More Research Is Needed

• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12392
• Published date: 01 January 2019

MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED

When he was editor in chief of Family Court Review, Andy Schepard often complained to

me about a caution that appeared near the end of so many FCR’ssocial science articles: “More

research is needed.”Andy was frustrated that so many investigators seemed to be hedging their

bets. Like many legal professionals faced with making rules, arguments, or decisions now,

Andy wanted authors to be clear about the implications of their findings. Don’twaffle.Takea

stand!

In many ways, I sympathize with Andy’s anguish. I understand that legal professionals want and

need direction now, not years down the road when more research may, or may not, offer definitive

guidance.

As much as the practitioner part of me sympathizes with the need for answers now, another part

of me—the scientist part—worries far more about our need for accurate answers than immediate

ones. A social scientist’s most honest answer to the many pressing questions posed by legal chal-

lenges often is, “Well, right now, we don’t have a clear answer.”

Consider this. Now also is the time frame in which we need answers to many other critical

questions. We need a cure for cancer now, a solution to global warming now, and better treat-

ments for autism now. Unfortunately, desperate needs invite unscrupulous or sometimes sim-

ply overzealous, yet still wrong, answers. Acupuncture is offered as a cure for cancer (one of

scores of phony cancer treatments). Global warming is a hoax (problem solved!). Facilitated

communication is a miraculous way of communicating with people with autism (warning: this

bogus technique is making a comeback). Sadly, too many of the practices and policies in

vogue in family courts today similarly are embraced by people who are, at a minimum,

overeager.

Which of our family court cures are misleading and misguided? I am not going to name names

here. My goal is not to end my term as Social Science Editor with a public vendetta; I have a higher

(if less juicy) ambition. I want to advocate for the cure for wrong answers and the pathway to

right ones.

You guessed it: The answer is more research.

The U.S. federal government spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually for research on

cancer, climate change, and autism. This massive effort is supplemented by the generosity of a

number of private foundations focused on promoting research into each of these huge problems.

Public fundraising efforts add cash, impetus, and widespread community support to these efforts.

True enough, we have not found cures for cancer, climate change, or autism, but at least we are try-

ing to solve these problems scientifically.

When it comes to the challenges confronting family courts, we are not trying.

No U.S. government agency makes research on the substance or procedures of family court a

priority—primary, secondary, or tertiary. No private agency is filling this gap by making research

on family court processes a major funding goal. I am aware of no public fundraising campaigns

seeking donations to support research on family courts.

I would know about these funding opportunities, if they existed, because I have scoured the grant

landscape for three and a half decades trying to fund my own research on issues of relevance to

family courts. Like a few other investigators, I have gotten lucky sometimes. I have persuaded a

few public and private agencies to fund my studies by framing my research as meeting the agency’s

other funding priorities. In the agencies’eyes, the relevance of my research to family courts may

have been nice, but it was merely incidental.

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 57 No. 1, January 2019 10–12

© 2019 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts