EDITORS' CORNER
Key Takeaways
- Sociologist Mark Regnerus's study, showing negative outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents, has been vindicated by a multiverse analysis conducted by Cornell University experts, which confirmed the original findings across various analytic models.
- Despite criticism and investigation into his research methods, Regnerus was cleared of bias allegations, highlighting challenges faced by scholars who explore topics that contradict prevailing liberal narratives in academia.
- Emerging initiatives like the Adversarial Collaboration Project signal hope for fostering open debate in academia by pairing researchers with opposing viewpoints to conduct collaborative studies.
OPINION/ANALYSIS
A sociologist who conducted a comprehensive study showing the harms to children of growing up in a household with gay parents has once again been vindicated by a statistical test used by Cornell University experts.
The results, published in a statistics textbook by Cornell Professors Cristobal Young and Erin Cumberworth, uses something called “multiverse analysis” to test how “robust” a study is. While many other studies failed the test, one in particular passed.
University of Texas-Austin Professor Mark Regnerus first generated controversy in 2012 when he published a study showing “children whose parents had a same-sex relationship experienced more negative adult outcomes compared with children from intact biological families,” according to a summary by the Heritage Foundation.
The study came at an inopportune time for the LGB lobby, as it was trying to convince federal courts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
The results generated significant controversy in the academic community, which really does not believe in free and open debate but instead only wants research published when it supports their pre-existing viewpoints. Following a complaint, the University of Texas investigated Regnerus (pictured), based on allegations merely being a Catholic might have tainted his research. The university cleared him, as detailed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The latest victory came earlier this year when the Cornell textbook came out and included the Regnerus study. The scholars initially expected their test to confirm the arguments of Regnerus’ critics.
Instead, sociologist Paul Sullins writes, “not one of the two million significant alternatives resulted in positive outcomes for LGBT-parented children.”
“Although often with smaller effects, every analysis confirmed the Regnerus study’s central finding that children turned out better with intact biological parents than with LGBT parents,” Sullins, a former sociologist at Catholic University of America and a Catholic priest, wrote for Public Discourse. “Regnerus’s thesis, it turns out, was not only true in the analytic model in which he presented it: it was true in every analytic model possible.”
Sullins has a detailed history and analysis of the controversy at Public Discourse for those who want to learn more.
Regnerus told Catholic News Agency he appreciates the work of the Cornell sociologists. “I am not at all surprised by its results. What the multiverse analysis has done is demonstrate that unpopular research is not the same as erroneous research,” he said.
However, problems remain for those who want to study same-sex parenting.
“Unfortunately, the scholarly world has not seen such a wide and comprehensive look at outcomes in this domain since then, even while data quality and sample sizes continue to increase,” Regnerus told CNA. “The topic remains rife with intimidation.”
Indeed, much of the academic world shuns research and other scholarly work that goes against the established liberal narrative – just look at what happens to professors who promote policing, say sex is binary, or criticize affirmative action.
Signs of hope in academia for free and open debate
Still, there are signs of hope. The “Adversarial Collaboration Project” at the University of Pennsylvania tries to pair scholars with opposing views to conduct research together.
A University of Hawai’i professor also shared her experience with trying to look at research to see how it is biased against conservative views.
“A practice I’ve adopted is trying to think about presentations and articles from the perspective of a conservative,” Professor Ashley Rubin wrote on X last month.
“Man, it’s eye opening,” Rubin wrote.
She shared how authors can sound “judgmental” and “out of touch” and how they omit “key variables” in their research.
“It helped me see some blind spots I was really embarrassed by.”
