In recent years, increasing attention has been given to social science research in family law (1) — especially how it can inform professional practice and contribute to “best interest” decisions for children. Social science research is defined here as knowledge claims or general assertions about children, parents, and families in their social context that are derived from data gathered using one or more of a wide range of scientific research methodologies. Recognized scientific research methodologies involve description of the population of study and systematic, transparent, and replicable methods for ethically collecting and analyzing data and reporting the results of studies. Vigorous debates have occurred within publications, professional conferences, and individual cases about the extent to which social science research claims are more or less well substantiated by research data (versus being speculative, untested, or based upon erroneous assumptions). Some debate is expected and useful for deepening our understanding of children and families; however, unresolved differences in the family law field can also magnify conflict and confusion. With more contentious issues, unresolved, inconsistent, and competing research claims and assertions may, in part, reflect misunderstanding and misuse of research data. In 2016, then-AFCC President Marsha Kline Pruett appointed an international interdisciplinary task force to develop guidelines to promote critical thinking about effective, responsible, and ethical use of social science research in family law–related education, practices, programs, and policy making (2). The two-year process of task force meetings, drafting, and revision gave rise to these Guidelines for the Use of Social Science Research in Family Law. Notes: 1. These Guidelines refer to family law in the broadest sense and include the practice of law, all family law-related dispute resolution processes, education and training programs, and policy advocacy or initiatives. 2. AFCC President Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., MSL, ABPP, convened the following people to serve with her on the task force: Hon. William Fee, Chair; Stacey Platt, J.D., Reporter; Milfred “Bud” Dale, J.D., Ph.D.; Kristin Doeberl, J.D.; Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Ph.D.; Janet Johnston, Ph.D.; Gabriela Misca, Ph.D.; Lorie Nachlis, J.D.; Sol Rappaport, Ph.D.; Michael Saini, Ph.D.; Liana Shelby, Psy. D.; Hon. R. James Williams; Theresa Williams, M.S.; Jeffrey Wittmann, Ph.D.; and Peter Salem, M.A., Executive Director of AFCC. 3. Family justice practitioners include all professionals and litigants, including self-represented litigants, who seek to present, use, and critique research claims.

中文翻译：

---

家庭法社会科学研究使用指南

近年来，家庭法中的社会科学研究受到越来越多的关注 (1)——尤其是它如何为专业实践提供信息并为儿童的“最佳利益”决策做出贡献。社会科学研究在这里被定义为关于儿童、父母和家庭在其社会背景下的知识主张或一般断言，这些断言源自使用一种或多种广泛的科学研究方法收集的数据。公认的科学研究方法包括对研究人群的描述，以及用于合乎道德地收集和分析数据以及报告研究结果的系统、透明和可复制的方法。在出版物、专业会议、以及关于社会科学研究主张在多大程度上被研究数据充分证实的个案（而不是推测性、未经测试或基于错误假设）。一些辩论对于加深我们对儿童和家庭的理解是预期和有用的；然而，家庭法领域未解决的分歧也会放大冲突和混乱。随着更多有争议的问题，未解决、不一致和相互竞争的研究主张和断言可能部分反映了对研究数据的误解和滥用。2016 年，时任 AFCC 主席的玛莎·克莱恩·普鲁特 (Marsha Kline Pruett) 任命了一个国际跨学科工作组来制定指导方针，以促进对社会科学研究在家庭法相关教育、实践、计划、和政策制定（2）。工作组会议、起草和修订的两年过程产生了《家庭法社会科学研究使用指南》。注： 1. 这些指南是广义上的家庭法，包括法律实践、所有与家庭法相关的争议解决程序、教育和培训计划以及政策倡导或倡议。2. AFCC 主席 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., MSL, ABPP, 召集以下人员与她一起在工作组中服务： Hon. 威廉费，主席；Stacey Platt，法学博士，记者；Milfred “Bud” Dale，法学博士，博士；克里斯汀·杜贝尔，法学博士；Amy Holtzworth-Munroe，博士；珍妮特约翰斯顿，博士；Gabriela Misca，博士；Lorie Nachlis，法学博士；Sol Rappaport 博士；Michael Saini，博士；莉安娜谢尔比，心理学家。D.; 尊敬的 R. 詹姆斯威廉姆斯；特蕾莎·威廉姆斯，女士；Jeffrey Wittmann，博士；和 AFCC 执行董事 Peter Salem, MA。3. 家庭司法从业人员包括寻求提出、使用和批评研究主张的所有专业人士和诉讼当事人，包括自我代理诉讼当事人。