Search News


Browse Archives

News

Fighting a Distortion of Research

December 19, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When academics feel that their work has been distorted in the press, they frequently have to settle for griping to colleagues or writing a letter to the editor. But for Carol Gilligan, a prominent psychologist and author of In a Different Voice, a mere letter did not suffice. When she was alerted that James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, referenced her work in a Time magazine column, she denounced his interpretation of her research -- posting her views Monday in a video on YouTube.

In his magazine piece, Dobson criticized Mary Cheney’s decision to become pregnant. “[T]he majority of more than 30 years of social-science indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father,” he wrote last week. Dobson backed up his claims by citing Gilligan’s work. Gilligan is a renowned expert on gender and human development and is a professor of education and law at New York University.

“I was stunned to hear that James Dobson quoted me in Time magazine,” Gilligan says in the video. “I had no idea. I was mortified.” She says that there is nothing in her research that would lead anyone to agree with Dobson's claim that same-gender families are unhealthy for children.

In a statement released by Focus on the Family, the organization said, "[I]n his Time essay, Dr. Dobson does not represent Professor Gilligan as supporting or opposing same-sex parenting, but only that her work shows that men and women stress different elements in moral teaching."

The video was commissioned last Friday and quickly edited over the weekend by Wayne Besen, the executive director of Truth Wins Out, an advocacy group for gay rights. Besen said that he has grown weary of Dobson mangling science to advance a political agenda against gay families. Last summer, he started contacting researchers to alert them whenever Dobson cited them in his writing.

“None of them know this is going on,” Besen said of the academics. “That’s how [Dobson] gets away with it.” This certainly holds true for Gilligan. In the video, she states that she learned of Dobson’s article after Besen notified her. While Gilligan does not appear to dispute any specifics in Dobson's article, she says that Dobson distorts the meaning of her work which does not support his conclusions.

Another professor highlighted in the video and in Dobson’s article is Kyle Pruett, a professor of child psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine and author of Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Citing Pruett, Dobson wrote, “The fact remains that gender matters -- perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing.”

After he was contacted last week by Besen, Pruett sent a letter to Dobson asking him to stop citing his research. The letter is posted on Besen’s Web site .

“I pointed out that gay or lesbian relationships do not at all compromise childhood,” Pruett said in an interview. He added that Dobson’s analysis of his research on fathers was “destructive and highly prejudicial,” and cherry-picked information. When people start spinning science, Pruett said, you have to respond.

“Journalism used to handle this, but not anymore,” he said. “So it’s bounced back to become the responsibility of the people doing the research.”

In response, Focus on the Family stated, "While Pruett has tried to distance himself politically from the use of his scientific conclusions, those conclusions still remain."

Besen said that he has contacted other professors who Dobson has cited, and he plans to release more videos with academics countering Dobson’s claims. “They’re getting defined by Dobson who has the President on speed dial,” he said. “They’re reluctant to get involved. But in the name of academic credibility, they step forward.”

Besen said that he thought of using YouTube after watching former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) getting ridiculed for the video featuring his famous "macaca" quip. "It's the medium to reach the masses when you don't have a large media budget," he said.

The recent incident with Dobson is not the first time that academics have grumbled that Focus on the Family perverts science. Last summer, Elizabeth Saewyc, an associate professor with the school of nursing at the University of British Columbia, accused the group of “hijacking” her study on suicide rates among bisexual youth.

She said that she would not have learned that Focus on the Family was distorting her research unless Besen had contacted her. Her study found a link between homosexuality and risk for suicide, but she said that Focus on the Family blamed the high suicide rate on pro-gay activists. Saewyc said in an email interview that her study found only a correlation and was not designed to find causation.

“What was more surprising were the conclusions they drew from the information,” she said of Focus on the Family.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Fighting a Distortion of Research

  • James Dobson's Credentials
  • Posted by Cool One on September 12, 2007 at 9:50am EDT
  • Dobson earned a doctorate in child development from the University of Southern California in 1967. He was an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine for fourteen years. He spent seventeen years on the staff of the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics.

    Though he now resides in Colorado, Dobson is still a licensed psychologist in California.

    Have a happy day!

  • Confused?
  • Posted by SF on December 19, 2006 at 10:45am EST
  • Let me begin by saying that I am really confused by this article. After I read it I pulled up the original Time article by Dr. Dobson and I guess I don't see what all the fuss is about. Dr. Dobson does not interpret Dr. Gilligan's or Dr. Pruett's work; he simply states a finding. No where in the article does he say that either of these researchers agree with his viewpoint and I did not think that when I read his work. From the nature of this article I thought that Dr. Dobson had used large amounts of quotations, made misinterpretations, and actually stated that these researchers agreed with his viewpoint. That is not the case. He merely presented the research, with no interpretation, along with HIS viewpoint and lets the reader come to their own conclusion.

  • SF is being obtusely obstinate
  • Posted by willie mink on December 19, 2006 at 11:55am EST
  • Dobson's article states, "According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of 'maleness.' They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers."

    This is more than a mere summary of Gilligan's work--it summarizes her findings in support of an argument with which the main thrust of her work disagrees. What part of "cherry-picking" don't you understand, SF?

  • More confused
  • Posted by Sammy on December 19, 2006 at 12:35pm EST
  • I agree wholeheartedly, SF. Those of you who did not read the original Time article linked above should certainly do so. Dobson makes one specific mention of Gilligan's research: "According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty." That's it. Gilligan did not dispute this specific finding in her video. She's simply unhappy that her research was able to support (not make) Dobson's claim. Using Truth Wins Out to make her point proves that her political agenda is no less thriving than Dobson's. TWO has an explicitly stated political agenda in its vision statement. "If TWO’s plan is fully enacted, ex-gay groups will further lose their thin veneer of credibility. Far more important, we will reduce the dangerous appeal of ex-gay programs to legislators, parents, youth, and others struggling with acceptance.”

  • Too Easily Confused...
  • Posted by bp on December 19, 2006 at 12:50pm EST
  • SF and Sammy are too easily confused. The issue is not that complicated: Gilligan objects to her research being used to support conclusions that it manifestly does not support, and objects to her conclusions being used rhetorically in order to buttress claims to which her conclusions are irrelevant. Dobson wants to use Gilligan's name not because he is a reader of hers, an interlocutor, an interested inquiring mind, but only because he wants to hoist feminists with their own petard. TWO can bring this to our attention because they are interested in the science behind the question, something in which Dobson has shown little genuine interest. That they are politically motivated is neither here nor there.

    Dobson should get out of the business of using scientific studies and statistics: they never cut his way. Would his homophobic followers be any less convinced of the supposed wickedness of gayness if the science were unambiguous in showing no special harm to being gay? (Ooops. It is? Uhhh....)

  • Frustrating video
  • Posted by Brian on December 19, 2006 at 1:35pm EST
  • I see her state that Dobson distorted her research but she never says how. I wasted five minutes watching a video that only seemed to say "I don't like Dobson's views so he shouldn't be able to use my research to support his views."

    Unfortunately for her, that is not the way the world works.

    I suggest that she write a rebuttal to be published in a future issue of Time magazine. If she does, I hope the editors at Time require that she state clearly how Dobson misstated or misinterpreted her work.

  • Posted by Joseph on December 19, 2006 at 2:20pm EST
  • "when I hear my work being cast in terms of whether women and men are really (essentially) different ... I know that I have lost my voice, because these are not my questions" (Gilligan, In a Different Voice, 1993, p. xiii).

  • Pettiness
  • Posted by Sam on December 19, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • "Gilligan objects to her research being used to support conclusions that it manifestly does not support, and objects to her conclusions being used rhetorically in order to buttress claims to which her conclusions are irrelevant."

    Too bad! She was cited correctly. She's as free as the rest of us to disagree with Dobson's point of view. Dobson is likewise free to mention her work if he thinks it supports his argument.

  • Posted by done grading on December 19, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • Dobson precedes his Gilligan reference with "A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa." I suggest Dobson's defenders get busy and find the part of _In a Different Voice_ that says that. The book's widely available.

    Gilligan studies how kids and college students discuss moral choices. She never argues for innate differences, and it's not a study of parenting.

    Social science research requires logic and evidence and argument and fitting these things together. Neither Dobson nor his defenders seem to grasp this.

    I agree though that the video is four minutes too long.

  • Who's really distorting research?
  • Posted by Cheryl Alexis , Director of Human Resources on December 19, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • I agree completely with SF. Dr. Dobson has done absolutely nothing wrong or unethical. Additionally, I deplore the all-too-obvious cultures in many institutions of higher education that acknowledge and value only a liberal viewpoint. True academic freedom means that all perspectives need to be heard and considered. Too often, those of us with conservative viewpoints are dismissed as "bigots" or "homophobes" when, in fact, there is merit underlying our positions. Let's stop being selective when research reveals something that doesn't support our personal agendas, and let's allow the conservatives "out of the closet".

  • Social Science Doublespeak
  • Posted by Jeff Younger on December 19, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • I think willie mink, bp, and Ms. Gilligan have quite got it wrong. Research uncovers the facts, but facts do not explain things. Everything is explained by interpretations and theories. Opponents of an interpretation or theory must JUSTIFY their rejection by pointing to contrary facts.

    Beyond this, no researcher has justification for restricting use of research. Certainly, rhetorical restrictions on the use of research are absurd. Can one even imagine quantum physicists restricting use of their research because they don’t like the conclusions of string theory? The rhetorical use of research amounts to adopting an interpretation of the facts. Insofar as an interpretation or theory does not contradict known facts, it is as valid for consideration as any other.

    Neither Ms. Gilligan nor bp nor willie mink, have presented evidence of contradiction. Instead they supply only invective and personal attacks. Once again, we see the sorry state of the social sciences: fact is confused with interpretation, and theory is confused with rhetoric. It's doublespeak. It's sad.

  • Joseph get is wrong too
  • Posted by Jeff younger on December 19, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • Joseph, perhaps it is true that the question of difference is not Gillagan's. So what? It is perfectly acceptable for other people to use her research in pursuit of other questions. Even if the questions are not hers, even if she disagrees with the questions, and even if she finds fault with the conclusions.

    If researchers prevented their work from being used on other researcher's questions, we'd stunt all of science. The suggestion is just plain silly.

  • Posted by Jack Olson on December 19, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • Joseph, Carol Gilligan's quite vocal complaints on You Tube could not be made by a person who has "lost my voice." On the other hand, when you complain that somebody misquoted you but you can't or won't say how, you may have lost your argument.

  • The issue isn't that complicated!!!
  • Posted by BA on December 19, 2006 at 3:35pm EST
  • Dr. Dobson’s editorials maybe inflammatory to individuals who disagree, however he did correctly cite resources as he should, to support his position and opinion. Key word “opinion”. Remind yourself that editorials are not news; they are one persons view backed by what ever credible facts that support said opinion. Did the researchers quoted make these statements? Apparently so, although they may have reached different conclusions (Opinion backed by facts) than Dr Dobson. Researchers have the inside track. Their conclusions are generally based on massive quantities of data, while Dr Dobson is merely riding on their shirt-tails. Research garnered with public moneys or published through public media, maybe quoted by virtually anyone irrespective of the researchers' wishes. Researchers’ should know that research should not be directional, positional, or emotional, but should be facts backed by credible scientific method. How this research was used or possibly misused is subject to interpretation by the readers. Being hetrophobic and emotional about one’s research lends credibility where credibility probably shouldn’t be given. Dr Dobson’s article is an opinion and take it as such... Let the reader beware!

  • Posted by Joseph on December 19, 2006 at 3:50pm EST
  • I don't see how providing a quote can be seen as "getting it wrong." THAT sounds like denying the facts, a sloppy research tactic if ever there was one. But, as you say, "everything is explained by interpretations and theories," we just have to be mindful where they come from. I certainly am.

  • Data and Conclusions are Different Things
  • Posted by Cole Ayeland on December 19, 2006 at 4:00pm EST
  • It is quite possible for different individuals to draw different conclusions from the same evidence. Just because one disagrees with another's conclusion does not mean that he is "distorting" anything.

    Suppose Researcher A publishes data showing that gays have a high suicide rates. She concludes that homophobia causes depression and thinks public schools should teach classes about homosexual lifestyles to reduce homophobia.

    Researcher B cites the same data but thinks suicide is related to promiscuity, disease and lack of stable family relationships. He concludes that homosexual promiscuity is unhealthy and argues that public health laws should discourage promiscuity.

    Does Researcher A now go ballistic and claim that she is "stunned" and "mortified" that Researcher B has "distorted" her work?

    That is rubbish, of course. A researcher who publishes data has no right to veto what conclusinos others may draw from that data. It is legitimate to cite her published data and findings, in whole or in part, as long as they are not misrepresented and provide some rational support for the conclusion for which they are cited.

    By claiming to be "stunned" and "mortified," Galliger makes it obvious that her scientific objectivity has been subordinates to her political views, or her concern to appear colitically correct, or both.

  • Using research data independently of conclusions
  • Posted by Stanislaus Dundon , Professor Emeritus at CSU Sacramento on December 19, 2006 at 5:35pm EST
  • If Carol Gilligan has a complex argument in which the data of important distinct advantageous contributions of father and mother is somehow over-ridden by the unique advantages of same sex or single parent homes, or at least equaled by them, let her prove that via additional data or highlighting the contrary data she has already presented. The idea of refusing to let Dobson use her data sounds a bit like the Catholic Cardinals who did not want people to look through Galileo’s telescope.

  • Jeez, people...
  • Posted by bp on December 19, 2006 at 5:40pm EST
  • C'mon folks. When, in your view, did social scientists get into the business of "offering opinions" that were there to be challenged and used by any right-wing religious freak who comes alone? Cole: in your examples, one would hope that the researchers had REASONS to make causal connections and evidence to choose one explanation over another. Otherwise, it's sheer guesswork. The study referred to in the IHEd article claimed only that there was a correlation between suicide rates and homosexuality. In the absence of a real, carefully designed, and verifiable study to support it, conjecture about the cause of suicide is just that: conjecture. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the name of this web site is "Inside Higher Ed," and not "Inside Higher Conjecture." Does Dobson have the right to take the last paragraph of the study and repeat it in quotes in order to make a point that is supported by no evidence, no good argument, no good reason, and only by religious zealotry? Of course he does! I'm sure Gilligan agrees with that. But scholars and researchers do not attribute claims to other scholars and researchers that they know full well they do not hold. It's bad faith, and it's precisely what Gilligan et al. object to.

    If the kind of anti-scientific, anti-academic, anti-rational, and mean-spirited thinking that Dobson exhibits is your game, I suggest that the classroom isn't the place for you.

  • Posted by done grading on December 19, 2006 at 5:55pm EST
  • I see no direct quote from Gilligan at all in the Dobson _Time_ piece, and certainly no reference to a particular work.

    I have not read everything Gilligan has written, so perhaps she has studied parenting. But so far not one of Dobson's verbose defenders has offered a single citation. A distinguished academic like Prof. Dundon should grasp the importance of careful citation. Failing that it is by no means clear what "data" we are talking about.

  • Fundamentals People
  • Posted by BA on December 19, 2006 at 9:20pm EST
  • Does Carol Gilligan have a right to be steamed? Yes, she does! Does Dr Dobson have the right to cite her research. Yes, he does! Do we have the right to second guess the process? Certainly! Did Dr Dobson misrepresent Ms. Gilligan's views? Probably! This posting is not about Right wing-left wing; higher ed - higher conjucture, etc. It about Academic freedom, freedom of speech, critical thinking, and opinion. Freedom of speech is not free; it comes with a price... responsibility. Pot shots and social politics only muddy the waters. If anyone doesn't care for Carol Gilligans or Dr Dobsons conclusions, then by all means use your freedom of speech, but please use it wisely and be respectful! Your opinion is of course, your opinion, supported/distorted by research or not!

    Thank God for equalibrium

  • Posted by Cole Ayeland on December 20, 2006 at 10:41am EST
  • It’s disconcerting to see how easy some people find it to tell others, with whom they disagree, to shut up. In his first post, bp says: “Dobson should get out of the business of using scientific studies and statistics: they never cut his way.” (Talk about irrational generalizations!) In his second post, directed at me, he says: “If the kind of anti-scientific, anti-academic, anti-rational, and mean-spirited thinking that Dobson exhibits is your game, I suggest that the classroom isn’t the place for you.” In my experience, both inside and outside the classroom, the best way to get other folks to shut up is to convince them you are right. So far, bp, like Gilligan herself, has utterly failed to show how Dobson misrepresented or distorted Gilligan’s research. Overheated invective against “homophobes” and “religious zealots” doesn't add much to the debate; it merely illuminates the prejudices of the ranter.

  • bad mouth
  • Posted by Deleuze on December 21, 2006 at 4:40am EST
  • I think the key issue here is that Dobson’s argument is very bad, regardless of whom he cites. For example, he concludes, “The traditional family, supported by more than 5,000 years of human experience, is still the foundation on which the well-being of future generations depends.” While he may have glossed Gilligan’s work, this comment indicates that he certainly hasn’t picked up an anthropology text in the recent past. There’s no such thing as a “traditional” family. Kinship structures come in all shapes and sizes, both historically and cross-culturally. Quibbling about whom Dobson cites is less important than the fact that his argument is completely false, since it is predicated by muddled thinking.

  • GAY ACTIVIST GONE WILD
  • Posted by Larry Lee on December 21, 2006 at 4:50pm EST
  • Let me try to provide some contex to this story.

    The debate is being pushed by a religious bigot named Wayne Besen who use to work for the Human Rights Campaign.

    Wayne is not a doctor he is an activist.

    Wayne hates ex gay groups and the notion that a person can leave the homosexual
    lifetyle shocking and upsetting to him so much so that he started a group called Truth Wins Out to harras (like anti abortion protestors )ex gay groups and ministry providers who hold weekly support groups.

    He along with a blog called ex gay watch has been doing what ever they can to attack these groups.

    One way is through video recordings of reaserchers denoucning ex gay groups.
    Many reseraches would prefer to be left alone but Wayne has been contacting them
    for his cause.

    By the way Dr Dobson was a professor and he is a psychologist.

  • Posted by Tom on December 22, 2006 at 2:01pm EST
  • BTW - "Dr." Dobson is no longer a Doctor of Psychiatry. The association removed him years ago -- because he uses flawed science and statistics to justify his view points.

    In Cole's suicide research analogy with Researchers A & B. If Researcher A did the study and clearly states the hypothesis is related to suicide rates in gay teens being subjected to discrimination or hatred. Then Researcher B uses the same data to determine the suicide rate is based on promiscuity, he is totally wrong. Assuming promiscuity was not part of researcher A's data and there for the data is irrelevent and should not be quoted. I learned this my freshman year in college.

    Anyone could find a million sound bites or data fragments from the Pope himself, and used correctly (read: spin) could portray him in support of homosexuality... if cited in an arguement would the audience truly believe that the Pope supports gays? Not at all. So no one does this. But some obscure Prof from a college across the country, now that sounds impressive and a bit too hard for the passive person to question.

    I think America is ready for honest dialogue with real facts about real issues.

  • Posted by Rachel on December 22, 2006 at 3:16pm EST
  • Dundon's argument about Researchers A and B drawing different conclusions from the same study is seriously flawed.

    In the study he described, the researchers find only CORRELATION, not CAUSATION. Huge difference. Correlation says the two things are related, but A could cause B, B could cause A, or CDEXYZ could cause either A or B.

    In Dundon's example, the researchers are starting out with their beliefs and seeing the data through that lens. I believe it is the most basic research methods course where we learn this is a common error.

    There are an endless number of possible interpretations of this data, IF it were acceptable to step over the line between causation and correlation. Another researcher might conclude the high level of bigotry and intolerance, of anti-gay vitriol, in our society, causes depression and suicide in queer youth. Perhaps it is chemical causing both queerness and depression...or a chemical pollutant in our water supply...

    Any of these ideas are equally supported by the example research, and it is impossible to determine which is correct without doing a study to test a particular theory that A causes B, or Y causes A, or similar.

    It is the RESPONSIBILITY of academic researchers to speak up, to explain the intricacies of scientific studies, when the data is used to make conclusions not supported by the research.

    In Dobson's case, he jumps MANY steps ahead in saying the research supports the belief he started with. He's not scientifically observing all data and making conclusions; he's made a conclusion and selected pieces and bits that he thinks can be used to support what he believes. The research does NOT say that gays make bad parents. Perhaps gays andlesbians who are male have more characteristics of both genders in parenting style. Perhaps queers have a stronger social support network than heterosexuals, and when they parent they draw on support from more people of different genders than heterosexuals do. Perhaps queers have a more nuanced understanding of gender and are able to be more flexible in their parenting style. Perhaps heterosexuals are too insulated in their parenting to seek solutions when only one parent is present in the household; after all, single parenthood (usually single mothers) has been shown to be a family pattern. Perhaps they don't know enough males to incorporate male styles into their parenting, or to ask for help from enough males. The point is, we don't know if any or all of these are true or false - not according to the research Dobson cites.

    This is the same case as the lousy researchers who have never actually counted the number of words men and women use daily, but put forth varying articles citing each others' fake research saying men use some huge number of more words than men do. The only REAL study that actually COUNTED words does not support this conclusion; it supports a more nuanced conclusion, but one in which men STILL use more words than women, and tend to interrupt women more in work settings.

    Dobsin is NOT citing RESEARCH; it is what a lazy high school student does.

  • Dobson's Non Sequitur
  • Posted by Michael on December 22, 2006 at 7:15pm EST
  • James Dobson attempts to argue that "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father" by citing Pruett ("fathers do not mother") and Gilligan ("mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty"). This is pure sophistry. The premises simply do not support the conclusion. What purpose is served by giving this Dobson a platform for his prejudice? What credentials does he have, if any? Does he have any credibility? In my view, Gilligan is completely justified in expressing dismay at being grossly misrepresented by this man.

  • James Dobson
  • Posted by Chuck Prnetiss , Dr, on December 25, 2006 at 6:10am EST
  • It is clear that "Dr." Dobson is a homophobe (with the full support of President Bush) who will use anything he can to support his anti-gay agenda. The only reason Dobson quotes "science" is to distort and bend the true facts to support his bigoted, very unscientific conclusions. It's great to see people like Besen and Gilligan fighting back, refuting his warped distortions. It's sad to see how many jerks are out there who support "Dr." Dobson's ignorant positions. No wonder America is in trouble. Remember -- Goebbels was a "Dr.", too -- and he was just as "scientific" as Dr. Dobson.