1 / 26

The rapidly ( and not so rapidly ) changing landscape of LGBT research in the U.S.

The rapidly ( and not so rapidly ) changing landscape of LGBT research in the U.S. Roger Mills-Koonce, Ph.D. Department of Human Development & Family Studies The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

dagan
Download Presentation

The rapidly ( and not so rapidly ) changing landscape of LGBT research in the U.S.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The rapidly (and not so rapidly) changing landscape of LGBT research in the U.S. Roger Mills-Koonce, Ph.D. Department of Human Development & Family Studies The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Presented at the LGBTQI Education and Research Network [LEARN] Meeting, Greensboro, NC, USA Sponsored by the Center for Women’s Health and Wellness at UNC Greensboro Friday, September 26th, 2014

  2. Changes in the cultural and legal climate • Changes in funding and research Outline

  3. Shifts in federal and state policies on same-sex marriage June 26, 2013 - The U.S. Supreme Court rejects parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and ruled that private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock (Prop 8). What’s changed in 5 years?

  4. 8 by Court Decision Massachusetts (May 17, 2004) Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008) Iowa(Apr. 24, 2009) California (June 28, 2013) New Jersey(Oct. 21, 2013) New Mexico(Dec. 19, 2013) Oregon(May 19, 2014) Pennsylvania(May 20, 2014) 8 by State Legislature Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009) New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010) New York (July 24, 2011) Delaware (July 1, 2013) Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013) Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013) Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013) Illinois (June 1, 2014) 19 States with legal same-sex marriage 3 by Popular Vote Maine (Dec. 29, 2012) Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013) Washington (Dec. 9, 2012)

  5. 25 by Constitutional Amendment and State Law Alabama (2006, 1998), Alaska (1998, 1996), Arizona (2008, 1996), Arkansas (2004, 1997), Colorado (2006, 2000), Florida (2008, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Idaho (2006, 1996), Kansas (2005, 1996), Kentucky (2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan (2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), Montana (2004, 1997), North Carolina (2012, 1995), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), Oklahoma (2004, 1996), South Carolina (2006, 1996), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), Texas (2005, 1997), Utah (2004, 1997), Virginia (2006, 1997) 3 by Constitutional Amendment Only Nebraska (2000), Nevada (2002), Wisconsin (2006) 31 States with same-sex marriage bans 3 by State Law Only Indiana (1997), West Virginia (2000), Wyoming (2003)

  6. 25 by Constitutional Ammendment and State Law Alabama (2006, 1998), Alaska (1998, 1996), Arizona (2008, 1996), Arkansas (2004, 1997), Colorado(2006, 2000), Florida(2008, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Idaho(2006, 1996), Kansas (2005, 1996), Kentucky(2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan(2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), Montana (2004, 1997), North Carolina (2012, 1995), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), Oklahoma(2004, 1996), South Carolina (2006, 1996), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), Texas(2005, 1997), Utah(2004, 1997), Virginia(2006, 1997) 3 by Constitutional Amendment Only Nebraska (2000), Nevada (2002), Wisconsin(2006) 12 overturned bans now on appeal 3 by State Law Only Indiana(1997), West Virginia (2000), Wyoming (2003)

  7. Shifts in the sociopolitical climate of the US in support for same-sex marriage equality What’s changed in 5 years?

  8. Often policy change is followed by increases in private and local homophobia and entrenchment of institutionalized heterosexism • According to the Institute of Medicine (2011), experiences with individual and institutionalized homophobia/heterosexism (including experiences within one’s family), increase LGBT individuals’ risks for: • Stress-induced psychopathology (i.e., depression, anxiety) • Non-suicidal self-injury and suicidal ideation and behavior • Physical health complications throughout the lifespan • Homelessness (especially among LGBT youth and young adults) • Bullying and victimization (among youth and adults) • There is still much work to be done in understanding these processes, the unique risks and protective factors for LGBT individuals, and windows of opportunity for education, prevention, and intervention However, these positive changes are only part of the story…

  9. So… has social and behavioral science research kept pace with cultural change?

  10. Peer-reviewed empirical research

  11. Coulter, R.W. S . et al. (2014). Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health on the Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations. American Journal of Public Health,104(2), pp. 105-112. • Between 1989 and 2011, the NIH funded 628 studies concerning LGBT health. This accounts for 0.5% of overall funding during this time. • Of these studies, 79.1% focused on HIV/AIDS • Excluding projects about HIV/AIDS, only 0.1% (n = 113) of all NIH-funded studies concerned LGBT health Working with limited funding…

  12. But… in actual spending we are talking about 0.5% of $45.6 billion

  13. But… most of these funds are going to HIV/AIDS research

  14. A closer look at social science research tells a different story…

  15. A longitudinal view of funding for these institutes Since 1990 this reflects a yearly $750,000 increase in spending on LGBT focused research by these institutes, although individual trajectories differ.

  16. Is funding correlated with productivity? r = .672 Funding is in $100K units; Figure depicts funding 2 years prior to that year’s publications.

  17. We’re likely getting more funding because NIH has called for more LGBT-oriented proposals…

  18. But we’re also publishing more because we care more about the topic… …and we’re doing so on the cheap……which is good and not-so-good.

  19. Sexual orientation and gender nonconformity are multifaceted concepts, and defining them operationally can be challenging • Individuals may be reluctant to answer research questions about their same-sex sexual behavior or gender nonconformity. • Because LGBT populations represent a relatively small proportion of the U.S. population, it is labor-intensive and costly to recruit a large enough sample in general population surveys for meaningful analysis of these populations and their subgroups. Funding matters:LGBT Research Challenges

  20. Increasing our focus on LGBT-specific topics of study and aggressively pursuing support from both government and private funding sources. • Reducing the heteronormativity of existing and future research with population or community samples so that LGBT individuals are not excluded or “invisible” Moving forward

  21. Don’t assume that all participants are heterosexual, and don’t exclude individuals who are not heterosexual • Triangulate sexual orientation by asking questions about identity, behavior, and attraction • Ask about sex and gender separately and do not limit participants response items • Sex • Female • Male • Male-to-female transsexual • Female-to-male transsexual • Intersex • Other (please specify) • Gender • Woman • Man • Androgyne • Transman • Transwoman • Genderqueer/gender non-conforming • Other (please specify) Reducing heteronormativity and cis-genderism

  22. Yearly U.S. Census survey – a population sampling that recognizes head-of-households in same-sex relationships • Does not ask about sexual orientation, only sex of individuals in the household and marriage status • Because of a scoring problem, it is unclear what percentage of same-sex couples reporting that they are legally married are actually same-sex couples or miscoded opposite-sex couples • As a result, the ACS advises to only use data from non-married couples, reducing the same-sex sample by one-third and completely under-representing this population. Real example & real implications:The American Community Survey

  23. Having ONE question about sexual orientation would have allowed us to untangle this mess and use most of the collected data. • Not having that ONE question means that an entire subgroup of the American population remains invisible on the ACS. • There are many implications… but one is that when the rest of us are recruiting our samples, how do we know if we have a representative sample of the LGBT population? Back to reducing heteronormativity…

  24. Our culture is changing and our laws are changing. • Although not fast enough for many, these changes are moving faster now than ever before, and there are clear implications for the health and well-being of a large section of the U.S. population • Federal funding and research efforts have increased over the last 20 years, but have they increased enough? • We need to push for funding in the social and behavioral sciences • We need to make our research more inclusive- LGBT individuals should be included as part of all studies, not only LGBT-focused research Summary

  25. Thanks!

More Related