In critiquing Lev-Wiesel's research methodology, the current article notes that Lev-Wiesel's study purports to be based on a textual analysis of stories that therapists told about their clients, the 19 diaries of mothers that were available to the researchers, and the case records. The critique concludes that the coding and interpretation of the data are not supported by the data presented. Lev-Wiesel presents findings to support her view that the behaviors and attitudes of mothers of daughters who are sexually victimized by their fathers constitute part of the dynamics of the abuse. The critique argues, however, that Lev-Wiesel is virtually silent on the perpetrator's central role in the dynamics and perpetration of the sexual abuse, even though the weight of research shows that the perpetrator's motives, manipulations, and psychopathology dominate the dynamics of father-daughter incest, to the exclusion of the mother's characteristics. This critique of Lev-Wiesel's conclusions cites some of the important empirical studies that have virtually eliminated the mother's role as an issue in understanding the dynamics of father-daughter incest. One of the works cited is Judith Herman's "Father-Daughter Incest" (1981), which questioned the two common explanations for such incest, the "seductive daughter" and the "collusive mother." Another work mentioned is Conte's (1986) summary of existing research. Conte called into question theories that place responsibility for incest on mothers and family dynamics. Landmark studies of large population samples have also indirectly undermined the theory of the mother as a significant factor in father-daughter incest. 26 references