Camouflage Isn't Only for Combat: Gender, Sexuality, and Women in the Military

Methodological Appendix

METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX Research that addresses women in the military reflects a wide variety of methodological approaches. The literature includes small qualitative studies (Dunivin 1988; Schneider and Schneider 1988; Williams 1989), large quantitative studies (Hosek and Peterson 1990; Segal 1978), oral histories (Marshall 1987), and autobiographies (Barkalow 1990). Stiehm (1989) completed hundreds of personal interviews and utilized the quantitative research, documents, and policies of governmental agencies to tell the story of enlisted women in today’s military. While the variety of methods is due in part to the specific goals of the research, like most research it is also due to differences in resources, access, and expertise. However , one’s choice of methodology is also affected by the specific topic of study. Even if one had all the resources, access, and expertise necessary, there are certain topics regarding the military on which it would remain difficult to conduct research . Gender and sexuality are among these topics. There is no doubt that the military is concerned with appearances . Senior members of the military have readily admitted that one of their concerns about allowing lesbians and gay men, especially gay men, to be “open” is the effect they 131 believe this would have on public perceptions of the military. For many reasons, as political as they are emotional, the military has a stake in how it is perceived. Military personnel have been strongly advised against talking to the media about a number of issues (e.g., Desert Storm, gays in the military, Tailhook). If individuals choose to do so, it is made clear that they must insure that no one thinks they are talking on behalf of the military. There is a fine line between the First Amendment and insubordination. This is particularly true for personnel who may wish to provide accounts of the role of women in the military. Women, whether enlisted or officer, need to be assured that talking with a researcher will not be held against them. There are several ways to provide this assurance. If the goal of the research is likely to benefit the military, leaders will be less likely to fear negative repercussions. If one has plentiful resources, whether connections to military leadership or Congress , the military will likely be more receptive to the conduct of research. If one has documented expertise in the area and a reputation for research that does not malign the military, the same holds true. All of these factors are tied to access. Persons such as Charles Moskos, David Segal, Mady Wechsler Segal, and Judith Stiehm have all of these attributes. The fact that at least three of these people were invited to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on gays in the military attests to their status and reputation; it is likely that they could undertake research on more sensitive gender issues without being perceived as a threat. Moskos, in fact, has claimed that his work includes “the most extensive survey taken on gender issues in the military” (1993: 1). Such re132 ■ METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX search could not have been undertaken without an established record of scholarship and support for the military. The issues are different, and more complex, when we turn to the subject of sexuality. Whether we are talking about sexuality in general or homosexuality in particular, the military, like society in general, has reasons to suppress such inquiry. In fact, upon receiving the results of a study it commissioned on gays in the military, the Pentagon refused to disseminate the findings because they were not what the leadership had hoped to see. Only when the information was leaked did the public become aware of the findings (Dyer 1990). If the military, as an institution, has reasons to stifle discussions about sexuality, individual members of the military have an even greater reason to do so. This is particularly true if one is lesbian, gay, or bisexual or is at risk for being labeled as such. To my knowledge, no quantitative study of women veterans and women in the military has included identification of the respondents’ sexual orientation. Oral histories have done so, many using pseudonyms, but nothing appears to exist that includes such information in a quantitative data set. The degree of fear among women in the military and, interestingly , among women veterans is such that to provide this information presents two specific difficulties. The first is the locating of participants. The second is the ability...