Misdirection and Double Standards Fail to Clarify Controversial Issues in Social Science

• Date: 01 April 2020
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12494
• Author: Aaron Robb

MISDIRECTION AND DOUBLE STANDARDS FAIL TO CLARIFY

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

Aaron Robb

This short response is written to directly address the (mis)use by Milchman, Geffner, and Meier

(2020) of some the work of this contributor (Robb) and others.

Milchman et al. (2020) cautions readers erroneously claiming that statements in Robb (2020) are

“simply false”(p. 352). Instead of dealing with the actual issues raised, the authors conflate multi-

ple sections addressing different issues. The issues that they address are criticisms of an underlying

survey, provided on a web page, which Meier and Dickson (2017) cite where terms in the survey

are undefined. As is noted directly in Robb (2020), “Meier and Dickson later operationalize ‘lost

custody’for their own analysis; however, it is unclear if this is the same operationalization used in

other documents they reference”(p. 318, emphasis added). The whole point of that section of the

paper is to demonstrate why “family justice practitioners should recognize the risks involved in not

inspecting the original studies on a topic and, instead, relying on the interpretations of researchers

or authors who do not do the original research”(“AFCC Task Force,”2019, p. 195). Instead,

Milchman et al. (2020) choose not to address the critique of how Meier and Dickson (2017) utilize

the work of others, and instead conflate the criticism of that issue with criticism of the primary

research in that same paper. Scholarship needs to be careful and academically honest. Although

Milchman et al. decry the distortion of activism, their own use of such tactics are exactly the kinds

of issues that Robb (2020) was attempting to address in directing readers to clearly examine the

underlying literature.

The issue of operationalization of the concept of “winning”is also worth readdressing.

Milchman et al. (2020) object that pointing out the logical flaws in coding any amount of change as

a“win”is absurdist reductionism. However, Milchman et al. (2020) clearly note that Meier and

Dickson (2017) “defined ‘winning’as occurring when a party obtains all or part of the relief

requested”(p. 352). It is not that Robb (2020) has used an “illegitimate rhetorical strategy”

1

(Milchman et al., 2020, p. 352) to dismiss the validity of evidence as Milchman et al. claim, it is

that there has been an illegitimate operationalization of the outcome. As noted already in Robb

(2020), “Logically such outcomes could also be re-coded so that fathers ‘lost’if the mothers gained

even an iota of outcome that the fathers opposed, which would likely yield quite different conclu-

sions”(p. 318). In a system as complicated as family law, focusing on reductionist win/loss out-

comes may produce results untethered from the actual reality of the underlying issues.

The hypocrisy of authors using such misdirection and conflation to impugn the writings of

another should hopefully be clear. There is an additional element found in Milchman et al. (2020)

that bears addressing as it seems the authors have engaged in precisely what they criticize others for

doing. Much like medical journals expect disclosure of pharmaceutical ties which may create moti-

vation to promote certain medications, it may be important for social science journals to disclose

ties which may create motivations to achieve particular outcomes, such as the perverse support for

ideas regarding children’s responding which were discredited decades ago. A disclosure of a poten-

tial or perceived conflict of interest is far from a personal attack, but rather is an accepted jour nal

practice. One of the co-authors of Milchman et al. (2020), Geffner, would be aware of this as a

Corresponding: aaron@texascounseling.org

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 373–374

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts