Introduction to the Guidelines for Social Science Research in Family Law

• Author: William Fee,Stacey Platt,Marsha Kline Pruett
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12408
• Date: 01 April 2019
• Published date: 01 April 2019

SPECIAL FEATURE

INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDELINES FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE

RESEARCH IN FAMILY LAW

Marsha Kline Pruett, Stacey Platt, and William Fee

Across the family justice spectrum, family law professionals and users rely on social science

research in education, intervention, and policy-related decisions pertaining to children and families.

The “Best Interests of the Child”is widely recognized as the applicable standard for custody and

parenting time considerations. The application of this criterion is informed by the continual evolu-

tion of social science. Family justice professionals draw on social science research for direction

about the psychological knowledge and theories that inform and guide best interests judgments. In

any particular case, facts control the case and outcomes. Social science informs so that facts can

guide decisions in relevant contexts.

Beyond adversarial processes, professionals educating, training, or working with family court

users also draw on social science research. Parenting education classes, mediation, and parenting

coordination are just a few examples of areas in which family justice professionals look to social

science evidence to inform their interventions and education of families. Topics such as the impact

of conflict and violence on children and families, coparenting and parenting quality, and sources

of—and interventions to alleviate—legal and separation stresses for families are often incorporated

into the aforementioned programs and processes. Policy makers and advocates also turn to social

science research to better understand these issues in supporting and opposing policy and legislative

movements in family law.

With reliance in family law on social science research comes the press to use research toward

advocacy ends at both the individual case and public policy levels. This can result in the interpreta-

tion of studies and bodies of evidence through a particular lens that promotes a point of view or set

of values. This occurrence is facilitated, and often confounded, by the fact that research has specific

and highly specialized language and expertise that is typically unfamiliar to most nonresearchers

in social science, let alone to family justice practitioners. It is also not unusual for professionals

from disciplines outside of social science to lack a sophisticated understanding about what consti-

tutes high-quality research. Poor-quality studies are frequently referenced—without differentiation

from high-quality studies—in policy reports, in evaluations, in court, and in educational and dispute

resolution settings. This creates a false equivalency, that is, the assertion of equal weight between

competing views that are not in fact equally supported by research of the same quality. Reliance on

lower-quality studies can lead to misinterpretation of psychological and empirical knowledge at best

or skewing the extent and meaning of the available knowledge base at worst.

In addition to distinctions that need to be made between lower- and higher-quality research,

researchers with different values and perspectives may interpret study findings differently. Looking

at findings through different theoretical or political lenses can lead to differences in what is

highlighted or understood about a specific study, and what is ignored or devalued. When there is

insufficient evidence to justify specific conclusions, matters of interpretation can make the differ-

ence about whether a particular study is interpreted as supporting or cautioning against facile

Corresponding: mpruett@smith.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 57 No. 2, April 2019 191–192

© 2019 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts