Past methods have actually included using the services of community lovers ( e.g., neighborhood lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy teams) to assist scientists establish trust and possibilities for recruitment, in specific whenever recruiting more targeted samples predicated on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status (e.g., Meyer & Wilson, 2009; Moore, 2008). Scientists can also make the most of details about the geographical circulation of same-sex partners in the us to gather information in areas with greater levels of same-sex couples and racial/ethnic and socioeconomic variety (Black et al., 2000; Gates, 2010). On the web recruitment might also facilitate research involvement; greater privacy and ease of involvement with web surveys in comparison to face-to-face information collection may raise the likelihood that people in same-sex unions and same-sex partners will be involved in studies (Meyer & Wilson, 2009; Riggle, Rostosky, & Reedy, 2005).
Comparison Group Challenges
Decisions in regards to the meaning and structure of contrast teams in studies that compare same-sex relationships to different-sex relationships are critical because same-sex partners are demographically distinct from different-sex couples; individuals in same-sex partners are more youthful, more educated, almost certainly going to be used, less likely to want to have young ones, and somewhat more prone to be feminine than people in different-sex couples (Gates, 2013b). For instance, scientists may mistakenly conclude that relationship characteristics vary for exact same- and different-sex partners when it’s in reality status that is parental between exact same- and different-sex partners that form relationship characteristics. Three comparison that is specific factors that creates unique challenges—and opportunities—for research on same-sex relationships include (a) a moving appropriate landscape, (b) parental status, and (c) unpartnered people.
Moving landscape that is legal
As legal choices have expanded for same-sex partners, more research reports have contrasted individuals in same-sex marriages and unions that are civilor registered domestic partnerships) with individuals in different-sex married partnerships ( ag e.g., Solomon et al., 2004). Yet because legal choices differ across states and with time, exactly the same statuses aren’t open to all same-sex partners. This moving landscape that is legal significant challenges, in specific for scholars whom make an effort to compare same-sex couples with different-sex couples, because many same-sex partners have never married (as well as had the option of marrying), whereas many different-sex partners have experienced sufficient chance to marry.
One technique for handling this complexity would be to gather information in states that legitimately acknowledge same-sex partnerships. As an example, Rothblum and peers (Rothblum et al., 2011a; Solomon et al., 2004) contacted all couples whom joined civil unions in Vermont in 2000–2001, and same-sex partners whom decided to engage then selected their siblings in either different-sex marriages or union that is noncivil relationships for involvement into the research. This design, which may be adjusted for qualitative or quantitative studies, permitted the scientists to compare three forms of couples and target possibly confounding factors ( ag e.g., cohort, socioeconomic status, internet sites) by matching same-sex partners in civil unions with network users who have been comparable on these back ground variables. Gates and Badgett (2006) argued that future research comparing various appropriate statuses and appropriate contexts across states can help us better determine what is possibly unique about marriage ( More about the author e.g., whether you will find health advantages connected with same-sex wedding in comparison to same-sex cohabitation).
A relevant challenge is the fact that same-sex partners in appropriate unions might have cohabited for quite some time but experienced an appropriate union for a few days because appropriate union status became available just recently. This restrictions research to the implications of same-sex wedding considering that wedding is conflated with relationship period. One technique for working with this can be to fit exact exact same- and different-sex partners in identical status that is legale.g., marriage) on total relationship length as opposed to the period of time within their present status ( ag e.g., cohabiting, hitched, or any other appropriate status; Umberson et al., in press). An extra problem is historical alterations in legal choices for people in same-sex relationships play a role in various relationship records across successive delivery cohorts, a problem we address later on, within our conversation of relationship biography and guidelines for future research. Future studies may also think about whether use of legal wedding influences the security and length of same-sex relationships, maybe utilizing quasi-experimental practices (also discussed below).
Parental status and kinship systems
People in same-sex relationships are nested within bigger kinship systems, in specific those who include kids and parents, and family members characteristics may diverge from habits discovered for individuals in different-sex relationships (Ocobock, 2013; Patterson, 2000; Reczek, 2014). Those in same-sex relationships experience more strain and less contact with their families of origin (Rothblum, 2009) for example, some studies suggest that, compared with individuals in different-sex relationships. Wedding holds great significance that is symbolic may change exactly how other people, including household members, view and connect to people in same-sex unions (Badgett, 2009). Last studies have shown that individuals in different-sex marriages are far more a part of their loved ones of beginning than are the ones in different-sex cohabiting unions. Future research should further explore how a change from cohabitation to marriage alters relationships along with other household members (including relationships with categories of beginning) for all in same-sex unions (Ocobock, 2013).