Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist. visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centred approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared than by an entire village rather t

The author here concludes that interview-centred method is an accurate method to study the Tertian culture. His conclusion is based on the premises that Dr, Karp conducted interviews of the children and concluded that the observation based method used by Dr. Field is invalid as his method proved that children in the village are reared by the biological parents only. According to me, the arguments is rife with holes, assumptions and flawed data.

Firstly, Dr. Field conducted his observation-centred approach twenty years ago. During this gap. it might be possible that the rearing practices by the villagers have been changed. That time, it might be possible that biological parents were not involved into the rearing of their kids. They may exchange their kids for rearing, and once they start talking they may get exchange again.

Secondly, Dr. Karp has not presented any statistics to put his interview-based approach valid. Lets say 4 out of 10 have confirmed that they have been reared by their biological parents. The arguments need to be substantiated with some data and numbers. Dr. Karp has not mentioned about the age of the children on whom he interviewed. It might be the case that interview has been conducted on children above 4 or 5 only. As the smaller ones can not talk properly. He was a stranger to kids, so kids might not responded correctly to him.

Thirdly, his interview might have only a few questions relating to the parenthood. Lets say there might be only 2 out of 10 questions about the parents.

To sum it up, I would say that the argument needs more information to be accurate, Based on given data Dr. Field's approach can not be considered invalid.