Our Research

Across the world, debates about social policy for adolescent sexual and reproductive health and education rage. Policy approaches for addressing adolescent sexuality are embedded in politics, and policy approaches shift – sometimes dramatically – with changing political administrations or leadership, and with evolving ideologies and social movements. In the realm of adolescent sexuality, there is consistent, strong research from a range of disciplines and perspectives that documents the efficacy of comprehensive adolescent sexuality and reproductive health education for addressing the complex medical, psychological, interpersonal, and social needs of adolescent development (Haberland & Rogow, 2015). At the same time, there have been longstanding debates about social and educational policies and programs to support adolescent sexual and reproductive education and health in many countries around the world, debates that are rooted in deeply held feelings and beliefs regarding sexuality, adolescence, and adolescent sexuality (Russell, 2005). Policy debates often involve scientific research, yet knowledge from research is often over-shadowed by powerful, long-established values and beliefs (including myths and stereotypes) regarding sexuality. If we take the position that knowledge informed by research should play a role in public decision making, we should ask: How can research better inform policies, programs, and practices that promote adolescent sexual and reproductive health?

What is clear is that research is often not central to policy-making decisions regarding adolescent sexuality. Perhaps the clearest example is the decades-old debate regarding whether sexuality education should be “comprehensive” or whether it should focus only on “abstinence.” This debate has been central to shifting policy in the United States for several decades (Santelli et al., 2006, 2017), and the “abstinence-only-until-marriage” (AOUM) policy approach for US adolescent sexual health education was exported to other countries during the G. W. Bush presidency (Lo et al., 2016). A more recent global example is the notion of “gender ideology,” which has emerged around the world, especially in Europe and South America (Grzebalska & Soós, 2016; Wilkinson, 2017), as a movement opposing comprehensive sexuality education as well as gender equality, abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights. Both AOUM and gender ideology are important examples of opposition to well-established, research-based adolescent sexuality education policy and programs.

There are multiple forms of knowledge, and multiple scientific approaches to generating information and evidence about the world. A premise of this Handbook is that some forms of research – in particular, empirical quantitative sciences – have historically been more prominent, had more status, or have been more valued; these forms of research have historically had more influence on public discourse and policy (Russell, 2016). Despite the relative status of some forms of (empirical, quantitative) science, there is growing awareness and appreciation of the contributions to knowledge of multiple forms of inquiry – that is, bringing together, triangulating, or bridging multiple epistemological or scholarly approaches. Yet, when scientific conclusions or consensus is inconsistent with politically dominant values or opinions, they may be rejected in favor of ideology (Tolman et al., 2005, p. 4).

In this chapter, I consider methods or approaches relevant for research on sexualities in adolescence. My focus is not on methods of scientific design and inquiry but on methods of application and utility – that is, methods for designing, conducting, and applying research in ways that are useful as well as usable for social change (Nutley et al., 2007). A focus on application and utility refers not to whether research, when completed, is used, but to the methods involved in designing research that is community informed and designed with application in mind (Russell, 2016). I narrate a case example of an integrated approach to research/policy /practice focused on the issue of LGBT-inclusive curriculum in secondary schools. Drawing from that story, I highlight several interrelated principles that inform methods for approaching research in ways that maximize the degree to which a variety of forms of research is responsive to contemporary issues or needs for adolescent sexualities, and the degree to which research is useful for policies, programs, or practices to support healthy adolescent sexuality. These principles include: (1) conducting research in the context of researcher–advocate partnerships; (2) designing and communicating research results in ways that situate the issues as responsive to their local and broader contexts; (3) centering scholarship in the voices of participants; and (4) translation, interpretation, and dissemination of the findings from research for community use.