"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist,
visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that
children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their
own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children
living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these
children spend much more time talking about their biological parents
than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr.
Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that
the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid.
Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of
graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate
understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island
cultures. " Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
It is rather a challenging and
difficult task to fully understand other cultures. The article
presents two methods that allegedly led to two different conclusions.
The main aim is to explain in which way children are nurtured on the
island of Tertia. While both methods of scientific experiment shade
more light on the issue, probably we can trust neither of them.
Perhaps, we need specific evidence and more information to comprehend
the problem in a thoroughgoing way.
First, Dr. Field visited the island
twenty years ago. It might be the case that the way of upbringing
children was altered on the island and this is why the previous
observations are not in line with current results of the interviews.
Maybe, many new people, for example, from western countries, came to
the island and significantly influenced its culture. This fact could
certainly weaken Dr. Karp's argument. In that case, the original
study could have been accurate, and Dr. Karp's research could be
correct, as well.
Moreover, Dr. Karp's investigation
covers group of islands that includes Tertia. It is possible that the
way of rearing children is different on each of the islands. To
cogently refute Dr. Fields conclusions, Dr. Karp should narrow his
area of research to the island of Tertia exclusively. Thus, if Dr.
Karp's students interviewed none or only a few children from the
island of Tertia, then the presented conclusions would be
unsupported. Maybe, Dr. Fields research based on observation was more
detailed and focused, thus provided better results, what would weaken
Dr. Karp's stance.
Let' take into account children who
were interviewed. We can learn nothing about them from the article.
We are not provide with any information about their age or sex. The
children could talk more about their biological parents, because they
are very young and their vocabulary is very limited, for instance,
they have just learnt how to speak the main two words like “mum”
and “dad”. Thus, first it should be determined what range of age
we consider. Furthermore, Dr. Karp should provide us with transcript
of the interviews. Then, probably it would be reasonable to select
group of children and measure precisely how much time they spent with
different people, especially with their parents. If the time spend by
children with their parents would be substantially greater, for
example, than 80%, then Dr. Karp conclusions would be valid.
Contrary, if the time spend by children would be evenly distributed
between different people, then probably Dr. Fields theory would be
correct.
A difficult task is to judge of the
merits of the two scientific methods. Certainly, one unsuccessful
result of observational method could not undermine the whole idea.
Maybe, other scientists managed to prove that this method is valid
and can bear fruitful results, what would abate Dr. Karp's
conclusions. Besides, the final favourable outcome of Dr. Karp's
approach would bolster his method significantly. For example, it
could be proven that lingual description is more precise and does not
omit vital details that are crucial to fully understand the
upbringing process. It could occur that, during Dr. Fields
observations, the people who cared for children were precisely
instructed by parents and followed specific rules. Maybe, children
spend time in sui generis kindergartens during daytime when they
parents had to work and spend remaining time with their parents.
In conclusions, Dr. Karp argument has a
few weak points and unsupported claims. Both experiments reveal their
weaknesses and should be improved. The evidence that could resolve
the issue should be based on a specific experiment narrowed to the
island of Tertia, which would be able to measure accurately the time
spent by children with various people. Otherwise, it is impossible to
draw any convincing conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment