Premium
“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law
Author(s) -
Emery Robert E.,
HoltzworthMunroe Amy,
Johnston Janet R.,
PedroCarroll JoAnne L.,
Pruett Marsha Kline,
Saini Michael,
Sandler Irwin
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
family court review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.171
H-Index - 4
eISSN - 1744-1617
pISSN - 1531-2445
DOI - 10.1111/fcre.12210
Subject(s) - scholarship , ideology , relevance (law) , subject (documents) , law , political science , criticism , field (mathematics) , sociology , confusion , criminology , psychology , politics , psychoanalysis , mathematics , library science , computer science , pure mathematics
There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named “scholar‐advocacy bias.” In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way.