Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— 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, NC, USA 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 26 th, 2014

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

3 What’s changed in 5 years? 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).

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

5 31 States with same-sex marriage bans 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) 3 by State Law Only Indiana (1997), West Virginia (2000), Wyoming (2003)

6 12 overturned bans now on appeal 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) 3 by State Law Only Indiana (1997), West Virginia (2000), Wyoming (2003)

7

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

9 However, these positive changes are only part of the story…  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

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

11 Peer-reviewed empirical research

12 Working with limited funding…  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

13 Administering Institute/CenterProjectsTotal Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases14$69,696,558 National Cancer Institute10$16,214,057 National Institute on Drug Abuse35$10,837,731 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development22$7,629,507 National Institute of Mental Health27$8,486,517 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism6$2,586,738 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion5$2,207,249 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities6$1,940,958 National Institute on Aging6$1,371,422 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases2$664,100 National Institute of Nursing Research2$449,942 Fogarty International Center2$241,111 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute1$175,110 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders1$144,875 National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke1$31,370 Total140$122,677,245 But… in actual spending we are talking about 0.5% of $45.6 billion

14 Administering Institute/CenterProjectsTotal Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases14$69,696,558 National Cancer Institute10$16,214,057 National Institute on Drug Abuse35$10,837,731 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development22$7,629,507 National Institute of Mental Health27$8,486,517 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism6$2,586,738 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion5$2,207,249 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities6$1,940,958 National Institute on Aging6$1,371,422 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases2$664,100 National Institute of Nursing Research2$449,942 Fogarty International Center2$241,111 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute1$175,110 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders1$144,875 National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke1$31,370 Total140$122,677,245 But… most of these funds are going to HIV/AIDS research

15 Administering Institute/CenterProjectsTotal Funding National Institute on Drug Abuse35$10,837,731 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development22$7,629,507 National Institute of Mental Health27$8,486,517 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism6$2,586,738 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities6$1,940,958 National Institute on Aging6$1,371,422 National Institute of Nursing Research2$449,942 Total104$33,302,815 A closer look at social science research tells a different story…

16 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.

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

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

19 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.

20  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

21  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

22  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 Reducing heteronormativity and cis-genderism  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)

23  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

24  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…

25  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

26 Thanks!


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google