Abstract
From 1950 to 1952, statisticians W.G. Cochran, C.F. Mosteller, and J.W. Tukey reviewed A.C. Kinsey and colleagues’ methodology. Neither the history-and-philosophy of science literature nor contemporary theories of interdisciplinarity seem to offer a conceptual model that fits this forced interaction, which was characterized by significant power asymmetries and disagreements on multiple levels. The statisticians initially attempted to exclude all non-technical matters from their evaluation, but their political and personal investments interfered with this agenda. In the face of McCarthy’s witch hunts, negotiations with Kinsey and his funding institutions became integral to the review group’s work. This paper analyzes the heavy burden of emotional and affective labor in this collaboration, the conflicts caused by competing visions of objectivity, and the uses of statistical knowledge to gain and sustain authority. Kinsey’s refusal to adopt the recommended probability sample damaged his already precarious position even further and marked him as a biased researcher who put his personal agenda above methodological rigor. Kinsey’s uncooperative demeanor can be explained by distrust resulting from numerous adverse reactions to his work and by fear of having his sexuality exposed. This case study illustrates that the very concept of valid numbers can become an arena for power struggles and that quantification alone does not guarantee productive exchanges across disciplines. It calls for a deeper conceptual analysis of the prerequisites for successful scientific collaborations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
N/A.
Notes
In the following, I refer to this publication as the “Male volume” to distinguish it from the subsequent “Female volume,” Kinsey et al. (1953). Both works together are referred to as the “Kinsey Reports.”
The abbreviation “KPM” follows the actors’ terminology.
For the information on which this and the following paragraph draw, and for detailed insights into the history and politics of queer life in the mid-20th century, see Chauncey (1994), D’Emilio (1983), Escoffier (1998), Johnson (2004), Lewis (2010), Minton (2001), Terry (1999), Wake (2011). On the extent to which the Kinsey Reports rested on and influenced “sexual citizenship” and U.S. Americans’ self-image, see Cuordileone (2005), Gilbert (2005), Morantz (1977), Reumann (2005).
This abbreviation is also adopted from the historical actors.
All archival sources referenced in this paper, unless otherwise noted, are from John W. Tukey Papers, Mss. Ms. Coll. 117, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia, PA.
Kinsey got along relatively well with Mosteller, who was comparably quiet during meetings and written exchanges with KPM. Kinsey felt comfortable enough with Mosteller to offer him a position as a paid statistical advisor after the completion of the review, but Mosteller declined; Jones (1997, pp. 683–684).
For a more general analysis of “the politics-patronage-social science nexus in Cold War America,” see Solovey (2013).
The details of KPM’s sex lives and the impact of their sexuality on the content of their work are beyond the scope of this article. For a detailed treatment of “homosociality” and “[t]he confluence of sexual and intellectual matters” in another influential Cold War research group, see Wilson (2009, p. 847).
On Kinsey’s funding, see Jones (1997, pp. 417–464), Pomeroy (1972, p. 80). For more information on the history of the CRPS, see Aberle and Corner (1953), Beach (1965), Clarke (1998), Cochrane (1987), Corner (1981), Hegarty (2012), Pomeroy (1972), and the oral history interview with George W. Corner, conducted by James H. Jones on 08/05/1971 in Bloomington, Indiana, courtesy of the Indiana University Center for the Study of History and Memory.
The quote “decent and proper” is from the aforementioned oral history interview with George W. Corner.
Quote taken from oral history interview with Clara B. McMillen Kinsey, conducted by James H. Jones on 12/10/1971 in Bloomington, Indiana, courtesy of the Indiana University Center for the Study of History and Memory.
See also the aforementioned oral history interview with George W. Corner.
Gebhard joined the team in 1946, after much of the work on the Male volume had been completed, hence the abbreviation “KPM” does not include his name. Pomeroy later used the abbreviation “KPGM”; Pomeroy (1972, p. 370).
See the aforementioned oral history interview with Clara B. McMillen Kinsey.
See the aforementioned oral history interview with Clara B. McMillen Kinsey.
It occurred to me that Kinsey might have asked the statisticians to provide their sex histories because he was hoping to find in CMT potential allies in his fight against heteronormativity, but the battle lines seem to have been drawn before KPM took CMT’s sex histories.
The quotes are taken from the aforementioned oral history interview with Clara B. McMillen Kinsey.
Since then, Pomeroy et al. (1982) have broken the secret and published the code.
Jones (1997, p. 639) suggested that Wilks had intended for CMT to draft a special report for the CRPS from the beginning.
Kinsey’s desire for large samples was well-known. Jones (1997, p. 206; 359) called it “[collector’s] mania,” which might have been born out of an attempt to compensate for the loss of Magnus Hirschfeld’s library and collection that was destroyed by the Nazis (1933); Allen et al. (2017, pp. 17; 27–36). Kinsey’s obsession with sex histories was in line with other Cold War attempts to collect large amounts of data on the most intimate aspects of human experience; Lemov (2015).
See the aforementioned oral history interview with George W. Corner.
On Reece’s anti-communist agenda, see Bowers (2010).
See also the aforementioned oral history interview with George W. Corner.
See the aforementioned oral history interview with George W. Corner.
On Tukey’s life and work, see the special issues of Statistical Science, 18(3) (2003), and Annals of Statistics, 30(6) (2002). For eight volumes of Tukey’s biography, bibliography, and commented works, see Brillinger et al. (1984–1994). Further sources include Aspray and Tucker (1985), Brillinger (1976), Brillinger et al. (1997), Fernholz and Morgenthaler (2000), Hoaglin (2002), Kafadar (2001), Lehmann (2008), Leonhardt (2000), McCullagh (2003), Mosteller (2005), Statistical Science Editorial Office (1988), Thompson (2001).
On the logic of statistical sampling, see Hacking (2016, pp. 108–121).
This insistence on probability sampling resonated with a wider suspicion against social scientists by Cold Warriors, funding agencies, and government officials. Allegedly, researchers who did not uphold mechanical objectivity would always put advocacy above unbiased analysis; Solovey (2013).
KPM nonetheless ended up oversampling college students, prison inmates, and gay men; Jones (1997, p. 522).
Callard and Fitzgerald (2015) addressed issues of both power and emotions in interdisciplinary collaboration and suggested that individuals involved in interdisciplinary work might cultivate a habit of mutual subjugation, renunciation of parity and reciprocity, and “being unsettled together” (p. 109). From my point of view, this advice puts too little weight on an explicitly anti-discriminatory agenda.
References
Aberle, S. D., & Corner, G. W. (1953). Twenty-five years of sex research: History of the national research council committee for research in problems of sex. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Allen, J. A., Allinson, H. E., Clark-Huckstep, A., Hill, B. J., Sanders, S. A., & Zhou, L. (2017). The Kinsey Institute: The first seventy years. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Allyn, D. (1996). Private acts/public policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the Privatization of American Sexual Morality. Journal of American Studies, 30(3.3), 405–428.
Amadae, S. M. (2003). Rationalizing capitalist democracy: The Cold War origins of rational choice liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderson, M. J. (1988). The American census: A social history. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Antonijević, S., Dormans, S., & Wyatt, S. (2013). Working in virtual knowledge: Affective labor in scholarly collaboration. In P. Wouters, A. Beaulieu, A. Scharnhorst, & S. Wyatt (Eds.), Virtual knowledge: Experimenting in the humanities and the social sciences (pp. 57–88). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Aspray, W., & Tucker, A. (1985). The Princeton mathematics community in the 1930s: An Interview with John Tukey. 04/11/1984, Transcript Number 41 (PMC41). https://www.math.princeton.edu/about/oral-history. Accessed 23 December 2020.
Barbalet, J. (2002). Science and Emotions. The Sociological Review, 50, 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2002.tb03595.x.
Barbalet, J. (2011). Emotions beyond regulation: Backgrounded emotions in science and trust. Emotion Review, 3, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380968.
Beach, F. A. (1965). Preface. In F. A. Beach (Ed.), Sex and behavior (pp. 7–10). New York: Wiley.
Bellhouse, D. R. (1988). A brief history of random sampling methods. In P. R. Krishnaiah & C. R. Rao (Eds.), Sampling (Vol. 6, pp. 1–14)., Handbook of statistics Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Biess, F., & Gross, D. M. (2014). Science and emotions after 1945: A transatlantic perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boddice, R. (2018). The history of emotions. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Boddice, R. (2020). History looks forward: Interdisciplinarity and critical emotion research. Emotion Review, 12, 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073920930786.
Bowers, F. S. (2010). Republican, first, last, and always: A biography of B. Carroll Reece. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publisher.
Brillinger, D. R. (1976). Some history of the data analysis of time series in the United States. In D. B. Owen (Ed.), On the history of statistics and probability: Proceedings of a symposium on the American mathematical heritage to celebrate the bicentennial of the United States of America, held at Southern Methodist University, May 27–29, 1974 (pp. 265–280, Statistics: Textbooks and Monographs, Vol. 17). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Brillinger, D. R., Fernholz, L. T., & Morgenthaler, S. (Eds.). (1997). The practice of data analysis: Essays in honor of John W. Tukey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brillinger, D. R., Jones, L. V., Cleveland, W. S., Mallows, C. L., Cox, D. R., & Braun, H. I. (1984–1994). The collected works of John W. Tukey. Belmont/New York/Pacific Grove: Wadsworth Advanced Books & Software/Chapman & Hall/Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software.
Bullough, V. L. (1994). Science in the bedroom: A history of sex research. New York: Basic Books.
Bullough, V. L. (1998). Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Report: Historical overview and lasting contributions. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 127–131.
Callard, F., & Fitzgerald, Des. (2015). Rethinking interdisciplinarity across the social sciences and neurosciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Capshew, J. H., Adamson, M. H., Buchanan, P. A., Murray, N., & Wake, N. (2003). Kinsey’s Biographers: A Historiographical Reconnaissance. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(3), 465–486.
Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the makings of the gay male world, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.
Chiang, H. H.-H. (2010). Liberating sex, knowing desire: Scientia sexualis and epistemic turning points in the history of sexuality. History of the Human Sciences, 23(5), 42–69.
Christenson, C. V. (1971). Kinsey, a biography. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Clarke, A. E. (1998). Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, American life sciences, and “the problems of sex”. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clough, P. T., & Halley, J. O. (Eds.). (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Durham: Duke University Press.
Cochran, W. G., Mosteller, C. F., & Tukey, J. W. (1953). Statistical problems of the kinsey report. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48(246), 673–716.
Cochran, W. G., Mosteller, C. F., & Tukey, J. W. (1954). Statistical problems of the kinsey report on sexual behavior in the human male: A report of the American Statistical Association committee to advise the National Research Council committee for research in problems of sex. Washington: American Statistical Association.
Cochrane, R. C. (1987). The National Academy of Sciences: The first hundred years, 1863–1963. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. E. (2010). Trading zones and interactional expertise. In M. E. Gorman (Ed.), Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration (pp. 7–23). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Corner, G. W. (1981). The seven ages of a medical scientist: An autobiography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum (pp. 139–168).
Crenshaw, K. W. (2019). On intersectionality: Essential writings. New York: New Press.
Cuordileone, K. A. (2005). Manhood and American political culture in the Cold War. New York: Routledge.
D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Davis, J. A. (1990). Review: Statistical problems of the kinsey report. In S. E. Fienberg, D. C. Hoaglin, W. H. Kruskal, & J. M. Tanur (Eds.), A statistical model: Frederick Mosteller’s contributions to statistics, science, and public policy (pp. 192–193). New York: Springer.
Desrosières, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Desrosières, A. (2002). Three studies on the history of sampling surveys: Norway, Russia-USSR, United States. Science in Context, 15(3), 377–383.
Doroshow, D. B. (2019). Emotionally disturbed: A history of caring for America’s troubled children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Drucker, D. J. (2010). Male sexuality and Alfred Kinsey’s 0–6 Scale: Toward ‘A sound understanding of the realities of sex’. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(9), 1105–1123.
Drucker, D. J. (2012). A most interesting chapter in the history of science. History of the Human Sciences, 25, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695111432523.
Drucker, D. J. (2014). The classification of sex: Alfred Kinsey and the organization of knowledge. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Ericksen, J. A. (1998). With enough cases, why do you need statistics? Revisiting Kinsey’s methodology. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551926.
Ericksen, J. A. (1999). Kiss and tell: Surveying sex in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Erickson, P., Klein, J. L., Daston, L., Lemov, R. M., Sturm, T., & Gordin, M. D. (2013). How reason almost lost its mind: The strange career of Cold War rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Escoffier, J. (1998). American homo: Community and perversity. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Fernholz, L. T., & Morgenthaler, S. (2000). A Conversation with John W. Tukey and Elizabeth Tukey. Statistical Science, 15(1), 79–94.
Fienberg, S. E. (1990). Contributions to methodology and applications. In S. E. Fienberg, D. C. Hoaglin, W. H. Kruskal, & J. M. Tanur (Eds.), A statistical model: Frederick Mosteller’s contributions to statistics, science, and public policy (pp. 81–109). New York: Springer.
Furfey, P. H. (1955). Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male; A Report of the American Statistical Association Committee to Advise the National Research Council Committee for Research in Problems of Sex by William G. Cochran; Frederick Mosteller; John W. Tukey. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 16(3), 219.
Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gathorne-Hardy, J. (1998). Sex the measure of all things: A life of Alfred C. Kinsey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gathorne-Hardy, J. (2004). Introduction: Kinsey—The man and the film. In B. Condon (Ed.), Kinsey: Public and Private (pp. 9–14). New York: Newmarket Press.
Gilbert, J. B. (2005). Men in the middle: Searching for masculinity in the 1950s/James Gilbert. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldie, P. (Ed.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hacking, I. (2016). Logic of statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardt, M. (1999). Affective labor. Boundary, 26(2), 89–100.
Hegarty, P. (2012). Beyond Kinsey: The committee for research on problems of sex and American psychology. History of Psychology, 15, 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027270.
Hoaglin, D. C. (2002). Professor John W. Tukey, 1915–2000. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D, 51(2), 279–280.
Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Igo, S. E. (2007). The Averaged American: Surveys, citizens, and the making of a Mass public. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, D. K. (2004). The Lavender Scare: The cold war persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, J. H. (1997). Alfred C. Kinsey: A public/private life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Kafadar, K. (2001). MemoriamMemoriam. Technometrics, 43(3), 251–255.
Karaali, G. (2019). Emotional labor in mathematics: Reflections on mathematical communities, mentoring structures, and EDGE. In S. D’Agostino, S. Bryant, A. Buchmann, M. C. Guinn, & L. Harris (Eds.), A celebration of the EDGE program’s impact on the mathematics community and beyond (Vol. 18, pp. 129–145, Association for Women in Mathematics Series). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Kinsey, A. C., Hyman, H., Sheatsley, P. B., Hobbs, A. H., Lambert, R. D., Pastore, N., et al. (1955). The Cochran-Mosteller-Tukey report on the kinsey study: A symposium. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50(271), 811–829.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Kruskal, W. H., & Mosteller, C. F. (1980). Representative sampling, IV: The history of the concept in statistics, 1895–1939. International Statistical Review, 48(2), 169–195.
Laumann, E. O., & Michael, R. T. (Eds.). (2000). Sex, love, and health in America: Private choices and public policies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lehmann, E. L. (2008). Reminiscences of a statistician: The company I kept. New York: Springer.
Lemov, R. M. (2015). Database of dreams: The lost quest to catalog humanity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Leonhardt, D. (2000). John Tukey, 85, statistician; Coined the word ‘Software’. The New York Times, 3, 19.
Lewis, C. H. (2010). Prescription for heterosexuality: Sexual citizenship in the cold war Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Lindee, M. S. (2013). Performing Anger: H.J. Muller, James V. Neel, and Radiation Risk. In B. Gausemeier, S. Müller-Wille, & E. Ramsden (Eds.), Human heredity in the twentieth century (Vol. 15, pp. 205–216)., Studies for the Society for the Social History of Medicine London: Pickering & Chatto.
McCullagh, P. (2003). John Wilder Tukey, 16 June 1915–26 July 2000. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 49, 537–555.
McWhirter, D. P., Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (Eds.). (1990). Homosexuality, heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (Vol. 2)., The Kinsey Institute Series New York: Oxford University Press.
Minton, H. L. (2001). Departing from deviance: A history of homosexual rights and emancipatory science in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moore, K. (2013). Disrupting science: Social movements, American scientists, and the politics of the military, 1945–1975. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Morantz, R. M. (1977). The scientist as sex Crusader: Alfred C. Kinsey and American Culture. American Quarterly, 29(5), 563–589.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 986–1010. https://doi.org/10.2307/259161.
Mosteller, C. F. (2005). John W. Tukey, 16 June 1915–26 July 2000. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149(4), 625–630.
O’Muircheartaigh, C., & Wong, S. T. (1981). The impact of sampling theory on survey sampling practice: A review. Bulletin de l’Institut international de statistique, 49(1), 465–493.
Oakes, G. (1994). The imaginary war: Civil defense and American cold war culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oksala, J. (2016). Affective labor and feminist politics. Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1086/682920.
Parker, J. N., & Hackett, E. J. (2014). The sociology of science and emotions. In J. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (Vol. II, pp. 549–572)., Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research Dordrecht: Springer.
Phillips, C. J. (2015). The new math: A political history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pomeroy, W. B. (1972). Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for sex research. New York: Harper & Row.
Pomeroy, W. B., Flax, C. C., & Wheeler, C. C. (1982). Taking a sex history: Interviewing and recording. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The Pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Porter, T. M. (2003). Statistics and statistical methods. In T. M. Porter & D. Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science (Vol. 7, pp. 238–250)., The Modern Social Sciences Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reiss, I. L. (2006). An Insider’s view of sexual science since kinsey. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Reumann, M. G. (2005). American sexual character: Sex, gender, and national identity in the Kinsey reports. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Seng, Y. P. (1951). Historical survey of the development of sampling theories and practice. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 114, 214–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/2980977.
Solovey, M. (2013). Shaky foundations: The politics-patronage-social science nexus in Cold War America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Statistical Science Editorial Office. (1988). Frederick Mosteller and John W. Tukey: A Conversation. Moderated by Francis J. Anscombe. Statistical Science, 3(1), 136–144.
Stephan, F. F. (1948a). History of the uses of modern sampling procedures. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 43, 12–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1948.10483247.
Stephan, F. F. (1948b). Sampling in studies of opinions, attitudes, and consumer wants. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 92(5), 387–398.
Stets, J. E., & Turner, J. H. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of the sociology of emotions: Volume II (Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Terry, J. (1999). An American obsession: Science, medicine, and homosexuality in modern society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thagard, P. (2006). Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Thompson, J. R. (2001). The age of Tukey. Technometrics, 43(3), 256–265.
Wake, N. (2011). Private practices: Harry Stack Sullivan, the science of homosexuality, and American liberalism. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Wang, J. (1999). American science in an age of anxiety: Scientists, anticommunism, and the cold war. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Wang, J. (2012). Physics, emotion, and the scientific self: Merle Tuve’s Cold War. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 42, 341–388. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2012.42.5.341.
White, P. (2009). Focus: The emotional economy of science. Isis, 100, 792–797. https://doi.org/10.1086/652019.
Wilson, E. A. (2009). “Would I had him with me always”: Affects of longing in early artificial intelligence. Isis, 100, 839–847. https://doi.org/10.1086/652023.
Wolfe, A. J. (2018). Freedom’s laboratory: The Cold War struggle for the soul of science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Charles Greifenstein and the staff at the American Philosophical Society Library; Shawn C. Wilson at The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction; and Barbara Truesdell at the Center for the Study of History and Memory at Indiana University for their kind support. I am also grateful to Susan Lindee, Jason Chernesky, Kara Cochran, Andrew Hogan, Rebecca Mueller, and Amy Paeth for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Funding
None beyond my regular stipend/salary.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Code availability
N/A.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cornel, T. Contested Numbers: The failed negotiation of objective statistics in a methodological review of Kinsey et al.’s sex research. HPLS 43, 13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00363-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00363-6