-diff gps of diff islands might be raised in diff cultures and norms (may be just geographically

related) -May be Dr. Field conducted the search during a period when they are celebrating a
parental feast or theme (thus, talk is about moms and dads) - Psychology, a different science
subject, deals more with random sampling and observational one v.s. Anthropolgy - Subjective
view of obseravation centered studies + give examples - Traditions may change in the course of
time (maybe past is different from future) + there is always uncertainity (how could he know the
the interview-based will be better) - People maybe shy to talk about their rearing in interviews
and thus answers generated maybe biased

In the argument claimed by Dr. Krap, there appears to be certain aspects that are worth an
insightful look before acknowledging his claim as a rightful one. Despite of the fact that the
factors provided by Dr. Field observations such as the use of children in experimentation and its
conductance relatively long time ago around 20 years are obsolete, Dr. Karp proposed argument
of its invalidity and his ability to come up with better results from his study is rather unsupported
for a number of reasons. Did Dr. Karp, for example, asked if the islands near Tertia are just
geopgraphically related but the people over there have different cultures?

That very critical and detrimental question is essential before drawing conclusions about Dr.
Field’s work. Because if people practice different norms then may be an annex study by Dr. Kalp
will be deemed favorable in order to cast doubts about the possibility of children being
influenced by each other answers as they are just coming from a same or a close by area. Also,
the timing of Dr. Karp’s research conductance maybe crucial for this study result. For example, it
is reasonable if his proposed study will be conducted on a time when the children aren’t
celebrating a parental feast or theme i.e. Mother’s or Father’s Day. So that the results won’t be
biased.

Another important criterion, which Dr. Karp should take in consideration, is that traditions do
change in the course of time. So, for example maybe by time Dr. Field conducted his study the
aspect of child-rearing was linked to the village’s adult but it has been linked/adorned to
biological parents after those 20 years. So, due to this change in the timing of the
experimentation, it could be hard to correlate the results from both studies. And accordingly, Dr.
Krap can not refute Dr. Fields claims.

Furthermore, the models of experimentation sampling in both studies are closely linked to the
field of Psychology. Thus, it should be noted that both Anthropology along with Psychology are
determinants of whether observational , interview based or even random sampling is the best for
this type of study. Dr. Karp should for example account for the fact that people can perform
worse under the psychological stress of the interview and hence the answers generated could be
biased.

In conclusion, Dr. Kalps argument against Dr. Field’s study outcomes reflecting children’s
preference in child-rearing by biological parents should address some concerns before he jumps
into conclusions. One of which is the possibility of biased answers due to geographical influence,
psychological factors of interviewing children, study-time differences as well as the general
principle of uncertainty in science that could never be supportive for his state of being sure of his
study results as claimed by his statement “ interview-centered method ... will establish a more
accurate...”