A Canadian's crap smacking research

All the people who refuse to smack their children but just want to hug them are getting together with their disciple Canadian psychologist Joan Durrant in Wellington to hear how the smacking ban in Sweden has reduced child abuse to virtually zero, even though it has actually increased. Lots of child advocates are in attendance from the usual groups to hear her crap research. Plunket, Save the Children etc...
As Sir Humphrey's has noted:

Save The Children publishes Joan Durrant's shonky research; Unicef brings Joan Durrant out to NZ to win over the membership of Plunket to the benefits of outlawing smacking to get ground level support; Plunket and The Office for the Commissioner for Children use their joint vehicle of the Littlies Lobby to elicit a response from parents that shows parents don't think smacking is effective and then Unicef publishes an article to bring it all together, but missing out Joan Durrant because of her shonky research. But Joan's work is done - she's won over the membership of Plunket.

They're using multiple organisations to hide the fact that a very small number of people is driving this law change.

Now Durrant is back. Here's how the tit-for tat research has developed between two phychologists with PhDs. Both are are researchers, but one is an advocate.

Joan Durrant writes "A Generation Without Smacking" saying how smacking has reduced child abuse. Problem is that because most people can't read Swedish, they can't check her Swedish research.

Psychologist Dr Robert Larzelere of the University of Nebraska Medical Centre responds with a rebuttal showing how crap her research is The report "Sweden's smacking ban - more harm than good". One-nil.

Durrant hits back with her response to claims in Larzelere's report. Her report is "Law Reform and Corporal Punishment in Sweden, where she notes that Larzelere has no knowledge of Swedish society.

Larzelere claims to have been misrepresented and releases
his response comparing Durrant's conclusions in his previous paper to what his conclusions actually were. He compares Durrant's advocacy with his researched evidence.

Durrant never responded. Perhaps Larzelere was right. Perhaps he should have addressed the meeting instead.