David Finkelhor

David Finkelhor

David Finkelhor is an American sociologist often cited as the major proponent (and a key founder) of sexual victimology as applied to children. He holds posts as director of the Crimes against Children Research Center, Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory and Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire in the US.

Whilst Finkelhor is probably the most frequently cited research authority on what (partially due to his own advocacy) has become known as child sexual abuse, his work has been criticised by other authors such as Bruce Rind, for its poor sampling and use of morality to make broadsweeping statements about adult-child sex.

Career

Finkelhor has been studying child abuse, child victimization, child maltreatment and family violence since 1977. He is editor and author of 12 books and over 200 journal articles and book chapters. He has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the US Department of Justice, and a variety of other sources. In 1994, he was given the Distinguished Child Abuse Professional Award by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. In 2004 he was given the Significant Achievement Award from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. In 2005 he and his colleagues received the Child Maltreatment Article of the Year award, and in 2007 he was elected as a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology.

Finkelhor is best known for his research on child sexual abuse. He has stated that he intends to continue his research until he proves "an unambiguous and persuasive case that the problem [of child sexual abuse] is widespread." According to Kenneth Plummer, he is "probably the most prominent sociologist at work in the field [of child sexual abuse]." He holds a Ph.D in sociology.

More recently, Finkelhor addressed US Congress with a group of researchers. He agreed with the group that standard advice given to children concerning web use (not to divulge personal details) was flawed and that adult-minor sexual contacts solicited over the web rarely conform to the pathological model, and are chosen by teens themselves. Two years later, this advice had still not been adopted by professionals.

Satanic ritual abuse

Between 1986 and 1988, Finkelhor worked on a large study of sexual abuse in day cares in an attempt to legitimize the satanic ritual abuse panic, including the discredited McMartin preschool case. His research was funded by a grant of $173,000 from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the results were published in the book Nursery Crimes: Sexual Abuse in Day Care. In an executive summary of his findings, available online, Finkelhor writes:

"Allegations of ritualistic abuse ("the invocation of religious, magical or supernatural symbols or activities") occured in 13% of the cases. After studying the ritualistic allegations we decided that they needed to be subdivided into three categories: 1) true cult-based ritualism, where the abuse was in service to a larger spiritual or social objective, 2) psuedo-ritualism, where the goal was primarily sexual gratification, with ritual being used only to intimidate children against disclosing, and 3) psychological ritualism, where the activities were primarily the expression of an individual's obsessional or delusional system. [...] We recommend more research and professional awareness about ritualistic child abuse. We need to know more about the prevalence, dynamics and impact of this disturbing type of abuse. Moreover, we need better information on how to effectively investigate allegations. Law enforcement, child welfare and licensing officials need to be educated about the existence of such abuse so that they can recognize it and include it in their investigations." (p. 17)

In the book, Finkelhor speculates that the motivation for ritualistic abuse may be an "identification with evil" that "ties sexual abuse to ritual abuse in the mind set that may be attracted to so-called satanic practice" (p. 64).

Criticism

Critics have pointed to numerous flaws in Finkelhor's research papers:

• Exclusion of data:
• Wrong conclusions:
• Importation of (flawed) moral critique: Bruce Rind argues that "Finkelhor (1979, 1984) many years ago already articulated the positions Schmidt is currently espousing. But the weakness of his articulation is instructive, as it points to the problem of trying to be a scientist and a moralist simultaneously. Like Schmidt, Finkelhor argued that harm is not needed to establish the immorality and unacceptability of adult-child sex. Instead, Finkelhor continued, the unacceptability is based on the child's inability to consent, because he does not know what he is getting into and he cannot say no. A critic then complained that, if it is true that children cannot make judgments about sex, how can they judge among rival claims of the various religious sects (e.g., agree with an adult to be taken to one church rather than another or none at all)?. Finkelhor responded that it is different with sex, because sex is more likely to be harmful. His argument is circular: the issue falls back to harm, even though harm is claimed to be unessential to the point."
• Clinical focus: Finkelhor's most-cited research on the effects of child sexual abuse relies on clinical/legal samples (e.g., Kendall-Tackett, Finkelhor, et al. (1993) and Finkelhor & Browne (1986)), which are not representative of the general population. Studies using college or national samples report a weak to non-existent relationship between child sexual abuse and maladjustment (see Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes). Bruce Rind has criticized this and other aspects of Kendall-Tackett, et al. (1993).

External links

• Crimes against Children Research Center
• David Finkelhor bio & curriculum vitae
• Family Research Laboratory
• Finkelhor addresses Congress
• Finkelhor's Flaws - Criticism from Newgon.com's Stephen James.