Re-Evaluation of the “No Differences” Hypothesis concerning Gay and Lesbian Parenting as Assessed in Eight Early (1979–1986) and Four Later (1997–1998) Dissertations

Abstract

Academic and policy effects of eight early dissertations on gay and lesbian parenting are discussed with a focus on their having been cited at least 234 times in over 50 literature reviews, beginning with Gottman in 1989 and 1990. Most literature reviews, referencing these eight early dissertations and agreeing with Gottman's early conclusions, have reiterated the theme that parenting by gay men or lesbians has outcomes no different than parenting by heterosexual parents. Here it is proposed that certain potential adverse findings may have been obscured by suppressor effects which could have been evaluated had multivariate analyses been implemented. Further, several adverse findings were detected by reanalyzing data where sufficient information was yet available. Some of the dissertations' results (absent controls for social desirability and other differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents) supported the 2001 "no differences" hypothesis discussed by Stacey and Biblarz. Yet, differences were also observed, including some evidence in more recent dissertations, suggesting that parental sexual orientation might be associated with children's later sexual orientation and adult attachment style, among other outcomes. Odds ratios associated with some of the apparent effects were substantial in magnitude as well as statistically significant. Also, more recent research on gay and lesbian parenting continues to be flawed by many of the same limitations as previous research in this area of study, including overlooked suppressor effects.

Evidence of Pro-Homosexual Bias in Social Science: Citation Rates and Research on Lesbian Parenting

“…In fact, here the methodologically more questionable reports were cited far more often than the comparison report. The results here extend this finding from the treatment of dissertation research (Schumm, 2008) to the treatment of published and refereed journal articles as well.…”

“…Citation rates are often used in academia as a basis for merit raises and for promotions. To the extent that scholars realize that articles supportive of gay rights will be cited much more frequently than nonsupportive articles, there will be pressure to publish supportive results rather than nonsupportive results, which may account for some of the results reported in Schumm's (2008) review. Results here suggest that, even when outcomes are from the same samples by the same authors at the same time in even the same journals, the more supportive results are more likely to become well-known in the field.…”

“…Referring to the social science academy, Stacey and Biblarz (2001) admitted there were ideological constraints in the field, but Ball (2003) expressed concern about how Stacey and Biblarz's comments would be interpreted. Schumm (2008) demonstrated that dissertations were far more likely to be cited in reviews of the literature on same-sex parenting if they contained results supportive of same-sex parenting; in fact, in many cases, dissertations of lower methodological quality were cited more often than those of much higher quality but less supportive results.…”

“Adult Attachment Style Dimensions in Women Who Have Gay or Bisexual Fathers”: Response to Sirota

“…It is unfortunate that her research, conducted in 1997, has received almost none of the credit that it deserves, with dissertations of far less methodological credibility receiving significantly more citations as assessed previously (Schumm, 2008). There are two ways in which her research is even more valuable than would be apparent from her article.…”

A Comparison of Citations across Multidisciplinary Psychology Journals: A Case Study of Two Independent Journals

“…Thus, it is possible that citation rates for individual authors and articles may not be strongly related to the so-called "tier" of the journal in which the articles were published. Indeed, quite remarkably, it has been demonstrated in some topic areas that the more methodological limitations research may have, the more likely (p < .05) top-tier journals were to have published it (Schumm, 2008).…”