rate, I can cautiously assume that both figures are equally inflated or deflated and that the difference between them reflects a real difference between the rates of motherhood among bisexual and lesbian-identified women in general.
In chapters 5 and 7, the findings will sometimes be presented in terms of differences between lesbian and bisexual women, or between women of different ages, racial/ethnic groups, classes, etc. Most findings will not be presented in terms of percentages or other numbers; most will be anecdotal or narrative descriptions of the different opinions that were expressed by women who participated in the study. However, when findings are expressed in terms of numbers, they will sometimes be accompanied by a “test of statistical significance.” There are many different kinds of statistical significance tests, and each is appropriate under particular circumstances, but all significance tests produce a “p-value.” Above, I mentioned that social scientists do not usually report findings from samples unless they are at least 95% certain that the finding is an accurate reflection of the whole population. The degree of uncertainty is measured by the p-value. The lower the p-value, the more certain the researcher can be that a finding in the sample is also true for the whole population. For example, if the p-value for a finding of difference between two groups in the sample is .05, then there is a 95% chance that these two groups really are different in the whole population. A p-value of .01 indicates 99% certainty, and so on. Significance tests were designed for use on representative samples, and they are accurate for these types of samples. Because the sample on which this study is based is not a representative sample, the significance tests are only guidelines to the certainty of the findings.
How LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL WOMEN WERE RECRUITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY
In order to obtain as diverse a sample as possible, I used sampling methods designed to ensure the inclusion of women who were most likely to be undersampled. Women at risk of being undersampled included closeted women, geographically isolated women, and women who were not socially or politically active in lesbian or bisexual community organizations and events. Because of their social and physical isolation, these women would be less likely to hear about the survey and because of their closetedness or reclusiveness they would be less likely to participate even if they did hear about it. Older women, poor women, and nonstudents were also at risk of underrepresentation because they are less likely to be socially and politically active. Bisexual-identified women were more difficult to reach than lesbian-identified women because there are comparatively few organizations for bisexual women; most bisexual women had to be recruited through primarily lesbian networks. Finally, Women of Color have been underrepresented in previous research on lesbians. This is partly because most researchers are White Euro-Americans themselves, and therefore tend to focus on issues that are of interest to White Euro-Americans or fail to publicize their research in a way that welcomes participation from Women of Color as well as White women.
To overcome the bias against closeted women, geographically isolated women, and women who were not actively involved in lesbian/bisexual community events, I used a self-administered questionnaire2 instead of the face-to-face interview or ethnographic methods that have usually been used to study lesbian and bisexual women. The questionnaire was distributed with postage-paid return envelopes so that respondents could return their completed questionnaires anonymously and at no financial cost to themselves. The goals of the survey were described on the cover of the questionnaire and the instructions inside the front cover and throughout the questionnaire were self-explanatory, thus eliminating the need for potential respondents to speak directly to a member of the survey staff before participating in the study. This enabled the questionnaire to be passed from one woman to another until it reached an eligible respondent, and allowed the questionnaire to reach socially peripheral lesbian and bisexual women and women whose fear of discovery might otherwise have prevented them from participating in the study. The success of these efforts to maximize the mobility of the questionnaire is evident in the fact that, although the target geographic area was a single midwestern state and 98% of the questionnaires were initially distributed in that state, completed questionnaires were returned from respondents in 24 states and Canada.
Six assistants who had conducted interviews in earlier stages of the study helped distribute the questionnaire. These assistants varied in age, political orientation, and sexual identity. They therefore had access to different segments of the lesbian and bisexual population, and were able to recruit a more diverse sample than I could have alone. Questionnaires were distributed by several methods, including booths at gay, lesbian, and women’s conferences and through gay, bisexual, and lesbian social and political organizations, friendship networks, and newsletter advertisements. Particular efforts were made to contact bisexual organizations and organizations for lesbian and bisexual Women of Color, and to recruit Women of Color who belonged to predominantly White Euro-American organizations. Potential respondents were encouraged to take multiple copies of the questionnaire to distribute among their own friends and the members of other organizations to which they belonged. Calculation of an accurate response rate is impossible because some questionnaires probably never reached eligible respondents and some probably passed through the hands of eligible nonrespondents before reaching a respondent. However, 427 usable questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of approximately 45% based on the number of questionnaires that left my hands.
THE WOMEN WHO PARTICIPATED—WHO WERE THEY?
The cover of the questionnaire explained to potential respondents that the following people were eligible to participate in the study: “women who consider themselves to be lesbian or bisexual, or who choose not to label their sexual orientation, or who are not sure what their sexual orientation is.” This definition was intentionally broad, in order to encourage a wide range of women—including women who might not consider themselves members of The Lesbian Community—to participate. Inside the questionnaire, respondents were asked “When you think about your sexual orientation, what word do you use most often to describe yourself?” a question designed to elicit expressions of sexual self-identity rather than presented or perceived identity.3 Respondents chose from among the following responses: lesbian; gay; dyke; homosexual; bisexual; mainly straight or heterosexual but with some bisexual tendencies; I am not sure what my orientation is (I do not know, I haven’t decided, or I am still wondering); I prefer not to label myself. Respondents who answered that they preferred not to label themselves were directed to the follow-up question, “If you had to choose one term to describe your orientation, which would come closest to the way you feel?” and offered the following responses: lesbian/gay/homosexual, bisexual, I really can’t choose. Each response to the initial and the follow-up questions was followed by instructions to skip certain subsequent questions. A small number of respondents failed to check a response to the questions about sexual self-identity; the sexual identities of these respondents were inferred from the instructions they chose to follow.
Seventy-eight percent, or 323, of the respondents unhesitatingly identified themselves as Lesbians, Dykes, or Gay or Homosexual women (figure 3.1).4 An additional 9 respondents failed to answer the question about sexual self-identity but followed the instructions for lesbians throughout the rest of the questionnaire, and they were assumed to have lesbian identities also. Altogether, these 332 women will henceforth be referred to as “lesbians.” Whenever these women are discussed as individuals, the terms they used to describe themselves will be capitalized. That is, if I refer to a respondent as a “lesbian,” this means that she belongs to the lesbian subsample and might have called herself by any of the above terms. But if I refer to her as a Lesbian, then this is the specific term that she chose to describe herself. Likewise, if I refer to her as a Dyke, then this is the term she chose.
Ten percent, or 42, of the respondents identified themselves
