Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited

This is my first time writing an AWA answer, would be very grateful to have responses on how to improve.

Prompt:

Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

Response:

The recommendation explicitly states that obtaining accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices should be contingent only upon conducting research via the interview-centered method. This is based on the argument that results obtained by conducting research on the same through observation were implausible. However, the argument is incomplete, and cannot be deemed solidly reasonable unless a few clarifications can be reached.

Considering that Dr. Field’s “observation-centered approach” employs only observing the culture and people, the exact methodology followed observing the Tertian rearing culture has not been described in detail. The duration of time spent by him in observation is unknown. Whether his observation period took into account external factors of Tertian culture that could impact child-rearing practices are also unknown. For example, if he observed the practices for a specific short period when the Tertian people indulge in a community bonding experiment, his results might have been greatly skewed. A clear idea of what observations led him to his conclusion would allow to decide whether the conclusion can be accurately derived from the observations.

Secondly, Dr. Karp is stated to have visited the “group of islands that includes Tertia” recently, whereas Dr. Field had visited twenty years ago. To conclude that Dr. Field’s conclusion is invalid undermines the fact that the passage of time from “twenty years” ago to “recently” may have brought about significant cultural changes in Tertia. Only by knowing whether time has indeed changed the rearing practices, can either of the anthropologists’ conclusions be deemed invalid - hence leading to a concrete conclusion in whether the following recommendation is reasonable.

Third, Dr. Karp visited the group of islands, among which Tertia is one. It is unknown that what percentage of his interviews were conducted on Tertian children. Without knowing that specific detail, it is not possible to compare the two anthropologists’ work on an equal ground. Further, it is unclear how children talking more about their biological parents in interviews leads to the conclusion that other adults of the village have little contribution in raising them.

Hence, without the knowledge to fill in these gaps in the argument, it is unreasonable to overthrow either of the conclusions as invalid. Similarly, without knowing the answer to the above-mentioned questions, it is not possible to concretely recommend discarding an entire research methodology.



Thank you in advance!!