Evaluating Research in Queerness
Hello everyone I hope you all had a wonderful week. My son and I had a great weekend just the two of us while my husband went away. Age three is such a fun age but so exhausting (and my son has so much energy on one banana!).
Tomorrow is the beginning Pride Month. I want to celebrate Pride Month here at the Queer Friendly Nonprofit by highlighting some LGBTQIA+ organizations. This week, I want to talk a bit about evaluating research. As a professor, I often talk to my students about evaluating research. I see a lot of articles come through social media and some are good, some are bad, and some are misinterpreted. All research is making a point but every study has limitations and limited ability to explain the world. This week, I am going to talk a little about research, and then focus on two articles, one that is good and misinterpreted and one that is bad, and explore the issues. And if you are new here, subscribe and share below:
Research in one table:
Below is a table I often use with my students to explain the different types of research. It looks at four different types of research methods: Quantitative, Qualitative, Experiments, and Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). Each one has a different advantage and disadvantage. One is not better than the other, the each provide a good strategy for different research questions. If you are interested in how one program is working, an RCT might be effective, but they are big and expensive for a nonprofit to run. If you are curious about how to reach out to a minoritized community, a qualitative study might work best, as it allows you to have a discussion with community leaders on why a program is/is not working.
The purpose of this table is to provide the basic structure for thinking about how research is done in academia and in nonprofit organizations. Each type of research has a positive and negative aspect. When looking at research, you should be asking is the method right for this research, how was this research done, and what is the research actually saying. In a future newsletter, I can discuss the academic publishing process or how to read journal articles if people would like.
Gender Affirming Care in the Military:
One article which has been talked about was published last year looks at how many transgender people received care through the military medical care (Tricare). You can find the article, for free or open access, here. This article found that 30% of respondents stopped receiving hormones from the US Military Healthcare program. People are using this to say that there is a high detransition rate, but that is not true. All this study says is that about 30% of respondents stopped getting hormones from the US Military. This could be for a variety of reasons, including:
This study includes time when Trump implemented a transgender ban in the military. People may have stopped receiving hormones because they were worried about being kicked out of the military.
People could have gotten their hormones from a private insurance or out of pocket for a variety of reasons.
People may not have felt comfortable reporting using hormones anymore.
This is a quantitative study looking at approximately 1000 people. To further this study, qualitative research to understand WHY individuals stopped getting their hormones would help us better understand the experiences of transgender people getting hormones and, more importantly, how we can help support transgender people through all of their transition needs.
“Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” Real or Myth?
The second article, in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, looks at what has been called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (the original article can be found here). This is based on an idea that transgender identity is “contagious” and people suddenly identify as transgender based on social pressures. To be honest, it is not very well defined in the article.
There are many issues with this article. It is so problematic that there is an open letter not only calling for the article to be retracted but for the editor to be replaced due to the publication of this article (you can find the letter here). There are several issues with the method of this article, including the following:
It only looks at parents, not the transgender child’s perspective. That is not the best way to explore the transgender experience.
It got data from a website which is anti-trans. So already you are coming in with a bias against transgender individuals.
This study did NOT get IRB approval. The IRB process is what makes sure that the study you are doing is ethical. This study, without IRB approval, had no ethical oversight.
Final Thoughts:
When it comes to research, I recommend paying attention to “What is the research ACTUALLY saying?”, “What are the limitations to this study?” (There is often a limitations section of a study) and “What might be the issues with this study?”. This can help you navigate the complex world of academic publishing and understand the good (and bad) literature that comes out. And, of course, if you are new, subscribe and share below!