DOCSLIB.ORG

Critical Thinking Credibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Critical Thinking Credibility Critical Thinking Credibility Program Support Notes by: Reproducing these support notes Lisa Herd BA, B Teach (Hons) You may download and print one copy of these support notes from our website for your Executive Producer: reference. Further copying or printing must be Simon Garner B.Ed, Dip reported to CAL as per the Copyright Act Management 1968. © Video Education Australasia Pty Ltd 2011 Critical Thinking Credibility For Teachers Introduction To be an informed and proactive participant in society, one must be a critical thinker. We should never accept what we are told without question. Critical thinkers need to be able to determine the credibility of evidence and arguments, but how does one determine credibility? This informative program is part of the Critical Thinking series. It introduces the learner to the key criteria for determining credibility. Motive, expertise and the ability to perceive are some of the criteria applied to numerous examples and an interesting historical case study. Experts including Dr. Roy van den Brink Budgen explain these concepts and challenge us to develop further our own critical thinking skills. Timeline 00:00:00 00:10:21 Credibility of evidence – Key ideas 00:00:00 00:15:44 Case Study – Thompson and Bywaters – How credible do you think the evidence is? 00:00:00 00:13:24 Case Study – Analysis 00:00:00 00:00:00 Activities Recommended Resources http://www.criticalthinking.org/ http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/p/home http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp http://assess-systems.com.au/ability/watson.php 2 © Video Education Australasia Pty Ltd 2011 Reproducing these support notes You may download and print one copy of these support notes from our website for your reference. Further copying or printing must be reported to CAL as per the Copyright Act 1968. Critical Thinking Credibility Student Worksheet Initiate Prior Learning 1. As a class, discuss how you know if something you have been told is true and reliable. Record the answers on the board. 2. Class Activity on Memory / Perception Sit in a circle. Each person will need a pen and a piece of paper to write on. The teacher displays 10 - 15 objects in the centre of the circle (e.g. a ball, pen, magazine cut out of someone‟s face, a chocolate bar, etc). You have 30 seconds to try and memorise the objects. Your teacher will then take the objects away and give you 2 minutes to record the objects you remember being on display. Try remembering as many items and details about them as possible. Use this activity to discuss perception and how various people may view the same event but remember / forget different aspects and report the details differently. This means that although people may have a firsthand account of an event, their different perceptions may affect the credibility of their accounts. 3. Class Activity- “Pass the Message” Sit in a circle. One person is to come up with a long sentence / a couple of short sentences. The person is to whisper the sentence to the person to his/her right. In turn, each person whispers the sentence to the person on their right so it is passed around the circle. It is important that people pass on what they hear from memory and they are not reminded if they forget. Ask the final person to say aloud what they heard. Usually, the wording and / or meaning of the sentence is changed as it is passed on. Use this activity to discuss how word of mouth is not reliable evidence on its own. Critical thinkers conduct further investigations to see if what they hear is true. 3 © Video Education Australasia Pty Ltd 2011 Reproducing these support notes You may download and print one copy of these support notes from our website for your reference. Further copying or printing must be reported to CAL as per the Copyright Act 1968. Critical Thinking Credibility Active Viewing Guide 1. What is credibility? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. What are criteria? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. What are the sub-criteria for motive? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. What does „the ability to perceive‟ mean? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5. What are important factors for expertise? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 6. What is the name of the expert who critically analyses the case study? _________________________________________________________________________________ 4 © Video Education Australasia Pty Ltd 2011 Reproducing these support notes You may download and print one copy of these support notes from our website for your reference. Further copying or printing must be reported to CAL as per the Copyright Act 1968. Critical Thinking Credibility 7. Which criterion does scientific evidence come under? _________________________________________________________________________________ 8. What is a deliberate bias? _________________________________________________________________________________ 9. If all the evidence is not there, what is looked for? _________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Do the criteria always work? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5 © Video Education Australasia Pty Ltd 2011 Reproducing these support notes You may download and print one copy of these support notes from our website for your reference. Further copying or printing must be reported to CAL as per the Copyright Act 1968. Critical Thinking Credibility Extension Activities 1. In pairs, select a television or magazine advertisement and investigate the credibility of the product and its advertisement. You will need to conduct some research on the product. Use the criteria for judging credibility as a guide / structure for your research. Produce a report on your findings and present them, along with the advertisement, to your class. 2. Newspapers appear to present factual news. Why would a newspaper have motive bias? 3. Watch a current affairs program and select an item to critically analyse for credibility. What is the motive of this news item? What expertise is presented? Whose perceptions are presented? Whose perceptions are not presented? Overall, do you think this current affairs item is credible? Write a one page report explaining your findings. 4. Discuss the following statement in essay format. Nothing is totally credible. 5. Write a report explaining the core principles of credibility. 6. Think about a situation you have been in where you were not sure if the information / evidence you were presented with was credible (it could be something someone told you, an account of an event you heard about, some gossip, something you read in the newspaper, etc). How did not knowing the truth make you feel? What did you do? 6 © Video Education Australasia Pty Ltd 2011 Reproducing these support notes You may download and print one copy of these support notes from our website for your reference. Further copying or printing must be reported to CAL as per the Copyright Act 1968. Critical Thinking Credibility Suggested Student Responses Active Viewing Guide 1. What is credibility? Believability 2. What are criteria? Benchmarks against which we judge something. 3. What are the sub-criteria for motive? Bias Vested interest Neutrality Ability to perceive 4. What does „the ability to perceive‟ mean? It means actually being there yourself, seeing or hearing for yourself rather than relying on what you are told. 5. What are important factors for expertise? The expertise must be: Relevant Up to date Based on adequate knowledge and training 6. What is the name of the expert who critically analyses the case study? Dr Roy van den Brink Budgen 7. Which criterion does scientific evidence come under? Expertise 8. What is a deliberate bias? Vested interest 9. If all the evidence is not there, what is looked for? The most plausible outcome 10. Do the criteria always work? No, sometimes they clash with each other. They inform our decision. 7 © Video Education Australasia Pty Ltd 2011 Reproducing these support notes You may download and print one copy of these support notes from our website for your reference. Further copying or printing must be reported to CAL as per the Copyright Act 1968. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Does It Hold Water?
    Does it Hold Water? Summary Investigate logical fallacies to see the flaws in arguments and learn to read between the lines and discern obscure and misleading statements from the truth. Workplace Readiness Skills Primary: Information Literacy Secondary: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Secondary: Reading and Writing Secondary: Integrity Workplace Readiness Definition: Information Literacy • defining information literacy • locating and evaluating credible and relevant sources of information • using information effectively to accomplish work-related tasks. Vocabulary • Critical Thinking • Trustworthy • Aristotle, Plato, • Inductive Reasoning • Logic Socrates • Deductive Reasoning • Logical fallacy • Systems thinking • Cause-Effect • Process • Argument • Analysis • Propaganda • Rhetorical • Credible/non- • Infer vs. Imply credible Context Questions • How can information literacy set you apart from your peers or coworkers? • How can you demonstrate your ability with information literacy skills in a job interview? • How does information literacy and critical thinking interrelate? How do they differ? • How is good citizenship tied in with being a critical thinker? • How have you used information literacy skills in the past? • What are some common ways that information literacy skills are used in the workplace? • What news and information sources do you trust? What makes them trustworthy? • What is the difference between news shows and hard news? • Why is it important to be able to discern fact from opinion? • Why is it important to determine a credible from a non-credible source? • What are the characteristics of a credible/non-credible source? • What is a primary, secondary, and tertiary source? • What is a website domain, and what can it tell you about a site's potential credibility? Objective: To teach you how to determine whether media messages are factual and provable or whether those messages are misleading or somehow flawed.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservatism and Pragmatism in Law, Politics and Ethics
    TOWARDS PRAGMATIC CONSERVATISM: A REVIEW OF SETH VANNATTA’S CONSERVATISM AND PRAGMATISM IN LAW, POLITICS, AND ETHICS Allen Mendenhall* At some point all writers come across a book they wish they had written. Several such books line my bookcases; the latest of which is Seth Vannatta’s Conservativism and Pragmatism in Law, Politics, and Ethics.1 The two words conservatism and pragmatism circulate widely and with apparent ease, as if their import were immediately clear and uncontroversial. But if you press strangers for concise definitions, you will likely find that the signification of these words differs from person to person.2 Maybe it’s not just that people are unwilling to update their understanding of conservatism and pragmatism—maybe it’s that they cling passionately to their understanding (or misunderstanding), fearing that their operative paradigms and working notions of 20th century history and philosophy will collapse if conservatism and pragmatism differ from some developed expectation or ingrained supposition. I began to immerse myself in pragmatism in graduate school when I discovered that its central tenets aligned rather cleanly with those of Edmund Burke, David Hume, F. A. Hayek, Michael Oakeshott, and Russell Kirk, men widely considered to be on the right end of the political spectrum even if their ideas diverge in key areas.3 In fact, I came to believe that pragmatism reconciled these thinkers, that whatever their marked intellectual differences, these men believed certain things that could be synthesized and organized in terms of pragmatism.4 I reached this conclusion from the same premise adopted by Vannatta: “Conservatism and pragmatism[] .
    [Show full text]
  • Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath
    Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath Some of the most important questions we face in public health include what policies we should follow, which programs and research should we fund, how and where we should intervene, and what our priorities should be in the face of overwhelming needs and scarce resources. These questions, like many others, are best decided on the basis of arguments, a word that has its roots in the Latin arguere, to make clear. Yet arguments themselves vary greatly in terms of their strength, accuracy, and validity. Furthermore, public health experts often disagree on matters of research, policy and practice, citing conflicting evidence and arriving at conflicting conclusions. As a result, critical readers, such as researchers, policymakers, journal editors and reviewers, approach arguments with considerable skepticism. After all, they are not going to change their programs, priorities, practices, research agendas or budgets without very solid evidence that it is necessary, feasible, and beneficial. This raises an important challenge for public health writers: How can you best make your case, in the face of so much conflicting evidence? To illustrate, let’s assume that you’ve been researching mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in a sub-Saharan African country and have concluded that (claim) the country’s maternal programs for HIV counseling and infant nutrition should be integrated because (reasons) this would be more efficient in decreasing MTCT, improving child nutrition, and using scant resources efficiently. The evidence to back up your claim might consist of original research you have conducted that included program assessments and interviews with health workers in the field, your assessment of the other relevant research, the experiences of programs in other countries, and new WHO guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Biases in Research: Risk Factors for Non-Replicability in Psychotherapy and Pharmacotherapy Research
    Psychological Medicine, Page 1 of 12. © Cambridge University Press 2016 REVIEW ARTICLE doi:10.1017/S003329171600324X Biases in research: risk factors for non-replicability in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research F. Leichsenring1*†, A. Abbass2, M. J. Hilsenroth3, F. Leweke1, P. Luyten4,5, J. R. Keefe6, N. Midgley7,8, S. Rabung9,10, S. Salzer11,12 and C. Steinert1 1 Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; 2 Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Centre for Emotions and Health, Halifax, NS, Canada; 3 The Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, NY, USA; 4 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven, Klinische Psychologie (OE), Leuven, Belgium; 5 Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK; 6 Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 7 The Anna Freud Centre, London, UK; 8 Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL, London, UK; 9 Department of Psychology, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Universitätsstr, Klagenfurt, Austria; 10 Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 11 Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Georg-August-Universität Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany; 12 International Psychoanalytic University (IPU), Berlin, Germany Replicability of findings is an essential prerequisite of research. For both basic and clinical research, however, low rep- licability of findings has recently been reported. Replicability may be affected by research biases not sufficiently con- trolled for by the existing research standards. Several biases such as researcher allegiance or selective reporting are well-known for affecting results. For psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, specific additional biases may affect outcome (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith Seeking Understanding Motives of Credibility for Faith the Mystery
    Association of Hebrew Catholics Lecture Series The Mystery of Israel and the Church Fall 2013 – Series 12 Introduction to Theology: Faith Seeking Understanding Talk #7 Motives of Credibility for Faith © Dr. Lawrence Feingold STD Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri Note: This document contains the unedited text of Dr. Feingold’s talk. It will eventually undergo final editing for inclusion in the series of books being published by The Miriam Press under the series title: “The Mystery of Israel and the Church”. If you find errors of any type, please send your observations [email protected] This document may be copied and given to others. It may not be modified, sold, or placed on any web site. The actual recording of this talk, as well as the talks from all series, may be found on the AHC website at: http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/studies/mystery-of-israel-church/ Association of Hebrew Catholics • 4120 W Pine Blvd • Saint Louis MO 63108 www.hebrewcatholic.org • [email protected] Motives of Credibility for Faith The great difficulty in making the act of divine faith and wisdom of the Revelation itself, and of the Person of lies in determining when and where God has spoken. God Christ in whom Revelation culminates, as will be explained does not appear directly to everyone; rather, He speaks below. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting to mankind through intermediaries who are entrusted Vatican I, speaks of the first three motives of credibility: with a divine mission of being the instruments of God’s Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, Revelation.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Christianity?
    What is Christianity? Charles Hedrick Piscataway, New Jersey January 2008 What is Christianity? This document tries to summarize Christian beliefs and practices. It was originally written as part of the Frequently Asked Questions collection for the Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.christian. It is intended as an introduction to Christianity for non-Christians, and also as background for those who want to follow the discussions in soc.religion.christian. For that reason it spends more time on a few controversies that are common in online discussions than might be merited by their actual importance. This is a snapshot of a web site. If you are interested in seeing the author’s most recent thoughts, take a look at http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity. If you are reading this document online, it should be possible to click on any area with a box around it. 2 Preface: About the Author 4 What are major Christian beliefs? 10 What is the “Gospel”? 21 What about heaven and hell? 27 Why do Christians believe this? Includes the Bible, revelation, tradition. 37 What is the Church? 46 The Christian Life 54 What is Christian worship? Includes the sacraments. 57 How do Christians act? Part 1: Law 61 How do Christians act? Part 2: Showing love 64 More about Christian beliefs: The Incarnation 72 More about Christian beliefs: The Trinity 78 More about Christian beliefs: Predestination and Free Will 1 Preface Charles Hedrick (the author of these essays) is, in no particular order • An elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA) • Moderator of the Usenet news group soc.religion.christian • University Director of Instructional and Research Technology and Chief Technology Officer at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey [provided for identification only; Rutgers University has no responsibility for the views presented here] (I am not the well-known scholar, Charles W.
    [Show full text]
  • Counselor Allegiance and Client Expectancy in Neuroscience-Informed Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: a 12-Month Qualitative Follow-Up Thomas A
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Counselor Education Faculty Publications and Department of Counselor Education Presentations 10-1-2017 Counselor Allegiance and Client Expectancy in Neuroscience-Informed Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: A 12-Month Qualitative Follow-Up Thomas A. Field City University of Seattle Eric T. Beeson Northwestern University Laura K. Jones University of North Carolina at Asheville Raissa Miller Boise State University This document was originally published in Journal of Mental Health Counseling by American Mental Health Counselors Association. Copyright restrictions may apply. doi: 10.17744/mehc.39.4.06 Volume 39/Number 4/October 2017/Pages 35l-365/doi: 10.17744/mehc.39.4.06 NEUROCOUNSELING Counselor Allegiance and Client Expectancy in Neuroscience-Informed Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: A 12-Month Qualitative Follow-Up Thomas A. Field, Eric T. Beeson, Laura K. Jones, and Raissa Miller This article presents summative findings from a 12-month multiphase mixed-methods pilot study examining counselor and client perceptions of neuroscience-informed cognitive-behavior ther­ apy (nCBT) following clinical application. Results from the first 6 months o f the study indicated that the counselor’s and client's beliefs about the credibility and effectiveness of nCBT (i.e., expectancy) remained stable from pretreatment to 6 months into treatment. The fourth phase of data collection at the 12-month interval followed an explanatory sequential process whereby the qualitative data were connected to earlier merged quantitative data to better understand initial findings from the first 6 months of the study. Results indicate that counselors’ initial comprehen­ sion and familiarity with the model, counselor-client trust, counselor delivery and suggestion, and client willingness to practice outside of session were key components to the dm’elopment of counselor and client belief (expectancy) in the model.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle-Ground Pragmatists: the Popularization of Philosophy in American Culture
    284 GeorgeCotkin to have culturalinfluence, then the philosopherhad to make his work accessibleto a widerpublic. The diffusionof suchknowledge was a neces-neces­ saryprecondition for democratic social reconstruction. The popularizationof pragmatism in the period after the First World War helpedto createa new formof pragmatism, "middle-ground" pragmatism. If middlebrowculture attempted to balance demandsfor accessibilitywith qualityand to reconcile authority with democracy, then middle-ground popu-popu­ larpragmatists wanted to retainthe essentials of pragmatism as developedby Dewey whilebeing open to new thinkersand concepts,especially those of GeorgeSantayana and the"tragic sense of life."3While continuing through-through­ outthe mid-mid-1920s 1920s to speakin thefamiliar language of social reconstruction, criticalintelligence, and scientificmethod, middle-ground pragmatists in-in­ creasinglyemphasized a stanceof moderationand distancelater made fa-fa­ mousin WalterLippmann's A Prefaceto Morals (1929). Middle-groundpragmatists also helpedto definethe chastened liberal-liberal­ ismthat dominated American intellectual life in thelate 1940s and 1950s. It has becomea commonplacein chartingthe history of American intellectuals to focuson how ReinholdNiebuhr, Daniel Bell, Lionel Trilling,and others, out of disillusionmentwith Marxism,adopted a new form of liberalism markedby irony, restraint, and disdain for utopian visions of social recon-recon­ struction. Rather than intending to refute the importance of this sea-change in thought,this essay suggests that middle-ground pragmatists antedated the move towardchastened liberalism by well over a decade, without any sustained engagement with radical politics.politics.4 4 Middle-ground pragmatism proved to be an appealing position because it allowed young intellectuals to popularize philosophical ideas and to battle against the insufficiencies of American cultural life in the 1920s.
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes Your Message Credible?
    Bachelor Thesis What makes your message credible? A descriptive study on the effect of source credibility on message credibility. Authors: Alexander Andersson Eliisa Kreegimäe Nicole Niiranen Supervisor: Michaela Sandell Examiner: Åsa Devine Term: Spring 19 – Semester 6 Course code: 2FE21E Date: 28-05-2019 Acknowledgement We would like to take this opportunity to show our gratitude to the people who have supported and helped us during the writing process. Firstly, we would like to say our utmost thank you to our tutor Michaela Sandell, who has been supportive, always been available and has given us useful advice throughout this journey. We appreciate all of the encouraging comments and that you never stopped believing in us. Secondly, we would like to thank Setayesh Sattari, for helping us with her knowledge on quantitative research, that guided us through the statistical phase of this study. Thirdly, we would like to say thank you to Åsa Devine, for the support and inputs during the seminars. Additionally, we would like to send a thank you to all of the participants within this research for their contribution to the findings, whom without this thesis would have not been possible to complete. Lastly, we would all like to thank our parents for the encouragement and unwavering support throughout this academic journey. We would not be here without you. Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden 28th of May 2019 Alexander Andersson Eliisa Kreegimäe Nicole Niiranen Abstract Message credibility is a commonly used term to indicate how well the recipients approve the message. Source credibility, on the other hand is a “communicator's positive characteristics that affect the receiver's acceptance of a message” (Ohanian, 1990, pp 41).
    [Show full text]
  • Apologetics Guide Week 1 WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO
    Apologetics Guide Week 1 WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO APOLOGETICS; FAITH AND REASON Opening Questions: What has been your experience with apologetics (giving reason for the hope you have in Jesus)? Have you needed to defend your Christian belief in the past? Are faith and reason incompatible? If you believe, how did you come to faith? If you do not believe, what parts of the Christian faith and/or life is holding you back? For Discussion: There may be many things in life you do not understand. But that does not stop them from being true or real. Some things you cannot reason, cannot take apart by our wills or fully comprehend with our intellects or give verbalization to—things like love, death, time—but they are nonetheless real. What are some questions you have about faith in God? A Scenario (pick 2 readers to be Jill and Mom) Scene: Jill, a junior at a Christian college, is home for the summer. Jill is a Christian, and she came to faith through a youth retreat held by a local church when she was in high school. Jill’s Mom is glad her daughter has a community that is energizing and growing her, and she has noticed the joy and sense of purpose her daughter has, but she admits she doesn’t really get what the buzz is about. Jill longs for her mom to understand and experience for herself who God is, who Jesus is, and what life in faith is. Jill: Mom, in one of my classes at school, we learned about the kingdom of God—how through Jesus Christ, God is restoring and renewing life, renewing creation, restoring relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Using Logos, Ethos, and Pathos
    School of Liberal Arts University Writing Center “Because writers need readers” Cavanaugh Hall 427 University Library 2125 (317)274-2049 (317)278-8171 www.iupui.edu/~uwc The Rhetorical Triangle: Understanding and Using Logos, Ethos, and Pathos Logos, ethos, and pathos are important components of all writing, whether we are aware of them or not. By learning to recognize logos, ethos, and pathos in the writing of others and in our own, we can create texts that appeal to readers on many different levels. This handout provides a brief overview of what logos, ethos, and pathos are and offers guiding questions for recognizing and incorporating these appeals. Aristotle taught that a speaker’s ability to persuade an audience is based on how well the speaker appeals to that audience in three different areas: logos, ethos, and pathos. Considered together, these appeals form what later rhetoricians have called the rhetorical triangle. Logos appeals to reason. Logos can also be thought of as the text of the argument, as well as how well a writer has argued his/her point. Ethos appeals to the writer’s character. Ethos can also be thought of as the role of the writer in the argument, and how credible his/her argument is. Pathos appeals to the emotions and the sympathetic imagination, as well as to beliefs and values. Pathos can also be thought of as the role of the audience in the argument. LOGOS (Reason/Text) ETHOS PATHOS (Credibility/Writer) (Values, Beliefs/Audience) The rhetorical triangle is typically represented by an equilateral triangle, suggesting that logos, ethos, and pathos should be balanced within a text.
    [Show full text]
  • Bias Is a Reciprocal Relationship 427
    \\jciprod01\productn\M\MAT\31-2\MAT209.txt unknown Seq: 1 13-MAR-19 14:24 Vol. 31, 2019 Bias Is a Reciprocal Relationship 427 Bias Is a Reciprocal Relationship: Forensic Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers in the Family Court Bottle by Dana E. Prescott* and Diane A. Tennies** I. Introduction The profession of law and its belief in the adversarial system as a means to discern factual truths in child custody litigation is deeply rooted in centuries of political and constitutional theory.1 Beyond political rhetoric and academic discourse, the definition of who is a parent and who has rights and responsibilities for children may mean that legal definitions, slower to evolve, are narrower than contemporary social definitions and demographic realties. Even as these social, legislative, and judicial adjustments occur over various time horizons, families in conflict must turn to the family court system to resolve the physical and legal custody of children. * Dana E. Prescott, JD, MSW, PhD is a lawyer licensed in Maine and Massachusetts. He may be contacted at [email protected]. The opin- ions expressed in this article are those of the authors and may not reflect the opinions of the AAML or the Journal. ** Diane A. Tennies, PhD, LADC is a clinical and forensic psychologist with a principle office in Bangor, Maine. She may be contacted at [email protected] 1 For a critical reflection on this history, see Rebecca Aviel, Why Civil Gideon Won’t Fix Family Law, 122 YALE L.J. 2106, 2120 (2012) (“This is a painfully glancing treatment of the fact that the adversarial model fits poorly with most pressing goals of family court, but the truth is that this disconnect is not news to scholars and reformers who study private custody disputes.“); Bar- bra A.
    [Show full text]