Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance

Ellen Daly; Olivia Smith; Hannah Bows; Jennifer Brown; James Chalmers; Sharon Cowan; Miranda Horvath; Fiona Leverick; Jo Lovett; Vanessa Munro; Dominic Willmott

doi:10.1332/239868021X16371459419254

Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance

Ellen Daly, Olivia Smith, Hannah Bows, Jennifer Brown, James Chalmers, Sharon Cowan, Miranda Horvath, Fiona Leverick, Jo Lovett, Vanessa Munro, Dominic Willmott

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract / Description of output

This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas ‘shows’ no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between ‘real’ jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	189-200
Number of pages	12
Journal	Journal of Gender-Based Violence
Volume	7
Issue number	1
Early online date	6 Jan 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021X16371459419254
Publication status	Published - 1 Feb 2023

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

critical commentary
jury research
rape myths
research triangulation

Access to Document

10.1332/239868021X16371459419254

DalyEtalJGBV2023MythsAboutMythsAccepted author manuscript, 262 KB

Cite this

@article{44affcf1a1464abc92e386e9d75d9e71,

title = "Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance",

abstract = "This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas {\textquoteleft}shows{\textquoteright} no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between {\textquoteleft}real{\textquoteright} jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.",

keywords = "critical commentary, jury research, rape myths, research triangulation",

author = "Ellen Daly and Olivia Smith and Hannah Bows and Jennifer Brown and James Chalmers and Sharon Cowan and Miranda Horvath and Fiona Leverick and Jo Lovett and Vanessa Munro and Dominic Willmott",

year = "2023",

month = feb,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1332/239868021X16371459419254",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

pages = "189--200",

journal = "Journal of Gender-Based Violence",

issn = "2398-6808",

publisher = "Policy Press",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance

AU - Daly, Ellen

AU - Smith, Olivia

AU - Bows, Hannah

AU - Brown, Jennifer

AU - Chalmers, James

AU - Cowan, Sharon

AU - Horvath, Miranda

AU - Leverick, Fiona

AU - Lovett, Jo

AU - Munro, Vanessa

AU - Willmott, Dominic

PY - 2023/2/1

Y1 - 2023/2/1

N2 - This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas ‘shows’ no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between ‘real’ jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.

AB - This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas ‘shows’ no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between ‘real’ jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.

KW - critical commentary

KW - jury research

KW - rape myths

KW - research triangulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148302281&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/journal_contribution/Myths_about_myths_A_commentary_on_Thomas_2020_and_the_question_of_jury_rape_myth_acceptance/16559307/1

U2 - 10.1332/239868021X16371459419254

DO - 10.1332/239868021X16371459419254

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85148302281

SN - 2398-6808

VL - 7

SP - 189

EP - 200

JO - Journal of Gender-Based Violence

JF - Journal of Gender-Based Violence

IS - 1

ER -

Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance

Abstract / Description of output

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this