“I have seen advocacy evidence introduced in … divorce and child custody cases,” writes Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D., Dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. [1]
I cringe every time I hear this, as I know it compromises the ability of the finder of fact to actually find the facts and make an evidence-informed ruling.
Writing for Family Court Review, Volume 45, Number 1 (January 2007), he is concerned about the issue of domestic violence “becoming little more than ‘Nine Factoids and a Mantra.’” This refers to specific precepts, mind you, laying claim to legitimacy by association with up-stream sources including the FBI and March of Dimes.
Curiously, as Dr. Gelles exposes to empirical measures such things as the efficacy of the Duluth Model and appropriateness of family counseling (they don’t fare well), he finds other important aspects of the domestic violence debate that can be scientifically validated, replicated. This leads to a path of self-compromise for advocacy-based approaches.
One of the first and most important goals of advocacy is to work to transform a private trouble into a social issue and ultimately a social problem. Changing public opinions and attitudes is challenging and time consuming. … the next most important goal is to mobilize efforts to identify, address, and change the structures causing the social problem ….
Advocacy efforts are often governed by the ends justifying the means. Many advocates have little patience with the timetable of research or social policy — they see the harm inflicted at the ground level and strongly feel the need to do something.
As a divorce consultant in the Ann Arbor area, I’ve seen efforts to politicize the legal system through the leverage that special interests on both sides of this issue can muster. That’s a parochial mistake in so many senses of the meaning. Politics seldom survive appellate review. Pendulums of emotion-driven interventions eventually swing back to a position of over-correction in the opposite direction.
In the related “The Politics of Research: The Use, Abuse, and Misuse of Social Science Data — The Cases of Intimate Partner Violence,” Dr. Richard Gelles concludes as follows.
It is my hope that in the next stage of development of the field of IPV [intimate partner violence] (and child maltreatment), a firewall is built between advocacy statistics and social science evidence and that the courts are both willing and able to draw only on the latter to render judicial findings.
Off-Site References
“Advocacy evidence is ultimately self-compromising” / August 17, 2019 / Michigan Divorce Negotiation (accessed August 12, 2024)
- University of Pennsylvania (accessed August 12, 2024)
- Family Court Review (accessed August 12, 2024)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (accessed August 12, 2024)
- March of Dimes (accessed August 12, 2024)