In certain dyadic studies information have already been gathered from both lovers individually, centering on points of overlap and distinctions between partners’ records, learning such dilemmas once the symbolic concept of appropriate unions for same-sex couples (Reczek, Elliott, & Umberson, 2009; Rothblum et al., 2011b), parenting experiences (Goldberg, Kinkler, Richardson, & Downing, 2011), closeness characteristics (Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, in press), interracial relationship characteristics (Steinbugler, 2010), partners’ interactions around wellness behavior (Reczek & Umberson, 2012), and relationship satisfaction and closeness (Totenhagen et al., 2012). On the other hand, other research reports have gathered information from lovers simultaneously, through joint interviews, experiments, or observations that are ethnographic centering on interactions between lovers or lovers’ collective reactions. As an example, scientists used observational techniques to offer unique insights into same-sex partners conflict that is (Gottman, 1993), unit of home labor (Moore, 2008), and coparenting interactions (Farr & Patterson, 2013).
Challenges and methods for studying relationships that are same-Sex
This is no reason to avoid the study of same-sex relationships although current data are characterized by several limitations. Indeed, it is essential to triangulate a variety of qualitative and quantitative research designs and sourced elements of information in efforts to recognize constant patterns in same-sex relationships across studies and also to draw in innovative strategies that add to the familiarity with same-sex relationships. Into the parts that follow we point to some challenges that are specific, advances in, and methods for research on same-sex relationships.
Distinguishing Individuals in Same-Sex Relationships
Scientists must accurately recognize individuals who are in same-sex relationships if they’re to make valid outcomes and/or enable comparison of outcomes across studies, each of that are essential to notify sound policy that is publicBates & DeMaio, 2013; DiBennardo & Gates, 2014). In nonprobability studies that are most scientists have relied on volunteer examples and participants’ self-identification as homosexual or lesbian. Such samples are more inclined to consist of people who are available about their intimate orientation and socioeconomically privileged (Gates & Badgett, 2006). Studies that rely on likelihood samples ( e.g., the typical Social Survey, the U.S. Census) raise various issues since these samples are not initially built to determine individuals in same-sex relationships and never straight enquire about the intimate orientation or sex of lovers. A strategy that can result in substantial misidentification of individuals in same- and different-sex relationships (see discussions in Bates & DeMaio, 2013, and DiBennardo & Gates, 2014; for strategies to adjust for misidentification, see Gates & Cook, 2011) as a result, to identify individuals in same-sex relationships researchers have juxtaposed information about sex of household head, relationship of head of household to other household members, and sex of those household members.
A approach that is particularly problematic determining people in same-sex relationships could be the utilization of proxy reports. This process assumes that kids ( or other proxies) have actually legitimate familiarity with other people’ ( e.g., parents’) intimate and relationship records and is very very likely to create invalid or results that are biasedPerrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013). As an example, a current research (Regnerus, 2012), which purportedly revealed negative effects of same-sex parents on kiddies, happens to be commonly criticized for making use of retrospective proxy reports from adult children to recognize a parent as having ever been involved with a same-sex relationship ( for a review, see Perrin et al., 2013). Even though findings with this study have already been mostly discredited (Perrin et al., 2013), the outcome have now been used as proof in appropriate procedures aimed toward forestalling same-sex lovers’ efforts to consider kids or lawfully marry ( e.g., US Sociological Association, 2013; DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013). This utilization of social science research shows the significance of sticking with guidelines for research on same-sex relationships (which a few U.S. -based studies are applying), including directly asking respondents whether they have a partner that is crucial hyperlink same-sex permitting numerous reaction alternatives for union status ( ag e.g., legal wedding, registered domestic partnership, civil union, cohabitation, and living-apart-together relationships; Bates & DeMaio, 2013; Festy, 2008).