Bram - just letting you know that Joanne Hall got back to me on the issue of her work referenced in your information. I'm going on a guess, but I assume your information is based on the following article by Timothy J. Dailey:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3 Based on her response, I have to call into the question the rest of the statistics(for truth, misinterpretation, or misuse) used by this author.
Here is her response to me:
"John, you have got the right person, and they have certainly MISUSED the wrong person.
I am outraged by this tactic. Let me add, however, that I am not a bit surprised at this kind of flat out lie, and distortion of scientific work. This was not a survey or population study of actual incidence rates of substance use by lesbians. I will explain in detail:
(a)For REAL figures, contact Dr. Tonya Hughes at the University of Illinois, CHI She is a quantitative researcher, and knows others who have done incidence studies, and know prevalence of AOD problems among women and subgroups inasmuch as that is available. Aas I understand it, there really is not much difference in rates of abuse (different from use)from the general population.
Any AOD researcher or practitioner in the field knows that the vast majority of alcohol misusers are polydrug users. The figure is high, though I don't know it exactly.
(b) I am a quantitative researcher. People like to see some quick figures on who you studied/accessed, so the figures are there, but the whole sample was maybe 35 people--and they were all purposefully recruited as already recovering from alcohol and drug problems!!!! This was not a sample of random "lesbians". My purpose was to look at patterns of thought, feelings, behavior, and subcultural aspects of interaction among those lesbians living
in SF who already had entered a phase of recovery from such problems. The word ethnographic clearly indicates a qualitative study, which seeks to provide understanding of themes, meanings, cultural patterns, etc.--NOT epidemiologic data. The figures mean nothing more than a view of my very small sample. They describe, and do not "prove" A THING. Women were recruited because, and on the basis of, being lesbian (self-defined), in recovery from alcohol problems, and I discovered that nearly half of them also had been also abused sexually
as children(!!!!) and all were from the bay area. Women with child sexual abuse (CSA) histories have higher chances of also having substance misuse problems. Also--when I described use patterns, it does not necessarily mean these women reached addiction status in using all of the drugs they were asked
about. Depending on when and where you grew up, contextually during many of their teen years, there was a drug use trend in the late 60s, early 70s--remember??? Most importantly, there was no clinical assessment of whether or not according to DSM criteria, they actually were definable as having fit the diagnosis of "substance abuse" at all. They self defined as "having a problem with alcohol." I was not trying to get at a clinically defined population--I was studying those who thought their use was problematic to them in some way, and how they came to that conclusion, and then what they did about it. I wrote many articles from that study and another one that followed it. I will include my CV as an attachment.
(c)Many lesbians in the bay area had stopped using these substances in the late 80s, early 90s--for instance--in 1986 there were 13 lesbian bars in SF. By 1994 there was only 1. The trend was AWAY from using!!!That is why alcohol researchers found this of interest. A dry culture emerging in a "wet" society of the general US--. The influx of lesbians (and gay men) into 12 step
programs, for example, was incredible. This was of interest and an aspect I studied as well. This particular article in question merely talks about an element of the research addressing how lesbians seeking health care perceived and thought about their experiences with health care providers.
(d)At that time, and even now, it is not possible to secure a random sample of a "hidden" population to get proper, accurate epidemiologic data about ANYTHING. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY LESBIANS THERE ARE--HOW CAN ONE SAMPLE
THEM AS IN A LARGE INCIDENCE STUDY?
IMPOSSIBLE. A random sample is the first rule about quantitative research.
Some stigmatized groups will always have members not willing to disclose this information. Furthermore, in close-to-random samples of women in general, there have been few studies where the sexual orientation of the person answering the questionnaire was even determined. This is changing, in large part due to the fairly recent NIH Insitute of Medicine report on lesbian health. Check that out. This is complex. For starters, the definition of a
"lesbian" has been variable in studies we do have, and will continue, with definitions to fit the study purpose (e.g. "self-defined" as mine was for cultural studies, behavior based for studies of sexual issues, etc.).
(e) the study is dated. It is not necessarily applicable beyond the minority of lesbians it recruited, the time period, and the region. SF itself is not very representative of other regions of the US. Whatever--qualitative studies simply do not "REPRESENT" populations in terms of incidence of addiction problems, etc. They are geared to provide insight into patterns of thinking and social connections, etc.
(f) the women in the study in question were very forthcoming about their past use, considering they were in recovery. They all had recognized they had a problem. The available (not much IS available) research on incidence, and use of AOD shows that lesbians actually are quicker to becomw aware of a problem of this kind, and more likely to take action earlier than the general
population.
(g) If any of my studies are being used to justify condemnation of the lesbian population, it is a twisting of science. None of my work is epidemiologic or quantitative. Often I cited, in my lit review, research that was available at the time, and the first such research was done via recruiting from BARS. (Fifield is an example) these were not random samples either. AT those times
in the past there was very little access to the population because of secrecy and discrimination. I no longer would even cite these studies, because they are so inaccurate.
(h) Some lesbians feel that discrimination, bashing, fears of bashing, condemnation by the religious right, family rejection, etc. all might contribute to coping through use of substances. This should also be considered. They are a stigmatized minority. In that sense, comparisons are also misleading, even of quantitative data.
In short, this is a gross misuse, misinterpretation, and in fact a
bastardization of scientific work. I will speak to any organization, media, or institution to clarify my work, and what it means as a contribution to the body of knowledge about lesbians' health. I can respond to any question, or statement about this work. It has been my life and career to study carefully, and in a scholarly way, women's health in general. I have clinical experience as a psychiatric nurse, a PhD from what was at that time the top doctoral program in my field at UCSF. I studied for 7 years with a world-renowned nurse scientist, Dr. Afaf Meleis (now Dean of Nursing at Penn), have completed also a 2 year postdoctoral fellowship, am a member of the American Academy of Nursing, have had federally funded fellowships for doctoral and postdoctoral studies, and am currently Principal Investigator on an NIH study funded at a million dollars, and am a full professor, tenured of course, at the University of Tennessee. SHow me where to make my points, (I will call the NY Times, CNN
or whatever is necessary to gladly and effectively defend this work. They have grabbed the wrong snake this time.)
I need information about where this is being publicized, by whom, and avenues
of action).
Joanne Hall"
I gave her as much info as I could on who to contact(I told her to contact the FRC, who published the original article, the APA, and the news organizations she mentioned). Needless to say, this calls into question the whole article I think you were referencing.
Edit - just for reference, the e-mail I sent her first:
"Dr. Joanne Hall,
Hello, before I waste any of your time, I want to make sure you are the Joanne Hall from this study:
Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic
Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
If you are not that Joanne Hall, please disregard this, and I apologize for wasting your time.
I am having a debate about homosexual marriage and adoption, and this study is being used by the against side. The argument is this : "Nursing Research found that 91% of lesbian participants had abused drugs in addition to alcohol, 34% reported difficulties with eating, 11% with sex addiction." which is actually used by many sites against homosexual marriage and adoption.
Unfortunately, I am unable to find information on the methods used in this study, which is why I have contacted you. I need the information on the methods to see if the study is misinterpreted or not. The particular methods I am interested in are the methods for sampling the lesbian population(I am unsure, based on the title of the study, whether the participants were of the general lesbian population or just those who sought help for aclohol problems), the number of lesbian participants in the study, and anything else relevant to the population of the study.
If you are too busy to dig up this information for me, I perfectly understand. Thank you very much for your time.
John Dibble"
