We are living in a time when people are increasingly skeptical of “research.”
You see it everywhere—memes saying “trust the science” met with eye rolls, dismissal, or outright hostility.
And honestly, that skepticism didn’t come out of nowhere.
The problem is not science itself. The problem is that many people cannot distinguish between ideologically driven “research” and evidence-based, peer-reviewed scholarship.
That distinction matters—especially in areas like family law, domestic violence, and parental alienation—where real lives are affected.
What Is Evidence-Based Research?
Evidence-based research follows a process:
- It is peer-reviewed by experts in the field
- It is replicable (others can test and reach similar conclusions)
- It is transparent in its methodology
- It is open to criticism and debate
Science is not about consensus—it is about argument, testing, and refinement.
Even minority viewpoints are valuable when they engage with evidence.
A good example is Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist who has challenged aspects of mainstream climate change models. Whether one agrees with him or not, Lindzen engages with data, physics, and atmospheric science. He raises nuanced critiques that require serious engagement.
Yet, instead of being debated on the merits of his arguments, he is often dismissed or marginalized—which raises an important question:
Are we defending science, or protecting a narrative?
What Is Ideological “Research”?
Ideological research starts with a conclusion—and then works backward.
Instead of asking “What does the evidence show?”, it asks:
“How can we prove what we already believe?”
This kind of work often:
- Relies on selective data (cherry-picking)
- Avoids contradictory evidence
- Uses loaded language instead of neutral analysis
- Is published in non-peer-reviewed or ideologically aligned platforms
- Appeals to authority or moral framing, rather than evidence
It may look like research—but it does not function like science.
The “Crime Filter” in Domestic Violence Research
One of the clearest examples of this problem comes from Donald Dutton in his book Rethinking Domestic Violence.
Dutton explains what he calls the “crime filter.”
Many government reports and advocacy-based studies claim that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence. But these conclusions often rely heavily on:
- Police reports
- Arrest records
Here’s the issue: police data reflects who gets arrested, not necessarily who is violent.
This introduces systemic bias:
- Men are more likely to be arrested in domestic disputes
- Women’s violence is less likely to result in arrest
- Dual-arrest situations are often simplified into male-perpetrator narratives
So the data becomes filtered—not by reality—but by institutional response.
Dutton’s critique is not ideological—it is methodological. And importantly, his concerns are supported by broader research, including findings compiled in the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, which draws on thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
This is what evidence-based correction looks like:
Not denial—but deeper, more accurate analysis.
When Research Becomes Advocacy: The Case of Parental Alienation
The issue becomes even more concerning in the field of parental alienation.
Joan Meier has conducted work aiming to discredit parental alienation, often framing it within a narrative of “gendered violence.”
However, there are significant concerns:
- Her work has been criticized for methodological bias
- It relies on selective case sampling
- It has struggled to gain traction in mainstream peer-reviewed academic journals
Despite this, her findings are widely cited by advocacy groups and some institutional bodies as definitive proof that parental alienation is “debunked.”
At the same time, parental alienation itself has been:
- Studied across disciplines
- Replicated in thousands of peer-reviewed studies
- Documented internationally
Many of these studies are also accessible through the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project.
Yet, advocates like myself are often told:
“You just have sources—so do they.”
Why People Are Losing Trust in “Research”
This confusion is exactly why public trust is eroding.
When ideological advocacy is presented as science:
- People notice inconsistencies
- They see conclusions that don’t match lived experience
- They feel dismissed when questioning narratives
Events like COVID-19 pandemic intensified this dynamic. Messaging like “trust the science” often came without explanation or transparency, which made it feel more like authority than inquiry.
Science should invite questions—not shut them down.
What Makes My Approach Different in Family Law Reform
When I say I rely on evidence-based research, I am not asking for blind trust.
I am saying:
- The sources I use are peer-reviewed
- The findings are replicable
- The methodology is transparent
- The conclusions can be explained and defended
If you challenge the data—I can walk you through it.
That’s the difference.
Final Thought: Science Is Not a Slogan
Science is not a political weapon.
It is not a slogan.
And it is not owned by any ideology.
It is a method—a process of testing reality.
If we want to restore trust in research, we need to stop pretending all “studies” are equal.
They are not.
And until we are honest about that, people will continue to lose faith—not just in bad research, but in science itself.
Monique Dietvorst is the founder of the Canadian Child Protection from Alienation Foundation (CPAF) and a graduate student in parental alienation studies. Drawing on academic research and lived experience, she writes about the Boy Crisis, fatherlessness, and how family fragmentation leaves young men vulnerable to extremist influences. Her work focuses on creating child-centered, evidence-based reforms in family law and public discourse.