The concept is quite new. It is a mix of two worlds that do not really belong together.
The term suggests that the paranormal must be explained and investigated by the scientific empirical method.
The paranormal - the doctrine of what is outside our conceptual world - does not, in its own definition, need to have a logical explanation.
A paranormal incident can be: A chair that moves inexplicably. But one who believes in the paranormal, is in his good right to claim it is the late "Aunt Oda". And this person does not have to justify or document it in any way.
As a paranormal investigator, proof is needed. The case is peeled apart and will find the reason for the chair's movement. It may well be a more natural event that could explain this. The investigator needs to know why this happened, and is completely ignorant of the haunting itself. By understanding “why”, this haunting could maybe be removed in a snap.
Since "paranormal investigator" is contradictory, the term "abnormalist" is also used.
The advantage of the paranormal investigator is that everything is recorded and documented meticulously. No matter what the truth, it will be found. The analysis itself follows the scientific standard so that others are able to draw conclusions. Yes, maybe find a bigger context.
The downside is the investigator, in his purest form, is uncommonly dull. Undoubtedly, a result emerges, but only in very few cases something unexplained is accepted. Precisely because the vast majority of paranormal phenomena can be attributed to natural events.
It is often seen that people who are exposed to the inexplicable would rather turn to a clairvoyant or healer. -As they deliver something more and something that fits better into a personal belief.