Sensational child development claims can lead to frustrating results for parents and children.
—
There are so many sensational claims in child development these days (including this headline – gotcha). Parents, teachers, and concerned community members seem to be experiencing a lot of shared stress about children. Further, opinions on child rearing and education seem to be getting more polarized at high volume thanks to the internet and its wonders.
Note: I feel the need as a practitioner/scholar/parent to share some perspective with you from my combined experience, and give you some tools with which to evaluate claims. You may decide to call me a fool, or you may find something useful to consider. Each is your choice. I will not share a single example or specific claim in this article. I find that with hot button topics, the whole conversation ends up derailing across people’s favorite hot button topics. I want to keep this article about general concepts, and address some of the specific subjects that I think are being sensationalized in subsequent follow up articles.
There is a reason I put science in quotes. I do that because science is a process of inquiry, not an immutable set of facts.
|
With all those qualifiers, here are some things we need to look at any time someone makes claims about what “science” says about child development. I am going to first identify some major issues in the communication and interpretation of child development research, then provide you with some tools to help you better sift through all the um….fertilizer.
◊♦◊
Problem #1: Do we know the quality, and stage of the “science”?
There is a reason I put science in quotes. I do that because science is a process of inquiry, not an immutable set of facts. Further, there are stages of that process where we can make a pretty strong conclusion, and stages where we cannot.
For the vast majority of people, including most parents, articles written by journalists are their only contact with child development research. Couple this with the fact that most people (including the aforementioned journalists) are not that well versed in the principles and practices of the scientific process.
That is a recipe for abundant and rampant misinterpretation, because there are nuances to research and communication that are often lost in translation. One major example is the often vast gulf between correlation and causation.
So, when you hear that some genius figured it all out when everyone else was stupid, be very skeptical.
|
“Correlation” means simply that two factors have a statistical relationship. That could mean, for example, that 2 or more particular factors are often present in the same children, or happen at the same time. There is also the strength of the correlation to consider.
There are weak statistical correlations, and strong ones. Weak correlations tell us that other factors are most definitely involved, and that the factor in question MAY or MAY NOT be a cause. If two factors show a very strong correlation, there still might not be even the slightest cause-effect relationship.
The whole point of performing a correlative analysis is to narrow down factors of interest for further research. This process was not, I repeat not, meant to drive conclusions. Correlation simply isn’t a valid method of concluding cause and effect, no matter how convenient a process it is.
Of course, there are times when correlation does match up with causation, and the presence of these instances is the reason that so many will believe a correlation. How do you know when correlative, not causative, research is being shown? We know when words like “linked”, “found a link between”, and “associated with” are used. Those mean nothing outside of correlation.
My next question is always: How many subjects? When you see a study with 10 subjects, this can net preliminary data at best. Think about it: There are over 300 million people here in the United States – so anything researching normal development must have at least hundreds of subjects, with a normal balance of ethnicity, region, gender to even get us close to conclusive data. Then, we would like to see studies repeated. Also, and sometimes this is not possible for ethical or logistical reasons, we want to see true experimentation, controlling to eliminate the influence of multiple variables.
◊♦◊
Problem #2: Fear or Ideology Confirmation Bias
Too often, we seize upon the one good thing that we see and make the faulty assumption that this thing must be the only good thing.
|
This is a big one. I have seen all too often that we require a different level of evidence for results in opposition to our own biases. This means that a simple correlation is enough for some to go off half-cocked on child development claims that speak to them viscerally and proclaim that some “genius” found the “real” reason that “x” happens.
Of course, with complex issues in human behavior and function, this is usually not the case. What really happens is that we get tiny clues over the course of many years. So, when you hear that some genius figured it all out when everyone else was stupid, be very skeptical. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I am saying that is extremely rare.
◊♦◊
Problem #3: Disciplism in Child Development
Once a week, someone asks me “so what do you think of Montessori”. I respond the same way every time, with something like: “I think she is one of many who gave us valuable clues about how children develop and learn”. In this day and age – and I know this will be unpopular – there should be no such thing as a Montessori school, or a Vygostky school, or a Piagetian school. We should be synthesizing information, not sequestering or compartmentalizing it.
Too often, we seize upon the one good thing that we see and make the faulty assumption that this thing must be the only good thing. That is a mistake, because mixing approaches can oftentimes yield the greatest results. When people ask me what my “teaching style” is, I often ask them “on what day, in what discipline/area and with which student?” I switch between Socratic questioning, lecture, student led exploration, peer to peer interaction on a daily and sometimes moment to moment basis. It depends on the student, subject matter, and timeline of our relationship.
With my daughter, there are things I tell her, things I let her find out, things she teaches me, and things I had no idea she would learn. There are some core principles I operate on both as a parent and teacher: balance between autonomy and cooperation, freedom and challenge, information and creativity. But how we explore those things can change quite a bit. ALL of the prominent theorists contribute to this perspective.
There are so many facets of child development, and so many different temperaments, we would be remiss in not allowing knowledge and perspective from multiple sources enter our awareness. “Sources” here includes our own experiences as children, parents, and teachers.
◊♦◊
Problem #4: Trusting our own perception, or experts, orresearch too much.
Each of these sources of information has its own flaws. Our perception is highly colored by emotion, our preconceived notions, and the fuzziness of our memories (oh yes). Experts often have their own agendas or biases. Further, they have their own flawed perceptions.
A lot of parenting/coaching/teaching, no matter how much you “know”, is trial and error.
|
Our perceptions are often flawed (and enhanced) by our emotional responses. Have you ever had a conversation with your parents about your childhood, and found you had two different versions? This is why we must talk to one another. Conversing and exchanging, even contesting, information brings us closer to the truth. Of course, this is only true if we are honest in our intention. One can certainly debate only to debunk or support a position.
Experts often have their own agendas in making child development claims. One of the reasons I did not want to do another textbook or certification is because they are so rigid. I designed Our FUNction Community as a system of exchange, that can always be morphed into something different as new information comes across. This is of utmost importance. Knowledge increases, perspectives change. Often, an “expert” feels pressured by money or fame to stick to their guns, even with the presence of new information. This does not mean that we must distrust experts automatically, even those who are “self-appointed”. Because many times, they DO have wisdom. We just have to realize that this wisdom is neither permanent nor infallible.
Research in human development is often reported as population data, looking at statistical trends that give us clues but not the whole story. There are often nuances within the overall “result” based on regression analyses and variance that are lost in the report by the time it gets to the public, or even to other scientists. Further, with regard to application, it matters whether the research was done in a natural environment, or a controlled setting.
◊♦◊
Instead of simply saying all of the above as a critique, let me give you some tools for questioning child development claims, and making sense of them on your own:
1. Read about child development claims from at least 3 disparate sources.
2. Try to gain access to whole journal articles, and ask for help from a trained researcher in interpreting them. Abstracts are commercials for the research, and journalists often misinterpret it. I actually offer this service on Our FUNction Community as part of the membership. Members can even send me studies to decipher.
3. Talk to others. Talk to others with real life experience, research experience, teaching experience. All of the above.
4. Try stuff. Yup. Try stuff. A lot of parenting/coaching/teaching, no matter how much you “know”, is trial and error. You have to try things on to see if they fit. Realize that. No one has “the answer”. The answer lies with all of us together, and sometimes even then is unattainable.
Originally published on The Neighborhood Neuroscientist.
Would you like to help us shatter stereotypes about men?
Receive stories from The Good Men Project, delivered to your inbox daily or weekly.
—
Photo: Getty Images