Friday, September 30, 2011

Research Prospectus

   In my first blog, I explored different theories of human development.  I would still like to explore this because I am very passionate about children and their development, but I believe that my previous blog was too general.  I would like to make it more specific.  I would like to look at children’s environment at home, and parents direct influence on children.  One of the theories that I wanted to explore in my first blog was that of nature vs. nurture.  As I learned more in my Human Growth and Development, I finally took a stance on this theory.  My stance is both. Although I would like to argue both, I will argue on the stance of nurture.  Basically, because it is easier to prove, and there is more evidence on the stance of nurture.
    In childhood development, the environment is vital to create a stable and well rounded child, and a more acceptable and substantial adult.  To create an acceptable environment we should first examine the adults of the family, and decide their magnitude of success in parenting.
    I believe it would be much easier to argue the point of nurture.  I will obviously need research different studies of environments and the effects on the children.  There are several types of research one being natural research.  To achieve data, one must go into the natural environment of the child.  Another type of research that I will use is clinical research, which is also important because, the factors are controlled to eliminate any lurking variables that could be present in the child’s natural environment.
    The counter arguments of nature vs. nurture, would obviously be nature.  This will be tough, since I believe that both are necessary to create an individual’s personality.  I believe that there is more substantial evidence on nurture, for the simple fact that we are just now researching the alleles and the genomes that make up our DNA.  Biologist are just now unearthing what the purpose of certain strands of our DNA reflect in our being.  There is hard evidence for the argument of nurture, because we are able to physically observe and report behavior.
    The main source that I will be using would be my textbook for Human Growth and Development.  I suspect that I will get the majority of the information for my paper from this source because it has such a wide array of facts, studies, theories, and explanations.  The textbook Development Through the Lifespan.  The second source is a book that I found on Google Scholar, From Neurons to neighborhood: The science of early childhood development. The whole book is available through Google.  The last source that I plan on using is a source that I found through UFlib, this source is an article from Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education.  The article is about the development of children in their birth environment (that they are still living with both birth parents)vs. children living in a broken home or an adoptive home.
    I am really excited to research this topic, because I am genuinely interested in childhood development.  I believe that it is critical in order to create a better society to start with our youngest and more pliable generation.  That is our children, also every child deserves a promising future.

2 comments:

  1. Kimber,

    If you think/know that both "nature and nurture" affect a child's development, it is damn near impossible that you could successfully argue that "nurture" is the only factor responsible for childhood development. If you are arguing that 'nurture' affects more than that is better ,but still vague. "Nurture" covers all sorts of things, as your sources show. You would be looking at this from the perspective of neuropsychology (From Neurons to Neighborhood), which I assume talks about both nature and nurture, to two different family environments--a broken home vs living with two parents. These are two different issues that I'm not sure how you will reconcile.

    In other words, I think the dichotomy "nature" vs. "nurture" is an oversimplified debate that has been overcome even, as you point out, in your textbook. If you want to talk about factors from "nurture" you should narrow this to some definite factor that would be considered "nurture." You could talk about one particular issue or aspect of development that has been contested in the psychology field--whether it is considered something having to do with "nature" or "nurture," but this would be a different these entirely.

    Although I am fine with you using your textbook, my suspicion is that your textbook (at least this is my hope) refers to actual clinical and theoretical primary sources that you should get your hands on, rather than citing them from a textbook. See if there is a "bibliography" to your textbook that can guide you to those sources.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete