Dr Karp, an anthropologist, writes in his article, that his recent research on child-rearing on children of tertia and other islands has yielded information that contradicts the findings of another researcher, Dr. Field. As Dr. Field implemented the observation-centred method for conducting his study, Dr. Karp argues, his results therefore invalidate the approach sought by the former. Inteview-centred approach is the recommendation from Dr. Karp, which he believes will yield much accurate information. This recommendation however requires further inspections because of the following concerns.
Research conducted 20 years ago by Dr. Field can definitely have different outcomes than the one of Dr. Karp, because 20 years is a substantial period of time for a social change to happen. Only because the latter findings don’t support the former outcomes presented two decades ago, one can’t say the previous findings and methods are faulty. Mr field might have rightly concluded that, the tertian children were not raised by their biological parents and these social phenomena might have changed over the course of time. Recently, people of these islands might have adopted the the more well-known child-rearing method by biological parents and that is why the results from the latter study suggests that, present children of these islands talk more about their biological parents than other members of the village. As there is, a significant time difference between these two studies, a proper conclusion can’t be made by the available information as two decades can change a lot.
The only reason cited by Mr. Karp is, children talk more about their biological parents then any other members of the village. Is it a formidable argument to confirm that children are not reared by the village but by their parents? Such outcomes are perfectly suitable for a society of children raised by the community as a whole. Even if the children of a certain community are not raised by their parents, they share a strong bond with their parents genetically and emotionally and this is scientifically corroborated by several studies done on human and other animals of the wildlife. Although, the argument might have some substance, but this can’t be a final measure about deciding the child-rearing policy. Then again, the latter researcher, claimed that the findings and the method used by the previous was faulty and invalid. However, for all the accuracy the latter method yield, if all the argument is based on how much a child talks about their parents is the perfect measure for gaining insights into child-bearing technique then it doesn’t seem like a very strong position. Furthermore, Mr. Karp doesn’t cite any additional studies that corroborate his findings, or his method of interview-based technique, all he provides is an argument not supported by any further evidence.
So, the findings of Mr. Karp don’t prove the faultiness of invalidation of previous study and its method rather its based on an inference which doesn’t seem well supported by other strong studies or arguments. Moreover, the difference in time frame allows both studies to be correct simultaneously and Mr. Karp’s decision to question the former study is based on many unwarranted assumptions.