Contradictory research findings enabled both sides to weaponize evidence selectively
Evidence
What Gershoff found when she looked at the corporal punishment literature in the late 1990s was not a clear, definitive body of research. She found a heterogeneous collection of studies — different definitions of corporal punishment, different populations, different outcome measures, different methodologies — that had produced apparently conflicting results and had been deployed selectively by advocates on both sides of the debate. Defenders of corporal punishment could point to studies showing neutral or positive effects. Critics could point to studies showing harm. The debate was stuck. — , The Rod and the Child, 9551
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the general phenomenon of research mobilization around contested policy issues, e.g. climate and vaccine studies in this same chapter. — connects to: Evidence-based advocacy fails when the political configuration is unready for it — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 9030; Media balance reproduces the shared presuppositions that bracket political disagreement; The administrative cribbing of reports determined which event readings became evidence (+6 more)
Broader Connections
- Two honest witnesses can report opposite truths about the same event
#corroborates(0.60) — , A Year of World Stories, 14793 - The administrative cribbing of reports determined which event readings became evidence
#corroborates(0.55) - Torture’s ambiguous truth makes it a potent propaganda weapon for both sides
#exemplifies(0.55) — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 580 - Media balance reproduces the shared presuppositions that bracket political disagreement
#expands(0.50) - Broadcasting’s formal balance of two sides distorts unequal real-world conflicts
#exemplifies(0.50) - Selective evidence can mislead juries about the case’s credibility.
#exemplifies(0.45) — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 2644