Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 4 publications
References 0 publications
Are the outcomes for children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents in general the same as those for heterosexual parents? That controversial question is discussed here in a detailed review of the social science literature in three parts: (1) stability of same-sex parental relationships, (2) child outcomes, and (3) child outcomes in same-sex adoption. Relationship instability appears to be higher among gay and lesbian parent couples and may be a key mediating factor influencing outcomes for children. With respect to part 2, while parental self-reports usually present few significant differences, social desirability or self-presentation bias may be a confounding factor. While some researchers have tended to conclude that there are no differences whatsoever in terms of child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation, such conclusions appear premature in the light of more recent data in which some different outcomes have been observed in a few studies. Studies conducted within the past 10 years that compared child outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual adoptive parents were reviewed. Numerous methodological limitations were identified that make it very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the effect of parental sexual orientation across adoptive families. Because of sampling limitations, we still know very little about family functioning among same-sex adoptive families with low or moderate incomes, those with several children, or those with older children, including adolescents or how family functioning may change over time. There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially families with gay fathers and with lower income.
Are the outcomes for children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents in general the same as those for heterosexual parents? That controversial question is discussed here in a detailed review of the social science literature in three parts: (1) stability of same-sex parental relationships, (2) child outcomes, and (3) child outcomes in same-sex adoption. Relationship instability appears to be higher among gay and lesbian parent couples and may be a key mediating factor influencing outcomes for children. With respect to part 2, while parental self-reports usually present few significant differences, social desirability or self-presentation bias may be a confounding factor. While some researchers have tended to conclude that there are no differences whatsoever in terms of child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation, such conclusions appear premature in the light of more recent data in which some different outcomes have been observed in a few studies. Studies conducted within the past 10 years that compared child outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual adoptive parents were reviewed. Numerous methodological limitations were identified that make it very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the effect of parental sexual orientation across adoptive families. Because of sampling limitations, we still know very little about family functioning among same-sex adoptive families with low or moderate incomes, those with several children, or those with older children, including adolescents or how family functioning may change over time. There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially families with gay fathers and with lower income.
How might scholars evaluate the quality of literature reviews in the social sciences? We developed a variety of potential measures of review quality and tested them using data from 72 reviews of the literature between 2001 and 2017 in the area of same-sex parenting, with a focus on the issues of any association between parental and child sexual orientation or greater acceptance of sexual diversity by the child for themselves or others. Six single item measures of quality were transformed into ordinal measures and combined to form a quality scale (a = .592). Quality measures were often not normally distributed, with positive skew and kurtosis, necessitating the use of nonparametric statistics. The quality scale was significantly correlated with citation rates as an indicator of scholarly impact. Contrary to expectations, some of the higher quality reviews more often disagreed with consensus viewpoints than did reviews scoring lower on quality. Encyclopedia entries scored the lowest on quality of any type of publication (versus books, book chapters, journal articles, and reports from professional organizations). Reviews varied greatly in quality, with scores of quality between 1 and 21, although overall quality was not significantly related to the year of publication of the reviews. The eleven highest quality reviews for same-sex parenting were identified. Suggestions for improving literature reviews in the future are discussed.
Science often must deal with issues that are politically controversial. However, there are dangers in dealing with controversial research and serious risks to the process of doing science and to the credibility of science, particularly social science. Here, I discuss lessons learned from engaging in and criticizing controversial research for nearly four decades. Social science research as a process is being damaged by questionable research practices, several of which are discussed. Social science results are being misrepresented through a variety of weak or incorrect methodologies, each of which is discussed. Discourse about social science results often shifts from academic discussion into attempts to discredit those with whom one may disagree. Science and the public are not being well served by these problems, so new researchers and policymakers need to be aware of them. For teaching purposes, examples are also presented of controversial research in which new analyses off er diff erent results than previously reported.My journey dealing with controversial research may have begun with my older brother's dissertation ( Schumm, 1966 ), about which he told me, when I was 15-yr. old, that probably one-third of what scientists had thought they knew about the research topic had been incorrect. That situation imbued me with a certain sense of skepticism about scientifi c research on one hand, but a sense of optimism on the other hand that one could -through better science -correct such things and make improvements. Only later did I fi nd Cohen (1990 ) saying essentially the same thing with respect to social science -"One of the things I learned early on was that some things you learn aren't so" (p. 1304).Even well-known historical events can be deconstructed statistically to show that things did not occur as we have been led to believe. Here are some examples of which readers may or may not be aware. The week before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was trying to ambush the Japanese. In the RMS Titanic disaster, the lowest survival rates for men and the highest survival rates for women and children were among the middle class passengers, suggesting a new nonlinear theory of social class and compliance with social rules. The Challenger disaster could have been predicted in advance with simple statistics ( Schumm, Webb, Castelo, Akagi, Jensen, Ditto, et al ., 2002 ). There are many other examples, in this author's own experience, in which research did not turn out as might have been expected. Grover, Russell, Schumm, and Paff -Bergen (1985 ) showed that the best predictor of later marital satisfaction was the length of time taken before the decision to marry, not the length of engagement. Gwanfogbe, Schumm, Smith, and Furrow (1997 ) reported that in some situations a wife might be happier in a bigamous marriage. Hendrix, Jurich, and Schumm (1995 ) showed that adverse eff ects on a veteran's family life after observing prisoner abuse lasted for decades. In Moxley, Eggeman, and Schumm 1 Address correspondence to Dr. Schumm, S...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
