The Methodology of The Witch-Hunt Narrative: A Question of Evidence-Evidence Questioned.

Abstract

From an evidentiary point of view, the project Ross Cheit seeks to accomplish in his book, The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children, is remarkably complex. I examine the methodology that underlies Cheit's scholarship to assess the strength of his claims. Cheit's work has a strong methodological core in which he asserts the existence of a "Witch-Hunt Narrative" (WHN), public perception that there are "hundreds" of legal cases involving innocent adults wrongly criminally pursued for child sexual abuse. He identifies three foundational cases in this WHN, McMartin, Michaels, and Fuster, along with dozens of others, which he distills from published lists. Using broadly collected archival and other data, Cheit investigates the veracity of this WHN. He concludes there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the witch-hunt claim. Methodologically, Cheit's research veers into more problematic territory when he seeks to extend his WHN claims beyond this central core and extend it to the academy, particularly the research of several prominent academics, including psychologists Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck. I examine these claims and argue Cheit has not paid sufficient attention to the methods and methodology upon which he bases his claims. I conclude by noting the complexity of evaluating evidence produced and utilized in, and across, disciplinary boundaries, including journalism, law, and the academy. Nonetheless, Cheit's scholarship raises a plethora of important questions and possibilities for future research.