In this article, I discuss constitutive tasks in the development of UAP Studies as a new academic discipline. Tracing the historical evolution of terminology from “Flying Saucers” to “UFOs” and finally “UAP,” the article highlights how shifts in nomenclature reflect deeper issues of conceptual clarity. I argue that grounding the discipline in a variety of unknown phenomena—ranging from aerial phenomena to reports involving encounters and abductions—under the presumption of a common, extraterrestrial cause would ground it in a “modern myth” in C. G. Jung’s sense. This creates a demarcation problem that prevents the clear definition of basic terms and the development of valid hypotheses and scientific methodologies in favor of a predetermined correlation. The article argues for the necessity of “boundary-work”: the careful delineation of independent subdisciplines with distinct hypotheses and methodologies. I suggest object research, observation research, and encounter research as new subdisciplines, while emphasizing that their research subjects should not be assumed to be uniform. Further structuring will sharpen methodological rigor and integrate UAP Studies more firmly into adjacent scientific domains. By addressing these foundational issues, the article contributes to the establishment of UAP Studies as a credible, carefully defined academic discipline, with the long-term aim of rendering concepts such as “UAP” obsolete.
Danny Ammon (Sat,) studied this question.