The argument made against Dr.

Fields conclusion on his anthropological

research in Tertia is flawed by several conspicuous assumptions. While it
may be possible that Dr. Field did in fact concluded his research
inaccurately, the authors reasoning was not enough to justify labeling the
observation-centered method, which was used in the research, as invalid.
Not to mention that the lack of relevant explanation provided following the
authors assertion showed minimal reading of Dr. Fields work itself. In the
later part of his claim, the author also fails to indicate why, as opposed to
observation-centered method, his interview-centered approach would lead
to more accurate findings.
To judiciously debate the accuracy of Dr. Fields findings, a further
assessment of the discrepancy found in the interview regarding Tertias
child-rearing tradition must be conducted. By understanding the more
technical details of how the village rearing system work, the author can
get a better idea of the kind of role biological parents might have in the
system and therefore understand better why biological parents are still
very much referred to. Its crucial to the quality of the argument to not
rashly equate collective rearing with total absent of biological parents
involvement.
Furthermore, it is also illogical to directly link mistake in drawing
conclusion to invalidity of the research method used. There is always more
than one phase involved in scientific research and errors are equally likely
to happen in any one of them. Aside from that, it is careless to invalidate a
research method just by pointing out the failure of such method in
presenting reliable finding in only a single study. Because of the authors
lack of explanation on the specific shortcomings of observation-centered
method, readers were not given convincing reason to believe that the
alternative method proposed by the author can ultimately produce more
reliable results.
Examining the numerous assumptions used to support the reasoning put
forth by the author, it can be concluded that, without ruling out the
possibility of inaccuracy in Dr. Fields research or the potential superiority
of interview-centered approach in anthropology research, the authors
rationale of his/her claims is unconvincing and weakly informed.