Recently Colm O’Gorman, on the Late Late Show, criticised gay parenting research research based on the so called ‘Regnerus Study’ ( http://www.utexas.edu/opa/wordpress/...iry-Report.pdf ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - Methodological decisions and the evaluation of possible effects of different family structures on children: The new family structures survey (NFSS) ) – in attacking the Regnerus findings he told the audience that the major problem was that there were only 175 lesbian parent, and 73 gay parent cases in the sample.
However, on Prime Time this week Matt Krivinowsky (?) referred to recent research from Susan Golombok which, according to him, clearly showed that there are no differences in outcomes for children whether that child is raised by hetereosexual, gay or lesbian couples Prime Time - RTÉ Player (from time 16.45 onwards) . The research he referred to is mentioned in this link Children in gay adoptions at no disadvantage - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent . Details about the sample size can be found at Study Says Kids of Gay Parents Are Thriving Just As Well as Heterosexual Counterparts | G Philly
So some proponents of gay marriage, such as Colm O’Gorman, aggressively rubbish some studies because of their sample size while at the same time deliberately ignoring the same argument with respect other studies on the issue that they quote when actively promoting the case for gay marriage as Matt Krivinowsky (?) did. Is this not blatant hypocrisy?The study, which chronicles the experience of 130 adoptive families (49 heterosexual, 41 by gay men and 40 by lesbians), showed “markedly more similarities than differences between family types,” says Professor Susan Golombok, director of the Centre for Family Research and co-author of the report
The statistical reality is that it is impossible to generalise to any population of interest about outcomes for children from sample sizes of the order of 30/40 in the sub groups looked at. A statistically representative minimum sample size of 300 is needed from each sub group before any defensible generalisations (with stated limitations in conclusion drawing) can be made. Even then, ideally, further replication studies are required from different researchers before a high level of confidence can be placed in the findings.
Susan Golombok’s research in this area is notorious for making sweeping generalisations about outcomes for children based on what is methodologically very unsound research e.g. Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early adulthood where she compared 27 heterosexual parenting situations to 20 lesbian parenting situations, and then bizarrely (from a methodological perspective) concluded that “The findings of this study show that children raised by solo heterosexual mothers or lesbian mothers from infancy continue to function well as they enter adulthood (sic)”. Of course all she has sown is that she generalised from a meaningless piece of ‘research’, using two samples of 27 and 20, to the 7,000,000,000 other humans (ignoring aspects such as socio-economic, demographic, ethnic, cultural, educational background factors) on Planet Earth.
Most of the extant research with respect to gay and lesbian parenting is not unlike that garnered by an opinion pollster who bases his or her opinion on the following research methodology - “I'm off down to the pub tonight to do an opinion poll on the current standing of our political parties and I am going to ask RTE to publicise, without any validation, the results when I have done the analysis on the back of a cigarette pack!” .