{"id":2138,"date":"2006-03-02T14:15:54","date_gmt":"2006-03-02T21:15:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2006\/03\/02\/critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards\/"},"modified":"2006-03-02T14:15:54","modified_gmt":"2006-03-02T21:15:54","slug":"critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=2138","title":{"rendered":"Critique of "No Basis" Part One: Their Appalling Double-Standards"},"content":{"rendered":"

Virtually all peer-reviewed academic research on same-sex parenting has come to one conclusion: there’s no evidence that being raised by same-sex parents harms children in any way. This result<\/a>, which has been replicated in one form or another at least fifty times, drives sexists and homophobes up a wall. If for children, being loved and taken care of by two parents is what matters, then the cherished conservative belief that children “need” parents of both sexes for healthy development is unsupportable. Furthermore, the research undercuts the myth that children need protection from queers (a major plank of the anti-same sex marriage platform<\/a>).<\/p>\n

No Basis<\/em> by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai<\/a> is frequently cited by anti-gay activists to argue against this body of research (and, by a logically dubious implication, same-sex marriage). Christianity Today’s<\/em> take<\/a> on No Basis<\/em> is pretty typical:<\/p>\n

Researchers Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, coauthors of No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting<\/em> […] evaluated 49 studies on gay parenting, finding significant mistakes in all of them.<\/p>\n

They particularly criticized “convenience sampling,” in which investigators select whoever is available, and “snowball sampling,” in which homosexual activists help researchers find volunteers willing to answer questions.<\/p>\n

“These studies prove nothing,” Lerner and Nagai wrote.<\/p><\/div>\n

From No Basis<\/em> itself:<\/p>\n

Do these 49 studies offer conclusive proof that there is “no difference” between heterosexual and homosexual households? We believe that these studies offer no basis for that conclusion…because they are so deeply flawed pieces of research. The reader is invited to make his or her own judgment.<\/div>\n

Lerner and Nagai claim that studies of same-sex parenting don’t meet minimum standards of scientific respectability. But are the standards they put forward ones they genuinely believe in, or are they standards that Lerner and Nagai opportunistically take on for the specific purpose of rejecting same-sex parenting studies? (It is perhaps worth noting that No Basis<\/em> was commissioned by The Marriage Law Project<\/a>, an organization formed to oppose same-sex marriage). One way of answering this question is to see if Lerner and Nagai have held their own research to the rigorous standards they insist are mandatory in No Basis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Before No Basis<\/em>, Lerner was probably best known for a 1996 study, published by a right-wing think tank in the wake of the O.J. verdict, which claimed to show that American juries typically treat black defendants more gently than white defendants (the disadvantage of whites compared to blacks is a frequent theme in Lerner’s research). Although the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, Lerner’s spectacular findings – in particular, his claim that juries convict white rape defendants twice as often as black rape defendants – created a stir in the mainstream press. From U.S. News and World Report<\/em> (Oct 14 1996):<\/p>\n

Sociologist Robert Lerner, who wrote the report, speculates on the reasons. “Maybe blacks really are getting off easier,” he says, through the leniency of mostly black juries. But it’s also possible, he adds, that “the criminal justice system is a dragnet”–catching countless blacks in its wake–and “then the subsequent process acts as a sieve,” screening out the innocent. That, says Lerner, would be good news. “It suggests that one part of the system appears to be working the way we’d like it to work.”<\/div>\n

The study was widely derided by academics (among other things, it ignored the disparity in sentencing, an area in which the judicial process is clearly easier on whites compared to blacks). For our purposes, what’s interesting is that this study flunks the standards advocated in No Basis<\/em>. As the ACLU comments<\/a>,<\/p>\n

To reach this conclusion Lerner looked at a mere five jury trials involving black defendants. (Roger Parloff, “Speaking of Junk Science,”\u009d The American Lawyer<\/em>, January 1997.) This is the same man who dismisses a study of over two-dozen gay parents for having an insufficient sample size.<\/div>\n

Lerner and his associates thought a sample size of five <\/em>was solid enough to trumpet to the national press; but samples many times larger are still too small, according to Lerner, when he needs an excuse to dismiss gay parenting studies.<\/p>\n

What about Lerner and Nagai’s other standards? In No Basis,<\/em> a major objection to many studies of same-sex parenting is the use of non-probability samples, and in particular “snowball” sampling, in which participants recruit other participants. Here’s a passage of recommendations from No Basis<\/em>:<\/p>\n

1) Use probability samples. There i s no substitute. Only these offer any basis for scientific generalization to larger, representative populations.<\/p>\n

2) Ignore studies based on non-probability samples…<\/p>\n

3) Especially ignore studies where participants recruit other participants. These are so subject to bias, that the limited results cannot be trusted.<\/p><\/div>\n

That’s some very strong language. So, surely, this is a standard that Lerner and Nagai genuinely believe in – not just an opportunistic standard they’ve taken on to bash gay parenting studies? To answer that question, I’ll quote from a review of Lerner and Nagai’s book American Elites<\/em> (the review was published in the prestigious American Journal of Sociology<\/em>, September 1997):<\/p>\n

The samples can only be described as conceptually dubious and methodologically unsound. […] The methodology could not pass a first-year research methods course. No standard set of procedures were used in drawing the 12 elite samples. Something approaching stratified random sampling was used to draw several of the elite samples, but the business sample was drawn exclusively from seven corporations. Top-ranking bureaucrats were purposely sampled to draw equal numbers from “activist” and “traditional” agencies. The sample of religious leaders was collected using snowball methods<\/strong>, which somehow failed to qualify any Jews or Muslims as religious leaders.<\/div>\n

(Emphasis added). Again, it’s clear that Lerner and Nagai have altered their conceptions of what is and isn’t acceptable methodology.<\/p>\n

These are by no means unique examples – see, for instance, this Lerner and Nagai study of affirmative action<\/a>. Although Lerner and Nagai argue in No Basis<\/em> that conclusions can never be drawn without extremely rigorous statistical controls or tests of significance, they didn’t bother using any such statistical tests here. Instead, Lerner and Nagai present only percentages, an approach they single out for harsh criticism in No Basis<\/em>. Note as well that their study seems to have included only 37 black students – a sample size they’d deride as far too small in No Basis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

You may be now saying to yourself, “so Lerner and Nagai use the same bad methods that the gay parenting studies do. They’re still bad methods, right?”<\/p>\n

To that I’ll say: Have patience, folks. I’ll get there.<\/p>\n

Today, I’ve shown that Lerner and Nagai are not serious about the standards they used to reject gay-parenting studies in No Basis<\/em>, as demonstrated by the fact that they’ve never taken these standards seriously in their own work. Tomorrow, I’ll show that – setting aside Lerner and Nagai’s double-standards – the standards they use to dismiss gay parenting studies are illogical, misapplied, and show a severe misunderstanding of social science norms and standards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Virtually all peer-reviewed academic research on same-sex parenting has come to one conclusion: there’s no evidence that being raised by same-sex parents harms children in any way. This result, which has been replicated in one form or another at least … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[116,112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-families-structures-divorce-etc","category-same-sex-marriage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}