▶ Your Answer :
Referencing Dr. Karp’s research based on
interview-centered method, the author argued that anthropologists posed that Dr.
Field’s claims may be invalid and more interviews should be carried out to better
study. In order to conduct valid and reliable research, however, more questions
should be considered when evaluating Dr. Karp’s research and designing the
future studies.
To
begin with, in Dr. Karp’s research method, the questions the doctor asked to
Teritian children must be scrutinized. Interview is an in-depth research method
that can help researchers to gain insights from the interviewees. However, this
method can be effectively succeeded only when the questionnaire is cogently
established and implemented. Were there any biased questions, regardless intended
or unintended? What questions were sufficing the claims that Teritian children spend
more time with biological parents than village members? These questions for the
quality and validity of the interview inquiries should be examined to better
conclude the findings.
In
addition, the interviewed sample’s legitimacy must be critically analyzed. In
order to generalize findings from a sample population, the sample’s characteristics
should be cogently following the requirements: whether the numbers of sample
can represent the whole population, whether the gender rate is fair, and
whether the sampling was objectively made. If the sampling of Dr. Karp’s
research has any flaws in these processes, his findings and claims cannot be
plausible.
Lastly,
in Dr. Karp’s case, interview itself is not enough to approve one’s argument;
therefore, more data must be concerned and provided. In qualitative research,
narrations or interview xxxxscripts are valuable data to prove one’s findings or
claims. However, one or two data will not lead to eloquent argument; rather at
least three different data should be provided, such as surveys, field notes, or
focus group interviews. Did Dr. Karp’s study have those types of supplementary
data for his claims? It is not clear based on the statement; thus, assessing
this triangulation concern must be taken into account when you support Dr. Karp’s
study.
In
sum, even though Dr. Karp’s study and findings seem academically
thought-provoking, especially it contradicts Dr. Field’s claims, interview
itself cannot be corroborating enough for the argument. In order to evaluate
Dr. Karp’s claims and to design better future study, the following question
needs to be addressed: what type of questions did Dr. Karp use? Were they
legitimate for the research? How was the sampling made? Were the participants
representing the whole group? Are there any other supporting data such as
surveys, field notes, and focus interviews? |