator, but we did it!

What I would like to say is we normally employ what's called a 'blended method' in our investigations, which combines scientific measurement of the environment and the testing of hypotheses, with an intuitive/sensitive approach - trying to psychically pick up what might be present and give every opportunity for any subtle (or sometimes unsubtle!) communications to come through. The video shows more the intuitive end of things. (Nothing came through while we were there, this time, but we have had some eventful investigations at the Fever Hospital in the past.)

The problem with the more objective, scientific approach to investigation is that the focus is on the equipment - the tools of the trade - and trying to record and measure everything, which doesn't leave you open enough if anything possibly paranormal does occur. The frontal lobes of the brain are in charge because of the focus on logical thinking. Thus, the mind isn't best prepared for other, intangible things, so they're unlikely be noticed. (This has been my experience, having approached many investigations from a leaning one way or the other.)

On the other hand, a purely intuitive/sensitive approach is only so much use. If anything happens, you really want some kind of recording of it, or at least some measurements of the location's characteristics to see if there were any changes at the time of the perceived event. Without this, it's pure anecdote, we don't learn anything much new and and few will believe what supposedly happened.

This 'blended method' is favoured by many of the better and more experienced investigation teams working today. The best approach seems to be having some team members  concentrate on the technical stuff - filming, measuring and recording everything, while others are allowed to fully focus their senses on the location and any of its historical presences that may try to make themselves known. Any thoughts?