In full disclosure, I will say that doing this assignment scared the crap out of me. I just hope that I did well on the assignment—i.e., I hope that I covered all of my bases and cited everything correctly. By the way, I—unless I am unaware of some law which states that I can't share my own writing on my own own blog—have the right to share my own writing. Also, for you to cite me if you use this blog entry would be nice; but I would be a hypocrite if I required that you cite that, since I believe in
the Bible as opposed to the concept of "intellectual property".
Assessment
and Analysis of a Scholarly Article:
Student
Critique of “Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) Students’ Prior
Sexual
Abuse Victimization”
Nicole
V. Czarnecki
University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
Abstract
This
article attempts to summarize, assess, and analyze Michelle T. Gore’s and
Pamela J. Black’s study which is titled “Bachelor of Social Work (BSW)
Students’ Prior Sexual Abuse Victimization”. Published by Gore and Black (both
of whom are affiliated with Eastern Kentucky University
in Richmond, Kentucky) in Journal of Teaching In
Social Work, the study stands for scrutiny insofar as it employed its
chosen type of research and methodology, and insofar as it came to the
conclusions to which it came. The scrutiny is the work of Nicole V. Czarnecki,
who was then a student in the SOWK 240 (Information Technology in Social Work)
class of Dr. Jessica Guzman-Rea at the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County (UMBC). Czarnecki was a Political Science (as opposed to a
Social Work) major and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political
Science in December of 2013 (The time of Czarnecki’s critique of Gore’s and
Black’s study was October 19, 2013, when Czarnecki was a to-be-graduating
senior and Political Science major at UMBC.). Therefore, Czarnecki could not
comprehensively assess and analyze the study of Gore and Black, both of whom
are in the Social Work field (whereas Czarnecki is in the Political Science
field).
Keywords:
analysis, assessment, Black, critique, Czarnecki, Eastern Kentucky University,
Gore, social work, scholarly article, study, summary; University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
Introduction
Michelle
T. Gore and Pamela J. Black of Eastern
Kentucky University
conducted and published a study which they titled ““Bachelor of Social Work
(BSW) Students’ Prior Sexual Abuse Victimization”. Gore and Black published
their study in Journal of Teaching In Social Work in 2009, and they
described their 2009 publication as a study which “reports findings of an
exploratory study surveying 61 students about their prior child sexual abuse
victimization.” (Abstract From the Authors) They utilized quantitative work to
attempt to answer the query of “What percentage of [Bachelor of Social Work]
students [“at a south central U.S.
regional university”] has been sexually abused (as defined by [the 2001
Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children] statute) during childhood?”
(“RESEARCH QUESTION” &“METHODOLOGY”)
Gore
and Black extensively laid out their 2009 study’s methodology. In sum, the
methodology “consisted of 61 BSW students [who were] attending the university
during the academic years of 2001 and 2002” and “taking a required course on
child abuse”. The students each received “[a] confidential five-itemed
questionnaire” (“SAMPLE” & “METHODOLOGY”). The questionnaires effected the
researchers to find “that taking a child abuse course may increase BSW
students’ self-awareness regarding prior victimization” and “social work
students [indeed] report a higher occurrence of prior childhood abuse than the
general population” (Abstract From the Authors & “DISCUSSION”).
Assessment
and Analysis
As
Gore and Black concede in their study’s “LIMITATIONS OF STUDY” section, “There
were several limitations to this study.” One significant limitation is that
Gore and Black used a highly-flawed methodology in that they defined “sexual
abuse” in the terms of “[t]he state’s current definition of child sexual abuse”
(“METHODOLOGY”), which in of itself is highly flawed. The definition, according
to Gore and Black, is as follows (ibid.):
“‘‘Abused or
neglected child’’ means a child whose health or welfare is harmed or threatened
with harm when his parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial
control or supervision of the child:
(e) Commits or
allows to be committed an act of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or
prostitution will be committed upon a child;
(f) Creates or
allows to be created a risk that an act of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation,
or prostitution will be committed upon a child.
(Cabinet
for Families and Children, 2001, p. 4)”
The
flaw in the definition is that it “addresses abuse by a parent, guardian, or
others [who was or who were] acting
in a caretaking capacity. It does not pertain to sexual abuse from
non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers. For example, incidents of
sibling sexual abuse would not be included unless the perpetrator was acting in
a caretaking role with the alleged victim.” The flaw specifically is that the
definition does not cover “sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse
from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse” as “sexual abuse, sexual
exploitation, or prostitution” which a “parent, guardian, or other person
exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be
committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created.”
Given
that the definition is as highly flawed as it is, therefore, it alone nullifies
and voids the study. After all, a “parent, guardian, or other person exercising
custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be committed…[and/or]
[c]reates or allows to be created…sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or
abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”. Whether the custodian
mandates, encourages, enables, or fails to act to stop and/or punish any
“sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling
sexual abuse”, the custodian allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or
allows to be created…sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from
strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”. Therefore, Gore and Black must redo their
study and base it on a definition that covers any and all custodian-mandated,
-encouraged, -enabled, and –commended or –condoned sexual abuse.
As
far as the study’s other limitations, Gore and Black adequately speak to those limitations.
Therefore, this critique needs to not comment on those limitations. As this
critique aforestated, the study must go through a reworking process and base
itself on a definition of any and all sexual abuse that anyone commits against
a child.
In
conclusion, this critique assessed and analyzed Michelle T. Gore’s and Patricia
J. Black’s 2009 annullable, voidable, and reworkable study which was published
in Journal of Teaching In Social Work. This critique explicitly stated
that Gore and Black must rework their study because of how they measured their
concept of sexual abuse by the standards of the 2001 Kentucky Cabinet for
Families and Children law, which
inadequately and illogically does not count “sexual abuse from
non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse” as
“sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution” which a “parent, guardian,
or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows
to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created.”
References
Gore, M.T., & Black, P.J. (2009). Bachelor
of social work (bsw) students’ prior sexual abuse victimization. Journal of
Teaching In Social Work, 29, 449–460. doi:10.1080/08841230903249786
Paiz, J.M., Angeli, E., Wagner, J.,
Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., Brizee, A., and
Keck, R. (2013, March 1). General
format. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
“. (2013, September 28). Reference list: electronic sources
(web publications). Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/
.gif)
