|
The Listener
September 27, 2003
Child abuse and the experts
by John Read
Professor
Michael Corballis is an esteemed member of the psychology department in which
I am director of clinical psychology. In his area of expertise, cognitive
neuroscience, he is an international leader. His occasional media forays into
the field of child abuse, however, demonstrate the perils of venturing beyond
one's knowledge-base.
His response to an attack on psychologists in the New Zealand Law Journal ("Memory &
the Law'', September 13) is that the legal profession should rely on
scientists rather than clinicians. But can science answer all our questions?
In the context of young children, Corballis suggests that "scientific
inquiry" can help establish "precisely what constitutes harmful
sexual activity and what does not". What does this mean?
Furthermore, can psychologists be so easily categorised? Laboratory research
and the application of psychological principles beyond the university are
complementary, mutually dependent branches of our discipline. To pit the
"clinical experience" of scientist-practitioners against
"objective science" is unhelpful to a legal system charged with
establishing the truth.
He worries that clinical psychology training programmes are interested in
students' "societal concern" and the personal attributes necessary
for relating to distressed people, "rather than scientific
aptitude". Again, we prefer a "both/and" approach to
Corballis's "either/or" one.
Uncharacteristically, he continues this dichotomous thinking when discussing
the Ellis case. Lynley Hood (who recently repeated on TV1 that the
prosecution occurred partly because Christchurch
is so flat) is portrayed as having a "scientific background".
Meanwhile researchers and clinicians whose views Corballis doesn't like are
"scaremongering", "radical feminists" and
"pseudo-experts", who are vulnerable to "outbreaks of
hysteria". This adversarial approach is not the dispassionate analysis
we should expect of a scientist called upon to inform public debate.
There is nothing wrong with having opinions. It is incumbent on academics,
however, to differentiate our opinions from scientific facts. Corballis's
article reminds us that this is no easy task.
|
The Listener
October 11, 2003
Child abuse and the experts
by Michael Corballis,
My
colleague John Read (Letters, September 27) evidently disagrees with my
attempt to defend psychology against its poor reputation in some quarters,
and in so doing neatly illustrates the split within our discipline, There are
some signs, though, that the rift may be beginning to heal, at least on the
international front
The American Psychological Association, whose membership is dominated by
professionals, this year singled out Professors Stephen J Ceci and Elizabeth
F Loftus for the joint award of Distinguished Scientific Applications of
Psychology. Both could have contributed genuinely expert advice in the Ellis
case.
Ian Hassall (Letters, September 27) rightly notes that I have not published
anything on child abuse or children as witnesses. On the latter topic, Ceci's
work is highly relevant, and if Hassall wants information on the effects of
sexual abuse, a good place to start might be the meta-analysis published by
Bruce Rind and colleagues in the January 1998 issue of the Psychological
Bulletin.
Sexual abuse can indeed be harmful, but I suspect that it is the physical
abuse of children that is the greater social problem in our country.
Perhaps, too, we should take greater care not to send innocent people to
gaol.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Listener
October 11, 2003
Child abuse and the experts
Lynley Hood
Not
for the first time, Dr John Read has misrepresented my comments, To Brian
Edwards's bizarre assertion (Edwards at
Large, TV1, August 16) "What are you telling me here - that the
flatness of the city gives us some indication of the chances of Peter Ellis
getting a fair trial?", I replied, "No. I am not I am not making
that leap at all."
Although the flatness of Christchurch
cannot be denied, as readers of A City
Possessed know, a ritual-abuse case could have happened anywhere in New Zealand
in the early 1990s. At that time, Christchurch
was a centre for national initiatives in the investigation and prosecution of
child sexual abuse, and a belief that a phantom paedophile ring was operating
in the city was one of the prevailing urban myths. These factors increased
the risk that a ritual-abuse case would occur in Christchurch.
|