A press release by InterVarsity Press gives specifics about the study on which we reported here and here.
In September, InterVarsity Press will publish the results of a longitudinal study conducted by researchers Stanton L. Jones (Wheaton College) and Mark A. Yarhouse (Regent University). Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation directly addresses two of the most contentious and disputed questions of our day—Is change of sexual orientation possible? and Is the attempt to change harmful?—and the findings of the study appear to contradict the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment. InterVarsity Press will hold a press conference at the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) World Conference on September 13, 2007, in Nashville, Tennessee, to announce the results of this study.
It appears that the study was conducted with clients of Exodus International, an ex-gay referral ministry, and that information was collected via annual telephone question and answer sessions. We do not yet have anything to review, so we can only speculate on the methodology and validity of the information gathered. However, from what we have heard it seems likely that claims of 30-50% “change” will be made.
Unfortunately, the tone of the IVP release is rather disconcerting. For instance, George A. Rekers is quoted as saying:
The study meets the high research standards set by the American Psychological Association that individuals be validly assessed, followed and reported over time with a prospective, longitudinal outcome research design.
Rekers is not a person one would normally choose to endorse a study where impartial, scientific truth is the goal. A staunch critic of homosexuality, Rekers makes use of material from the discredited Paul Cameron:
In the study of homosexual parenting with the best research methodology to date, Cameron and Cameron obtained a random sample by a one-wave, systematic cluster sampling of six U.S. metropolitan areas…
IVP Publisher Bob Fryling goes on to say:
In a highly politicized environment, this book is another “inconvenient truth” of scientific research data countering prejudice and ignorance.
An inconvenient truth for whom? It would seem even the publisher is tainting the study with posturing and spin. In light of IVP’s decision to actually publish a book by ex-gay guru and disgrace Richard Cohen, this is just one more disappointment.
Once all the grandstanding is over, we will do our best to bring out whatever facts are available for your review.
No legit academic system uses InterVarsity Press. They are considered a very biased press, and their methods of review are problematic.
If nothing else, it is going to be fun to review.
Shall we all just wait until the book actually comes out before trashing it, or do we already know it’s content without reading it?
Seriously folks, let’s wait for the actual text.
Dr Warren Throckmorton endorsed the book thusly:
Eh…. we’ll see. Something to sell at the next “Love Won Out.”
Peter,
Who are you accusing of trashing this book?
Peter, I am not trashing the book by saying the publisher is problematic. I work for a university, and I hate to inform you of this, but academic procedures are important. Maybe professors and academia are wrong about the way material is judged and evaluated (and it is across the board–any accredited university will treat material the same), but that is all we have. Presses are judged based on the mission, ideology, bias, and previous works. If a press like InterVarsity does not follow traditional procedures of review, there is a problem. According to their mission statement, they are clear that the books they publish are for the purposes of ideology: https://www.ivpress.com/academic/vision-2006.php. That would suggest that the research would only be used to further their mission. Groups like the APA and AMA will accept articles and publications that challenge traditional viewpoints. Also, outside influences in academic presses are minimized, but according to the IVP site, they are valued from a Christian perspective. The site also has bestsellers and items for the public. Most academics are separate from the public. Why is this important? The evaluation of research materials is essential. One cannot read every article on every topic, so you go to the presses with the most valued processes–not with ideologies. While some might argue otherwise, the APA is an example of an oganization with strict research policies and a clear allowance of articles that may contradict or challenge previously held views. Understanding how the presses work is important in determining the strength and authority of the piece. If ethos is valued, then a press with a high ethos is better than one without. The fact that IVP had Richard Cohen’s books suggest a serious lack of ethos and cred.
Now, it has happened that occasionally a well-researched and well-respected book comes out of a badly respected publisher, but that is rare. And the question remains–why not go to a more respected publisher if the research is valued? Also, Wheaton and Regent universities may have certain areas of value, but studies on human sexuality and psychology are not up there (sorry Warren!). While pure objectivity may be impossible to attain, these colleges do not have any semblence of objectivity. That must be honestly considered. Evaluation of material always includes the author, the publisher, and bias, and these are fairly clear to begin with.
As someone who instructs research at a university (and anyone can find out my creds), these would be automatically rejected from course materials and research. Maybe that is not fair, but good info is hard to come by. To demonstrate that it is not just a bias against Christian publishers, almost every gay press would be rejected also since the research from these publishers are rarely fully considered. Ideoplogy in any form kills good research.
do we already know it’s content without reading it?
In a most basic way, yes we do.
Echoing Aaron, there is simply no way that any of those involved would be publishing if they could not find — or at least suggest — the desired result to the two questions.
As they are publishing, we already know what their conclusions will be. (“Yes” and “No”).
This is a very different process to normal academic research. For that you announce the findings, regardless of what those might be; as Aaron has pointed out. You don’t refuse to publish simply because (so far) your work has failed to confirm your personal viewpoints. To do that introduces deliberate outcome bias.
Even given we can know what those findings will be, whether the findings are in fact valid is another question. For this the methodology will be all important — and brief telephone interviews with professional exgays, and without corroboration or consistent definitions, doesn’t come close to being that.
One item we will be deliberately looking for is whether Jones and Yarhouse give a complete and informative list of all they contacted from beginning to end — all, and not just those they wished to eventually write about.
One thing jumped out at me when I saw it – the academic institutions sponsoring the study: Wheaton College (ultra-conservative) and Regent University (Pat Robertson’s creation).
Makes me wonder about how biased the study is.
Like the fox guarding the hen house.
This is just like when an oil company sponsors environmental studies or a food manufacturer sponsors studies on how safe the ingredients they use are.
The flaw in this is basic. We have no objective measure for a change in sexual orientation or attraction. We can only do two things. One we can regiment people and follow them 24 hours a day to see what they actually do sexually — which is hardly possible or desireable. Or we can ask them to self-report. Which is how this is done.
Self reporting might be accurate for some things but not others. People lie and they especially lie when they have a deep ideological commitment to some specific outcome. Asking fundamentalist Christians to tell the truth about their sexuality is like asking communist functionaries about the results of Marxist economics. They will lie to cover up the flaws because they are true believers.
We have overwhelming proof that fundamentalist exgay lie and lies frequently. All we have to do is make a list of the exgays who were caught being anything but exgay. Yet, if you were to give them one of these surveys they would fill it out claiming to be exgay.
An an exfundamentalist, exChristian, I witnessed this sort of lying routinely among my fellow believers. Another form of lying that is popular in evangelical circles is that of exaggerating one’s sins before conversion. The lower you fell before being “saved” the more you prove the power of the deity you invented. So we have exgays who really weren’t that gay to start with in many cases.
I’ve read exgay testimonies which included a man who had only hetereosexual sex until he was in prison for a couple of years. In prison he had some gay sex (as if there were other options). He got out of prison, got saved and never had gay sex again. Yet he was included in an “exgay” testimony packet I read. I read testimonies from teens who had jerk off sessions with other boys when young and then stopped doing so as they got older — something that is relatively common.
Fundies are routinely loose with defintions to suit their purposes. So it doesn’t take much to qualify one as “gay” prior to conversion. Afterwards they become loose in the opposite way. Now they are straight with the same sort of lose definition. They skew the sample on both ends.
The reality is that you can’t expect much honesty from deeply religious people — or anyone heavily committed to a specific belief system, particularly irrational belief systems. People lie and the more fanatical they are to their beliefs the greater the incentie they have to lie. Yet this study relies heavily on self reporting by people with strong reasons to lie. Why assume these reports are honest?
Well Mike, I think the comments after my comment answer your question.
Let’s just wait and see what the research does or doesn’t say before we express an opinion on whether this is an acceptable study or not. That’s all I’m asking.
They are leaving out OTHER important questions:
1. Is changing or altering one’s sexual orientation possible without the other lifelong factors such as coercive and threatening environments?
2. Are the most risky behaviors (adultery, sexual addiction, promiscuity, lack of committing and mongamy non existent in heterosexuals?
3. How are these behaviors discouraged among heterosexuals?
4. Is the converse attempted in heterosexuals? Has or is there an experiment planned on what factors or motives would make a person alter their behavior from straight to gay? This does not include *gay men who married opposite sex spouses, nor prison populations.
*since this behavior constitutes a coercive environment, it might taint the study regarding motive.
5. Can one count celibacy as changing orientation or is there a category called ‘exsexual’? People who are no longer having sex, or a relationship with another of their same sex.
6. Motive is an important component. Is the motive really a relationship with God? At which ex gay ministry isn’t necessary.
Or is this about conceding to social pressure to conform to more HUMAN standards?
7. Do they factor in how that gay person might have adjusted to life without being inculcated with religious doctrine to conform to heterosexuality?
8. Do they study the effects of misogyny, racism or other forms of bigotry on young minds to find common factors in the psyche of young gays and lesbians. Most of whom grew up in religious homes?
9. Do they factor in the work of OTHER researchers with a broader range and funding access on homosexuality?
10. And finally, the ulitmate motives of ex gay therapy and ministry must be questioned as much as their methodology and research. Are their motives similar to unhealthy methods used on unfavored minorities? Or is their outreach equal in terms of it’s comprehension and application?
If anyone can see that their research and results don’t reflect ever having included this questioning, I’d say the whole thing should be on the trash heap.
What do you all think?
A few other questions:
1. Have they studied or interviewed healthy, well adjusted gays and lesbians who have enjoyed full relationships with their families and with a significant other?
2. Have they interviewed or gone back and put together information on the so called ‘failures’. That is, ex ex gays and what their life situations are?
Would it be necessary to factor in those sorts of gay people? Or would that be an indicator that ex gay therapy and ministry isn’t as important as they make it seem?
Speaking as an academic in a social sciences, I have to say Aaron’s points are completely valid.
While there certainly is a partially unwarranted hierarchy amongst academic journals, to a considerable degree it IS warranted. The top journals are incredibly rigourous in their assessments, but the one thing they don’t assess is findings. They look at methodologies, theoretical frameworks, the logic and how the conclusions were drawn. Sure, if the results of a study were contrary to the weight of previous research, they may look a tad harder at the above. But if it conforms to guidelines, then it conforms to guidelines. That’s science.
Now, I am going to be the first to say that science isn’t the objective paradise those within it may wish it were. However, it is the best yardstick we have for such. Further, while you may lack the credentials to publish in the top journals, there are COPIOUS amounts of other journals out there, none of which have an overtly ideological bent to them. In fact, as soon as ideology becomes present, it stops being an academic journal.
These ‘researchers’ have done none of this. They haven’t gone for sexuality journals, nor gender journals, nor behavioural journals, nor pysch journals. All areas where they could have easily have published should their work be at the standard they claim.
No, instead they went after journals that no one in academia will read. In other words, journals where those that would challenge them would notice. They haven’t presented this at academic conferences, where such work can be peer-reviewed (something which, while painful, does help your research become better).
Moreover, they come from universities that are overt about ideology coming before science. And in addition, these are two researchers KNOWN to have used biased research previously. It’s liking asking J. Michael Bailey how to objectively study populations of trans people. It’s just not something you expect to resemble reality. I mean, sure, they could have possibly turned around from their prior research, it IS possible after all.
Further, I am hesitant to give credence to the study of orientation via longitudinal means … I would imagine it would give you behavioural indicators, but I am unsure how it would give you insight into orientation.
However, as to the findings themselves, I will wait till the work comes out o pass judgement. But to say I am highly sceptical for all the above reasons (and such scepticism is a valid and necessary part of science), is an understatement.
From what we have heard before, this is probably a longitudinal study of about 100 ex-gays over about 5 years. Most such studies would be published in academic journals, not books. The journals outline their peer review processes. If this really does come out as a book, that is a major red flag right there.
Assuming the study is legit, what about the possible 50-70% of these highly motivated people who didn’t change?
Are they could to recognize that maybe their sexual orientation is immutable?
Even believing their own figures, we are still talking about a minority “success” rate. Most people in ex gay ministries don’t change.
George Rekers was the man who prescribed a kind of child-appropriate aversion therapy – to use the most charitable description that I can think of – for a boy whose parents were concerned about his gender-nonconformist behaviour. The gender-nonconformist traits were bullied out of the boy, but the “treatment” didn’t stop him from growing up gay. Furthermore it destroyed his relationship with his family, especially his father, and had a disastrous effect on his ability to make friends and to accept his natural sexuality. Rekers originally wrote this case up as a success. Further comment is scarcely necessary.
See here.
Also here.
Peter O,
I think we have cause for concern simply from the press release – you might want to re-read the XGW article above to see why. Color me surprised that two conservative Evangelical Christians found evidence to support their views, and which contradict those of most of the scientific establishment.
There are things we can say now Peter, simply from what the authors and their supporters have said – that and the fact that we should all be wary of a study that is published in a book and not in a peer-reviewed journal – that worries me more than anything.
And even if this study has some merit and isn’t simply bias-entrenched fluff, any scientist knows that their study has to be repeated by other groups before their findings can be accepted by the larger community.
One point to add Jayhuck is WHICH peer-reviewed journal? As I remember, Paul Cameron claims his work is peer-reviewed, but in reality, it’s self-published in a journal that claims peer review, but the standards of peer-review are, at very best, highly doubtful.
Also, as is mentioned above, agreed-upon definitions are lacking all around.
I’ll reserve final judgment until it comes out (so to speak), but I don’t have very high expectations.
As they are publishing, we already know what their conclusions will be. (”Yes” and “No”).
A good way to tell the difference between a propaganda mill and an actual science journal or independent “think tank” is simply: do you know beforehand what the conclusions will be? If you don’t, it’s doing real science. If you do, it’s a propaganda mill.
The more I am reading about ex-gays, the more I feel they are really confused.
You see, to them, they are convicted that homosexuality is a sin, and through Christ, all things are possible, including change of orientation.
To have a publishing that states that change is not really that possible goes to say that, like amputees who will never regenerate legs and fourth stage cancer patients who are dying, not all things through Christ are possible.
So this publishing will be highly esteemed to present a respectable figure to appease the public looking for results and comfort tortured ex-gay souls who are still trying to reconcile with their sexuality at the wrong place.
In the end, if the success rate is high, it is easier to blame those who are the ‘failures’, accusing them for not trying, or praying, or surpressing hard enough. They would say, ‘so many can do it, so what is wrong with you?’
Ironically, many would concede that amputees or those born disabled are to live purposefull lives as part of God’s plan for their own personal journeys, but still do not even see that being who they are as homosexuals IS part of God’s plan for them.
Denying themselves the right to live as who they are; lying to spouses, children and the public; bearing false witness to the Christian LGT community… surely these cannot be part of God’s plan for them….
All these guys had to do was ask Pat Robertson, God would have revealed the answers to him in five seconds. There was no need to waste five years in coming to their predetermined conclusions.
I wouldn’t trust someone from Regent University to give an honest interpretatioin of the Bible, let alone of raw “scientific” data.
“Let’s just wait and see what the research does or doesn’t say before we express an opinion on whether this is an acceptable study or not. That’s all I’m asking.”
Why is it that you immediately assumed the writers at XGW were negatively expressing an opinion, and chastised them for doing so, yet you yourself had no problem immediately judging them even though they have not said anything about the study itself?
It seems like you want this study to be a success and therefore you are already preemptively criticizing XGW for doubting the merits of the people behind this study.
“What the research does or doesn’t say” does not, in my opinion, determine whether a study is “acceptable.”
A study’s acceptability is determined, among other things, by:
Once a study is complete, it also helps for those affiliated with the study to demonstrate continued objectivity and restraint in interpretation of the results.
Partisan culture warriors might want any research to conform to “acceptable” political or theological correctness, but the quest for truth and knowledge demands otherwise.
Not much else to add, other than to say that the way this “study” is being released is not unlike the way many pseudoscientists in a number of fields or non-fields, such as astrology, ufology, psychics, etc. conduct themselves. They don’t bother with reputable methods or peer review or any of that. They just toss something together, put it out themselves, and go right to the public with it.
This behaviour is sometimes called Science By Press Release.
Real research takes years, and is verified over and over again, and is generally not conducted by groups with open political and social bias.
I am here in Nashville and attending the conference. I may be attending a break out session that Yarhouse is conducting.
Today I bought both of the books Yarhouse co-authored, including the one referenced herein.
I glanced through the book and read the concluding paragraph of the book. Basically, after 375+ pages it says change MAY be possible for those seeking help from Exodus.
It is my opinion readers on both sides of the issue will have his/her presupposition already in place and thus digest the material through a filter which may very likely influence his/her acceptance or rejection of the study.
KE – The bookstore is not even open yet, how and from whom did you buy the new book?
I attended the Society for Christian Psychology conference which was held Mon & Tue. Yarhouse spoke there so his books were on sale.