A relatively high profile academic controversy has arisen around the publication of a recent paper in Social Science Research called "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study". The author, Mark Regnerus, is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. Here is the paper's abstract.
Abstract
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.
Response to this paper has been highly charged, even in the academic community. I have not tried to follow it all, but expect it would be interesting for some of you to explore. For a few entry points, you might read these two opposing columnists from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The first, Laurie Essig, points out weaknesses in the article and calls into question its intentions. In a second essay, Essig generalizes her critique, stressing that research is not made more objective simply through application of larger data sets.
The second, Peter Wood, generally defends Regnerus, especially endorsing the usual scholarly process, rather than special administrative investigations, as the right way to criticize work like this.
Regnerus himself wrote less formally about this in Slate.
Since we will have Al Young, the Chair of the Sociology Department with us on Thursday, I thought some of you might want to take a look at all this and discuss it with him.
Whatever is going on here (and I truly don't know), it is an example of the complexity which can emerge from research on topics of current social and political interest.