The Effective Dates of No-Fault Divorce Laws in the 50 States
By Denese Ashbough Vlosky and Pamela A. Monroe
Vlosky and Monroe’s research essentially determines reviews and redefines the effective dates (dates in which laws went into effect) for the all the no-fault divorce laws in the 50 United States. They argue that inconsistencies in prior studies which measured these start dates differently undermined the research conducted and left out important areas of research. Prior to no-fault divorce, dissolving partnerships were put on basically put on trial, and one member was found and guilty and the other innocent.
I would argue that although slightly interesting, and somewhat important in one being able to determine when to begin measuring, this is probably one of the more useless studies I have read about so far. This article determines almost nothing, save the actual effective dates of no-fault divorce rates in the U.S. in just 5 other states. Most of the dates determined in this research already matches up with the majority of dates already used in other studies, which were able to both establish these effective dates as well as measure the effects of no-fault laws on the rate of divorce. This study did not do that in the least.
While I understand that Vlosky and Monroe were trying to give other researchers a template for which to measure no-fault divorces laws, this study, which seems to have taken 4 years to conduct and finally publish, resolves and tells us almost nothing new or important. Sometimes I feel completely let down by these articles, but this one by far takes the cake as one of the most useless. It doesn’t even measure the effects of no-fault divorce, which I guess was not the author’s intention, but that’s the part I was most curious about. I do not in any way believe an entire paper needed to be constructed on this single topic, and feel that in taking so much time to put what is essentially a “methods” section, or simply a small piece of the research, into a full-fledged academic article was a waste of the authors’ time, and a waste of my time because I happened to read it.
By Denese Ashbough Vlosky and Pamela A. Monroe
Vlosky and Monroe’s research essentially determines reviews and redefines the effective dates (dates in which laws went into effect) for the all the no-fault divorce laws in the 50 United States. They argue that inconsistencies in prior studies which measured these start dates differently undermined the research conducted and left out important areas of research. Prior to no-fault divorce, dissolving partnerships were put on basically put on trial, and one member was found and guilty and the other innocent.
I would argue that although slightly interesting, and somewhat important in one being able to determine when to begin measuring, this is probably one of the more useless studies I have read about so far. This article determines almost nothing, save the actual effective dates of no-fault divorce rates in the U.S. in just 5 other states. Most of the dates determined in this research already matches up with the majority of dates already used in other studies, which were able to both establish these effective dates as well as measure the effects of no-fault laws on the rate of divorce. This study did not do that in the least.
While I understand that Vlosky and Monroe were trying to give other researchers a template for which to measure no-fault divorces laws, this study, which seems to have taken 4 years to conduct and finally publish, resolves and tells us almost nothing new or important. Sometimes I feel completely let down by these articles, but this one by far takes the cake as one of the most useless. It doesn’t even measure the effects of no-fault divorce, which I guess was not the author’s intention, but that’s the part I was most curious about. I do not in any way believe an entire paper needed to be constructed on this single topic, and feel that in taking so much time to put what is essentially a “methods” section, or simply a small piece of the research, into a full-fledged academic article was a waste of the authors’ time, and a waste of my time because I happened to read it.
Posts
I couldn't agree with you more! This article was so so so disappointing. I wanted to shake the researchers and be like "okay, now you have the data...DO SOMETHING WITH IT!!" I think it is good that they compiled an effective list of dates but I want analysis, implications, etc.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you and RainbowBrite. I actually wrote down in my blog too that I wish they would show some results of new studies conducted using their new template. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find if we looked up some studies after their article was published.
ReplyDelete