About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

48 U.C.D. L. Rev. 583 (2014-2015)
Evaluating the Methodology of Social Science Research on Sexual Orientation and Parenting: A Tale of Three Studies

handle is hein.journals/davlr48 and id is 597 raw text is: Evaluating the Methodology of Social Science Research on Sexual Orientation and Parenting: A Tale of Three Studies Gregory M. Herek* This Article evaluates the validity and generalizability of findings from three studies that have been cited as evidence that children are negatively affected by having parents who are members of a same-sex couple, or are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. I begin by summarizing key findings from empirical research on sexual minority parenting and families. This is followed by a discussion of sexual stigma, which defines the cultural context in which the parenting studies have been conceived, conducted, interpreted, and applied to legal and policy questions. Next I explain three general methodological considerations in evaluating social science research, including studies of sexual orientation and parenting: how variables are defined and measured, how samples are created, and how researchers take into account the effects of extraneous factors that may be sources of group * Copyright © 2014 Gregory M. Herek. Professor of Psychology, University of California at Davis. B.A., University of Nebraska at Omaha, 1977; Ph.D., University of California at Davis, 1983; Post-doctoral Fellow, Yale University, 1983-85. This paper is based on a presentation at the UC Davis Law Review's Not Equal Yet Symposium on February 7, 2014. 1 acknowledge a great intellectual debt to the psychologists and attorneys with whom I have had the privilege of interacting and collaborating over the past three decades in preparing amicus briefs submitted by the American Psychological Association and other professional associations in cases addressing the rights of sexual minorities. Those cases include Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), In re Marriage Cases (2008), and United States v. Windsor (2013). Many of the ideas discussed in this paper were proposed and developed in those briefs. At the risk of omitting individuals who played important roles in this process, I express special thanks to Clinton Anderson, Anne Peplau, Charlotte Patterson, Nathalie Gilfoyle, Paul Smith, Bill Hohengarten, and David Ogden. I learned from and was inspired by all of them. I also thank Deborah Goldfarb for her helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Address correspondence to the author, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8686.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most