- Email: [email protected]
Toward better research on child abuse and neglect: A response to Besharov
Child Abuse and Ne&f. Vol. 6. pp. 495-4%. Printed in dw U.S.A. All nghhtsawwd
1982
0145-2134/82/o4oo95-025173.00~0 Copyright 0 1982 Rrpm Fms Lti.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TOWARD BETTER RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT: A RESPONSE TO BESHAROV DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV’S paper. “Toward Better Research on Child Abuse and Neglect: Making Definitional issues an Explicit Meth~olo~ieal Concern,” published in Volume 5, Number 4. 1981 issue of Child Abuse and Neglect: The ~~fer~afionuI Journal is clearly a paper on an important topic by an extremely prominent person. and as such merits serious consideration. But the paper still does not make the kind of contribution which is desired, both by the author and by the editors of this journal. An important problem with the paper is that Besharov fails to adequately distinguish between nominal definirions and operational definitions. The definitions which Besharov bemoans are, in fact, a variety of nominal definitions. Besharov is. indeed, correct to state that perhaps for every research investigation and article which has been written on child abuse and neglect, there has been a separate noncomparable nominal definition of child abuse and neglect. But, as Besharov well knows, there is a surprising convergence in the operationalization of these varied nominal definitions. Most of the twelve research projects fiinded by the agency which Besharov formerly headed operationalized child abuse and neglect (irrespective of how they nominally defined it) by selecting cases which came to public attention. These cases, selected either from public protective service agencies or private agency files. then served as the basis for the research. A more sophisticated analysis of the definitional problem would be to first examine the wide variety of nominal definitions, then comment on the convergence of operational definitions, and then conclude with the actual probIem, which has been the lack of conceptual overlap between the varied nominal definitions and resulting operational definitions. The real reason why most research on child abuse and neglect is noncomparable is that there is so little overlap between the originating nominal definitions set forth in the research project and the resulting operational definitions. Furthermore. Besharov does not address the problem that in operationally defining child abuse as those cases which come to public attention, researchers have traditionally failed to consider the varying ways in which cases come forward and are identified from jurisdictjon to jurisdicrion. Incidence studies are a particularly poor way of demonstrating the definitional problem of research on child abuse and neglect. (Although from Besharov’s point of view they are an outstanding example because one can correlate the varied nominal definitions to the variance in final statistics provided by the incidence studies.) The reason why incidence studies are such a poor example is demonstrated in Table 1. While there are 1I investigations listed in Table 1. these actually represent only four separate studies which attempted to estimate the incidence of child abuse and neglect. As Besharov correctly points out. Light’s “research” was actually a reexamination of the Gil data. The four citations attributed to Nagi actually distill down to one study, as do the two attriburions to the American Humane Association. As the editors of this journal wilt no doubt agree, the Heifer and Kemp attribution was not. in fact, a formally conducted incidence study. As I remember. and as I am sure the editors of this journal can cormborate. the figure of 60.000 was simply a convenient guestimate of how many official cases of child abuse and neglect there are in the United States. Besharov might have considered using, as a better example. the actual research findings from the various studies on factors which are associated with Ghild abuse and neglect. With this tact chosen, obviously. the case would not be as strong. For despite the various and numerous nominal definitions of child abuse and neglect. there are surprising similarities and consisrencies in the varied and many research studies which have been undertaken over the past decade and a half. irrespective of the nominal definitions used by investigators, there is consistency in the factors which they ultimately find correlated and associated with child abuse and neglect. My bias. obviously. is that many of these similarities are due. no doubt. to the similarity in operarionally defining child abuse and neglect. That. however. is an empirical question. The fact remains that there are perhaps as many, if not more, similarities in the research than there are differences. No doubt many readers of this journal would seriously question Besharov’s conclusion that a good model of what ought to be done in the way of defining child abuse and neglect can be found in the recently completed National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. This study (contributing yet 49s
496
Letter to the Editor
another statistic to the estimates of the incidence of child abuse and neglect in the United States) is not especially powerful as a piece of scientific research. Indeed. the investigators spent a good deal of time and took up a number of pages with their final operational definitions of child maltreatment. But here the solution becomes the problem. The definitions were so extensive, so taxonomic. and so cumbersome that they ultimately defeated the purpose of the study. Many agencies declined to participate in the study, and the reliability of the data gathered from the agencies which did participate is open to some question. But. even if the study could be considered a good one. it is unlikely that the operational definitions developed will find widespread usage in many other studies. That is because the operational definitions are so long and cumbersome to administer that a researcher would have a great deal of difficulty gathering any more data than simply the operational definition of child abuse and neglect in the study. For instance. pity the poor survey researcher who is doing a representative sample survey with only between 30 minutes and 60 minutes of interviewing time budgeted for the study (20 minutes is the upper limit for telephone interviews: 60 minutes the upper limit for in-person interviews). Investigators would not have the time to even measure the age or income of the respondent once they finished administering the operational definition. Yes, Besharov is correct that there needs to be concern paid to definitions in the study of child abuse and neglect. but I don’t think that his case is strengthened by using the recently conducted national study as a model.
Richard J. Gelles,
Ph.D.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Rhode Island Kingston. Rhode Island 0288 1
RESPONSE To the Editor: My paper, “Toward Better Research on Child Abuse and Neglect: Making Definitional Issues an Explicit Methodological Concern,” Child Abuse and Neglect 5211 (1982), sought to describe how inadequate definitions of “child abuse” and “child neglect” are a major obstacle to better research on the subject. Dr. Gelles seems to agree with my assessment, while disagreeing with some of the reasons I gave in support of it. So be it. My only purpose in writing the paper was to call attention to a problem that researchers seem to ignore. (In a future work, I plan to propose more useful definitions -both “nominal” and “operational.“) Readers interested in a further discussion of this important subject may wish to review: Cicchetti Sr Rizley, “Developmental Perspectives on the Etiology, Intergenerational Transmission, and Sequelae of Child Maltreatment,” New Directions for Child Development, 11, 1981 (p. 31). Douglas J. Besharov,
J.D..
Visiting Professor Osgoode Toronto
Hall Law School
LLM.
1982
0145-2134/82/o4oo95-025173.00~0 Copyright 0 1982 Rrpm Fms Lti.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TOWARD BETTER RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT: A RESPONSE TO BESHAROV DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV’S paper. “Toward Better Research on Child Abuse and Neglect: Making Definitional issues an Explicit Meth~olo~ieal Concern,” published in Volume 5, Number 4. 1981 issue of Child Abuse and Neglect: The ~~fer~afionuI Journal is clearly a paper on an important topic by an extremely prominent person. and as such merits serious consideration. But the paper still does not make the kind of contribution which is desired, both by the author and by the editors of this journal. An important problem with the paper is that Besharov fails to adequately distinguish between nominal definirions and operational definitions. The definitions which Besharov bemoans are, in fact, a variety of nominal definitions. Besharov is. indeed, correct to state that perhaps for every research investigation and article which has been written on child abuse and neglect, there has been a separate noncomparable nominal definition of child abuse and neglect. But, as Besharov well knows, there is a surprising convergence in the operationalization of these varied nominal definitions. Most of the twelve research projects fiinded by the agency which Besharov formerly headed operationalized child abuse and neglect (irrespective of how they nominally defined it) by selecting cases which came to public attention. These cases, selected either from public protective service agencies or private agency files. then served as the basis for the research. A more sophisticated analysis of the definitional problem would be to first examine the wide variety of nominal definitions, then comment on the convergence of operational definitions, and then conclude with the actual probIem, which has been the lack of conceptual overlap between the varied nominal definitions and resulting operational definitions. The real reason why most research on child abuse and neglect is noncomparable is that there is so little overlap between the originating nominal definitions set forth in the research project and the resulting operational definitions. Furthermore. Besharov does not address the problem that in operationally defining child abuse as those cases which come to public attention, researchers have traditionally failed to consider the varying ways in which cases come forward and are identified from jurisdictjon to jurisdicrion. Incidence studies are a particularly poor way of demonstrating the definitional problem of research on child abuse and neglect. (Although from Besharov’s point of view they are an outstanding example because one can correlate the varied nominal definitions to the variance in final statistics provided by the incidence studies.) The reason why incidence studies are such a poor example is demonstrated in Table 1. While there are 1I investigations listed in Table 1. these actually represent only four separate studies which attempted to estimate the incidence of child abuse and neglect. As Besharov correctly points out. Light’s “research” was actually a reexamination of the Gil data. The four citations attributed to Nagi actually distill down to one study, as do the two attriburions to the American Humane Association. As the editors of this journal wilt no doubt agree, the Heifer and Kemp attribution was not. in fact, a formally conducted incidence study. As I remember. and as I am sure the editors of this journal can cormborate. the figure of 60.000 was simply a convenient guestimate of how many official cases of child abuse and neglect there are in the United States. Besharov might have considered using, as a better example. the actual research findings from the various studies on factors which are associated with Ghild abuse and neglect. With this tact chosen, obviously. the case would not be as strong. For despite the various and numerous nominal definitions of child abuse and neglect. there are surprising similarities and consisrencies in the varied and many research studies which have been undertaken over the past decade and a half. irrespective of the nominal definitions used by investigators, there is consistency in the factors which they ultimately find correlated and associated with child abuse and neglect. My bias. obviously. is that many of these similarities are due. no doubt. to the similarity in operarionally defining child abuse and neglect. That. however. is an empirical question. The fact remains that there are perhaps as many, if not more, similarities in the research than there are differences. No doubt many readers of this journal would seriously question Besharov’s conclusion that a good model of what ought to be done in the way of defining child abuse and neglect can be found in the recently completed National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. This study (contributing yet 49s
496
Letter to the Editor
another statistic to the estimates of the incidence of child abuse and neglect in the United States) is not especially powerful as a piece of scientific research. Indeed. the investigators spent a good deal of time and took up a number of pages with their final operational definitions of child maltreatment. But here the solution becomes the problem. The definitions were so extensive, so taxonomic. and so cumbersome that they ultimately defeated the purpose of the study. Many agencies declined to participate in the study, and the reliability of the data gathered from the agencies which did participate is open to some question. But. even if the study could be considered a good one. it is unlikely that the operational definitions developed will find widespread usage in many other studies. That is because the operational definitions are so long and cumbersome to administer that a researcher would have a great deal of difficulty gathering any more data than simply the operational definition of child abuse and neglect in the study. For instance. pity the poor survey researcher who is doing a representative sample survey with only between 30 minutes and 60 minutes of interviewing time budgeted for the study (20 minutes is the upper limit for telephone interviews: 60 minutes the upper limit for in-person interviews). Investigators would not have the time to even measure the age or income of the respondent once they finished administering the operational definition. Yes, Besharov is correct that there needs to be concern paid to definitions in the study of child abuse and neglect. but I don’t think that his case is strengthened by using the recently conducted national study as a model.
Richard J. Gelles,
Ph.D.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Rhode Island Kingston. Rhode Island 0288 1
RESPONSE To the Editor: My paper, “Toward Better Research on Child Abuse and Neglect: Making Definitional Issues an Explicit Methodological Concern,” Child Abuse and Neglect 5211 (1982), sought to describe how inadequate definitions of “child abuse” and “child neglect” are a major obstacle to better research on the subject. Dr. Gelles seems to agree with my assessment, while disagreeing with some of the reasons I gave in support of it. So be it. My only purpose in writing the paper was to call attention to a problem that researchers seem to ignore. (In a future work, I plan to propose more useful definitions -both “nominal” and “operational.“) Readers interested in a further discussion of this important subject may wish to review: Cicchetti Sr Rizley, “Developmental Perspectives on the Etiology, Intergenerational Transmission, and Sequelae of Child Maltreatment,” New Directions for Child Development, 11, 1981 (p. 31). Douglas J. Besharov,
J.D..
Visiting Professor Osgoode Toronto
Hall Law School
LLM.