Methodological Challenges in Social Science: Making Sense of Polarized and Competing Research Claims

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12474
• Author: Aaron Robb
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Date: 01 April 2020

METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN SOCIAL SCIENCE: MAKING

SENSE OF POLARIZED AND COMPETING RESEARCH CLAIMS

Aaron Robb

Legal and mental health professionals face significant challenges when addressing situations in which children resist con-

tact with a parent. There remains only limited empirical research on the differentiation of types and severity of contact

problems, the resulting impacts on children and adolescents, and the outcomes of interventions. Often, family justice pro-

fessionals encounter conflicting information that presents wildly diverging views on the scientific knowledge base used to

guide understandings of human interaction. In cases involving resist-refuse dynamics (“RRD”), the polarized claims, char-

acterized by dichotomous thinking, often assert abuse by the rejected parent, on the one hand, or alienating behavior by

the favored parent, on the other hand. When presented with conflicting social science research, understanding basic experi-

mental design methodology is critical to resolving questions of the reliability and utility of the information presented.

Equally important, is an understanding of cognitive bias and the human tendency to experience difficulty in modifying

belief systems when presented with updated information; this understanding includes changing conceptual frameworks for

decision making in family law cases. While polarized and often acrimonious debate in the field may be reflective of larger

societal strife, recognizing strengths and weaknesses in the ideas presented in research literature allows for an integrative

approach to bring more light, and less heat, to the larger conceptualization of human interactions we have to address in the

family court setting.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Human beings have a tendency toward too easilyaccepting findings that fit into their established thinking, and toward

dismissing information which does not.

Academic debate exists within a larger societal framework and is not exempt from the influences of socio-political

strife.

Inquiry errors, misunderstanding of statistics, overreliance on flawed secondary analysis, and other methodological

challenges present barriers to the unwary in using social science research.

Keywords: Cognitive Bias; Polarization;Resist-Refuse Dynamics; Social Science Research.

Understanding social science research can be daunting at times. Seemingly arcane terms such

as Cohen’sd, R-Index, and other statistical jargon, become intermingled with terms that have spe-

cialized meaning, such as reliability and significance –subtly shifting their connotations from

what is understood in wider, general usage. While it might be understandable that an experienced

clinician, years away from their graduate statistics training, or an attorney trained more in the

Socratic method rather than the scientific method, might struggle with adequately interpreting the

worth of recently published research, social science has advanced to a level of complexity where

even Nobel-winning psychologists, such as Daniel Kahneman, have publicly acknowledged such

errors in their interpretations of their own data. In response to an inability to replicate research on

social priming, Kahneman referred to the possibility of a looming “train wreck”in the field

(Young, 2012). Little did he know that he had already become part of the train wreck, eventually

acknowledging in a response

1

to a critique of the articles he had highlighted in his 2011 book

Thinking Fast and Slow, that:

Corresponding: aaron@texascounseling.org

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 308–321

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts