In the above article, Dr. Karp compares the observations by him and Dr. Field in terms of child-rearing traditions in island of Tertia. At the end, giving some reasoning he concludes that observations of Dr. Field are invalid, hence, his methodology for study is invalid. Though it seems to be in logical flow, but, due to ennumerous assumptions it makes Dr. Karp's argument weak.
Firstly, while telling about Dr. Field's observations Dr. Karp has not provided with adequate amount of details. We cannot decide weather the survey was reliable without knowing answers for specific question. Need to know what was the sample population considered, for how much time, what questions were asked and others. Also, as both survey have a huge gap of 20 years the ethically are not comparable as it may be affected by change in many factors. Thus, need more relevant information for comparison.
In a statement, the author tells us that children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Further he tries to grab it to conclusion that child-rearing fact told by Dr. Field is invalid. This is really illogical to derive strong conclusion from such a reef assumptions that is children were reared by person whom they talk more about. Even it is not mentioned that what conversation was carried out with children, may be tell have told about there feeling of loneliness without there parents or also may have expressed the hatred towards there parent. Thus, making such a suttle conclusion cannot be accepted without considering all possible scenarios.
Moreover, the author giving some unproven logics directs us to conclusion that methodology used by Dr. Field is invalid. This is cannot be accepted as the author is making such a generalized conclusion by only considering single situation. There can be a case, this methodology was useful in some other surveys. It also can be case that some aspects of the methodologies were useful and making changes to certain other may drive it to evolve as effective technique to use. Thus, without detailed analysis of both the methodology, the author must not take stand to choose one over another.
Finally, it would be great if the author can carry out detailed survey and come up with some solid evidences to prove his arguments that is Dr. Fields methodology is invalid with respect to child-rearing culture of islands of Tertia and need an updation to Interview-centered method.