The oops where have I been query.

I'm glad we are into 2006. The end of 2005 was too busy for me...getting ready to teach again and having a friend in town - which meant skiing and a short vacation to the Olympic Peninsula :).

But my resolution is to do my blogs regularly - starting today.

Studying Children

How do we study children? I have been known to say that there are two professions that are difficult - being a veterinarian or a pediatrician - both require working with organisms that can not always communicate clearly what feels "wrong."

Studying children sort of fits in here too but I have been a researcher - with newborns, infants and 5 year olds. The main difference is that researchers are working with populations that need not communicate what is "wrong" and we just need to find ways to measure what communication IS there.

Research comes in many forms - studying individuals or groups, short term or long term studies, and combinations of the forms.

How do we know what changes occur say from year 1 to year 2? We can study the same child for the year or we can look today at a 1-year-old and also look at a 2-year-old and measure the differences. Studying the same person over time is called longitudinal research. Studying the two different children is called cross-sectional research. Both are valid types of research.

Much of what we learned about development in the past came from longitudinal studies, mainly at universities, and which were funded for decades. Going back to the last post, can you see how the investigator can have a biased approach? Not to say they did or that the research was flawed, but when you study the same people over time you, as the investigator, are now part of that person's life and being the one studied is part of the persona of the people in the study.

Cross-sectional research is less affected by long term biases but the draw back here is that the researcher is studying two different children with all that entails. Getting two different yet "matching" groups of individuals is done statistically. Factors are matched as best they can be- such as family make-up, education levels of parents, type of neighborhoods lived in, etc.

All research has flaws and all researchers have flaws - we are all human. But the knowledge we have gained over the decades from all kinds of research and researchers has led to an understanding of child development.

Another caveat - gains in technology have led to gains in the study of humans. For example, when I was in college, child development was a relatively small field of research and there were few text books on the subject! When I was in graduate school, researchers were finding ways of studying infants; some were looking at perception and language development and very few were interested in fathers! Now infancy, fathers, prenatal, early postnatal, and language and perception are major fields of study.

Just imagine what we will know in the future.

The "Oops - that's not me" syndrome

Even before we start investigating the development of children, two caveats of sorts about psychology and humans are needed.

1. The uniqueness of psychology

Psychology is a social science. Social sciences are the only sciences where the investigator is of the same species as the investigated.

If you think about it, rocks do not study rocks. Atoms do not study atoms. Dinosaurs do not study dinosaurs, etc.
People do study people and this leads to potential problems in the "doing" of psychology.

We all come to the observation and study of people with our own “biases” based on our culture, background, age, sex, race, etc. This is wrong or bad - but it is an important factor to consider when reading about, looking at, and studying people.

We tend look at "other" people through our own eyes – we cannot help doing so - but we have to be aware of this factor.

As an aside, we tend to do the same thing when we look at other living species…How many of us have said “my dog is sad,” “my cat is happy,” or “my bird looks interested.” And – we tend to do this with inanimate objects as well…You don’t have to answer publicly - but how many have said things like: “That light turned red just to get me.” Or “It rained today because I had planned an outdoor event.” And how many of us attribute nasty characteristics to our cars when they fail to do as we wish? Your DVD palyer? or VCR? You might think of similar ideas you have had.

If it is this easy to attribute feelings and intentions to non-humans - live or inanimate - can you see how much easier it is to attribute characteristics to humans?

2. The uniqueness of humans

When reading about research findings we are often tempted to say “but my family is/was not like that.” Or “that happened to me and I grew up okay.” You are correct, your family is/was not like that and you did/do make different decisions, but that does not mean the research is not correct.

Research results are the culmination of people studying many people. Research results reflect the “average,” not the specific. You should know that in statistics there is a factor called the standard deviation and it reflects the variance around the standard or norm. For example, the average IQ is 100 but there is a standard deviation of about 15 [depending on the test used] which means that the average IQ is anywhere between 85 and 115.

Most of what is studied in humans falls into a “normal” distribution – with a standard deviation. Therefore you can be somewhat different from the characteristic noted and still be “normal.” Or it is entirely possible that you and/or your family are very different. That means you fall outside the standard deviation. That is not a “bad” thing – and it may be a very good thing – like an IQ of 150 is outside the norm but is considered a “good” number. Nothing about research findings indicates bad v. good....all research does is point out an average range and variations....differences have no goodness/badness values!


So when you read about research, remember it’s all about the numbers….not the individual children or families.