Citation

Piper H, Myers S. Child Abuse Rev. 2006; 15(3): 178-187.

Affiliation

Institute of Education, Manchester Metropolitan University -- Cheshire, Crewe Green Road, Cheshire CW1 5DU, UK (h.j.piper@mmu.ac.uk)

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This paper will discuss an article by Becker and French (2005) in this Journal which proposed the general acceptance of correlations or the "links" between child abuse, animal abuse and domestic violence. Becker and French claim this topic has 'seen a growth of interest' (p. 399) over the past two decades and they suggest that organizations across the UK should 'institutionalize the "links" within policy and practice' (p. 410). In this paper we question the appropriateness of linking different forms of violence in such a mechanistic and predictive way by drawing on and extending arguments we have made elsewhere. We consider the proposed links in terms of assumptions, definitions, methods and logic, and raise concerns for a prospective practice which is based on retrospective (and flawed) research. We aim to appeal to influential doubters (social workers, child care workers, animal welfare workers, vets, educators and policy-makers) in a language of 'reason', and we propose that the identified reluctance of professionals in the UK to adopt the rhetoric of 'links' can be viewed as an informed and reflective response. Throughout, we offer a corrective commentary to the flawed assumptions of the 'links' argument and seek to encourage others to remain sceptical about these claims and the suggested implications for practice.