The argument forwarded by Dr. Karp challenges certain assertions made by Dr. Field.

Based upon his observations, Dr. Field asserted that child rearing or upbringing is a
collective task of the entire village instead of biological parents. Dr. Karp counters this
assertion in the light of interviews conducted with children in which they talk more about
their own parents than other village adults thereby leading him to conclude that Dr.
Field’s assertion is not true. In concluding so, Dr. Karp advocates for an interview
centered method of ascertaining cultures as opposed to the observation centered
approach of Dr. Field. Dr. Karp’s conclusion and counter arguments however are not
without their own fair share of criticism.

First of all, there are no details have been mentioned by Dr. Field that might indicate the
extent of the biological parents’ involvement in the collective upbringing of children. It
may the case the biological parents may be playing the role of chief supervisors with
rest of the village adults helping them out. This scenario is likely to have generated the
response elicited from interviews conducted by Dr. Karp. Dr. Karp’s assertions might
hold value if it were be somehow established by Dr. Field that the role of biological
parents is secondary or insignificant compared to the role of other village elders.

Secondly, Dr. Karp does not provide any indication of the sample size of interviews
conducted. He may have conducted very few interviews and then generalized the
response elicited across the entire population thereby questioning the accuracy of his
approach. The approach in question can only considered seriously if Dr. Karp had
established that he conducted interviews across the entire spectrum of children
population at Tertia.

Thirdly, no details have been provided by Dr. Field that indicated the uniformity of his
observations across the entire population of Tertia. Dr. Field’s observations could have
been much limited in their scope thereby leading to inaccurate results. However, Dr.
Karp did not question Dr. Field’s assertion from this perspective.

In conclusion, Dr. Karp’s criticism is insufficient and requires greater scrutiny before it
can be accepted as valid.