Carl L. Bankston III, professor of sociology at Tulane Universty in New Orleans and prolific author writes at the Moral Liberal blog:
Two of the greatest problems in social research are confirmation bias and the attribution of causal relations among concepts. The first refers to the tendency to find results that confirm our preconceived ideas. This may be more or less conscious: since researchers “know” that diversity contributes to educational achievement, they will look for evidence that demonstrates a relationship that is, to their minds, self-evident. It may be unconscious: our values and perspectives may shape how we decide to define issues. I see examples of confirmation bias every day in published and unpublished research, and in the casual statements of researchers.
... A look at the internet discussions generated by the persecution of Regnerus will show hysterical denunciations of this researcher and everyone associated with him as “homophobic bigots” who seek to “demonize” gays. I was heartened to see a defense of Regnerus signed by a number of prominent social scientists and an excellent analysis of the affair by Notre Dame Sociologist Christian Smith. But the attacks on Regnerus don’t just threaten to damage the career of a single researcher. They send a message to all researchers: if you don’t follow the prescribed line on every controversial issue, the activists will get out the tar and feathers.
6 Comments
I’m afraid Prf. Bankston needs to go back to read the study and to read how it was presented by Mr Regnerus initially compare that to how it was reported gleefully by those who oppose equal rights. It is actually fraudulent (the intention to deceive) to present the findings as relevant to same sex parenting when the categorical definitions prevent such a conclusion. The confounding by sociological factors pertinent to the age group of the cohort studied (lack of access to marriage, societal disapproval of equal rights, homophobia, ) means that we cannot say anything about the influence of lesbian parents on children except that family instability is bad for kids.
Scott Rose may have used whatever he could to press UT to investigate, including using the word fraudulent where another word might have worked better, since indeed Regnerus stated his definitions, however unwieldy, unrepresentative, or motivated by confirmation bias. But out in the real world, from the everyday meaning of fraudulent, then his categorical definitions are fraudulent, maximising the number of participants from unstable families and presenting an impossible and fraudulent comparison – that children from the one group could somehow be compared in any real way in outcomes to the other group (long term biological married mother and father) and relate that to sexuality per se.
Paul Mc #1:
"But out in the real world, from the everyday meaning of fraudulent, then his categorical definitions are fraudulent"
Real World:
""In an Aug. 24 memorandum, University of Texas research integrity officer Robert Peterson stated that “Professor Regnerus did not commit scientific misconduct when designing, executing and reporting the research published in the Social Science Research article.”
“In brief, Mr. Rose believed that the Regnerus research was seriously flawed and inferred that there must be scientific misconduct,” Peterson stated. “However, there is no evidence to support that inference.”
As part of the inquiry, Peterson interviewed both the accuser and the accused and sequestered Regnerus’ research and correspondence, which included four laptops, two desktop computers and 42,000 of his emails.
In addition, to ensure that the inquiry was conducted appropriately and fairly, the university hired Alan Price as an outside, independent consultant. Price served for 17 years in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Research Integrity. There, he and a staff of senior scientists saw, handled and resolved more than 3,000 charges of scientific misconduct, leading Price to state that no one in the U.S., or for that matter, in the world, has more experience in this area than he does."
Thanks, Rick.
The Regnerus study is the best we have to date. Nobody said it was perfect.
Regnerus study does not study same sex parenting. It studies family instability and child outcomes. It has nothing to say re: causal attribution and sexuality. If you can find anything that states being gay makes you a bad parent then feel free to let me know.
As I said above, it is as much what happened after the paper was released to the press and the ADF etc that provide the 'real world fraudulence' I described. Eg. Focus on the Family:
"Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…
Experience poor educational attainment
Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
Have impulsive behaviour
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc"
The research DID NOT study children raised by same sex parents. This is a fraud, plain and simple. The interweb is littered with similar conclusions made erroneously and against what Regnerus himself would say now, esp. with today's partial admission about inapt categorical definitions.
Paul, Paul, Paul.
We understand that Regnerus has truly hit a nerve.
We understand that you intend to parse his findings with a standard of rigor which is never applied to studies which do not hit your nerve.
Yawn.
Next.
"We understand that you intend to parse his findings with a standard of rigor which is never applied to studies which do not hit your nerve."
That's right, Rick. Because I didn't see Paul or anyone else complaining when woefully inadequate studies were cited by the Huffington Post, etc. to say that gay couples make *better* parents than a man and a woman.
But as to the article above, the author is right. The reaction to Regnerus is only intended to send a warning to others about what to research. For this reason, Regnerus must stand firm and others must condemn personal and professional attacks hurled against him.