Abstract
According to some theorists, the early childhood development of a child depends on the structure and culture where his family belongs. The affluent diversity of family distinctiveness reflects the ways that diverse cultural groups have adapted to challenges and life experiences throughout history. Child abuse and neglect is a widespread social problem that affects all types of family structure and all segments of the population, regardless of individual differences in cultural background, geographic location, or economic status. This literature review also explored and assessed the different studies and researches about child development that utilized both qualitative and quantitative met.
Early Childhood Development from a Multicultural Perspective
Children differ in growth partially since they have diverse family practice. Culture recurrently forms how children are raised (Curtis: 2003). Families in one culture may see children as weak and requiring shield; while the other families may think children as tough and courageous. So, many diverse methods in caring for children materialize. The structure of the family is different as well. The form of a family in one culture may be different in another culture. There are families that sometimes grandparents, siblings and even friends live in their home and yet still play a critical role and takes responsibilities of child care. The affluent diversity of family distinctiveness reflects the ways that diverse cultural groups have adapted to challenges and life experiences throughout history.
Child Abuse and Neglect
Child abuse and neglect is a widespread social problem that affects all types of family structure and all segments of the population, regardless of individual differences in cultural background, geographic location, or economic status. However, as discussed in later sections, some groups are at greater risk of child abuse and neglect than others. For example, the poor, uneducated, and young have been considered most vulnerable (Schwartz: 2000). Based on some conservative estimates, one to six million children are abused and neglected each year in the United States.
The devastating impact of child maltreatment on individuals, families, and society at large is well documented in empirical and clinical studies (Schwartz: 2000). Many serious long-term effects have been linked to child maltreatment, including mental retardation, intellectual and intelligence handicaps, impaired aggressive impulse control, diminished ego competency, reduced reality testing, and poor interpersonal relationships.
Child maltreatment results in increased antisocial activities. Maltreated children have more serious personal problems and engage in more antisocial activities and violence toward themselves and others (Schwartz: 2000). When older, they end up in juvenile and adult correctional facilities at higher rates than children from the general population. It is evident that child abuse and neglect is a problem that affects not only the individuals and families directly involved, but all sectors of society. Therefore, in order to deal with this problem, it is necessary for all professionals from all aspects of human ecology (individual, family, community, society, and world) to become involved.
Child Development Research
Early childhood takes in children from birth to about the age of eight, and research in this area involves studies of young children in educational contexts and a variety of day care and preschool settings (Hatch:2002). Traditionally, research in early childhood has been dominated by quantitative approaches with roots in developmental and behavioral psychology. Over the past decade, qualitative methods have been more widely used and accepted, and interest in qualitative approaches has grown rapidly.
Anthropologists, sociologists, sociolinguists, and some social psychologists who trained in qualitative methods have studied enculturation, socialization, behavior within institutions, language development, and other phenomena associated with young children (Naughton:2001) . Fewer studies have been done by researchers whose interest is primarily in early childhood education and care, and these researchers are applying methods adapted from other fields with longer histories of qualitative work. This is not surprising, but it does point out a limitation in the scope of the research base and signals an opportunity for enriching what is known about early childhood settings.
Bridgemohan for instance studied Parent’s Involvement and Communication in the Early Development Phase in South Africa using qualitative methods. The primary objective of this study is to describe communication as an aspect of home-school relationships in the ECE phase. The research was designed to be exploratory and descriptive and thus no attempts were made to establish the cause and affect relationships under experimental conditions. Because two of the researchers in this study are involved in the training of educators for the Reception year, a decision was taken to conduct the research on home-school and school-home communication in the ECE phase within Grade R classes attached to primary schools. The research was conducted during a three month period in three multi-cultural public primary schools (which include Grade R classes) in an urban area in KwaZulu-Natal. Methods of data gathering included observation and in-depth interviews with the principals of the three schools, as well as three focus group interviews with educators and three with parents. In total three principals, nine educators and nine parents were interviewed. The small sample is common in qualitative research where the aim is depth not breath. Likewise, although the findings cannot be generalized, they do alert one to the practice of home-to-school and school-to-home communication within the ECE phase in a small sample of South African schools.
The complex and often idiosyncratic nature of the methods and the narrative style of findings from qualitative studies make using the traditional format for reporting quantitative work awkward at best (Roskos:2000). In quantitative studies, research designs, sampling strategies, and statistical analysis procedures have been standardized and codified in ways that make it possible to summarize these in very few words. Similarly, findings are reported using terms and numbers that are relatively brief and straightforward (at least to those inside the quantitative research community). Qualitative methods are frequently adapted to the settings under investigation, and questions often emerge or change as studies progress, making codified descriptions of data gathering and analysis procedures difficult. Further, since understanding the contexts of a study is essential in interpreting the findings of a qualitative report, collapsing these into a few words in a review can distort important meanings generated in the study. Finally, since qualitative findings are descriptive in nature, shorthand versions like those found in traditional reviews of research are likely to leave out a great deal of the descriptive power.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment