christianloyalty
New member
@freebytruthjohn832 I used this medium article and others to help support my decision to stay at home. I was working full time and, while pregnant, read it while researching child care options.
Just my critique of that day care Medium article that is always circulating this sub as it relates to nannies and familial care
- Thread starter dkeefe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- just a rant parenting science
freebytruthjohn832
New member
@christianloyalty I am happy for you to be able to support your family without double full time income. Most aren’t so lucky. If I could enable my wife to stay at home we would do that as it is fairly obvious that 1:1 is the best possible ratio. 1:4 is the best we could afford.
joint_praise
New member
@christianloyalty If you read Lean In, you’ll find actual studies referenced that speak to the benefits for children of having working parents. Medium is not a credible source for anything and it appears the author misinterpreted data based on what OP shared here.
christianloyalty
New member
@joint_praise I’m very satisfied with my choice. I am not here to make anyone else feel good or bad with their decision. I only said I used the article referred to in the main post as one of several references when my spouse and I made our choice.
username1324
New member
@beira People are acting like this medium article is meant to be a peer reviewed meta analysis. It’s not. It’s a Wikipedia entry. Use it as a jumping off point and go to the actual sources cited. It’s still a useful collection of relevant citations, and a decent summary of the findings from those sources.
@dkeefe Thanks OP. I have issue with the article as well, I’ve shared in a comment on another post:
I’m not saying that their argument should be dismissed outright.
First, the author has written on Medium mostly about climate change with a smattering of other topics. I’m someone who believes that it is actually important to have a disciplinary foundation in order to really understand and interpret primary literature. Having a solid stats understanding is great, but doesn’t make one an expert in all disciplines. Hell, maybe the author is an expert in child development and the climate change is their side interest. But we just don’t know.
Second, without revealing a name and place of work, it’s impossible to tell what their biases might be, and everyone has biases. There is language about lack of politicization in the author’s profile on medium. To think that childcare and what women, who are frequently primary caregivers and those that carry the mental load of a household, do with their time is an inherently apolitical topic is burying one’s head in the sand. We have no idea of the author’s positionality.
Lastly, because this is self-published on medium, it’s very easy to pass around on Reddit as some meta-analysis gospel. We don’t know if the author has published something similar in a refereed journal or if anyone in the child development arena is aware of it or has critiqued it.
Part of what makes good science is a transparency in the process and an openness to scientific debate, and I feel that’s been skirted here.
I will add (as most of the above is a copy/paste from a previous comment), this is NOT science-based, but I too had a gut feeling that the author’s writings on child care and development were personal and came from a place of justifying or rationalizing their own decisions.
I’m not saying that their argument should be dismissed outright.
First, the author has written on Medium mostly about climate change with a smattering of other topics. I’m someone who believes that it is actually important to have a disciplinary foundation in order to really understand and interpret primary literature. Having a solid stats understanding is great, but doesn’t make one an expert in all disciplines. Hell, maybe the author is an expert in child development and the climate change is their side interest. But we just don’t know.
Second, without revealing a name and place of work, it’s impossible to tell what their biases might be, and everyone has biases. There is language about lack of politicization in the author’s profile on medium. To think that childcare and what women, who are frequently primary caregivers and those that carry the mental load of a household, do with their time is an inherently apolitical topic is burying one’s head in the sand. We have no idea of the author’s positionality.
Lastly, because this is self-published on medium, it’s very easy to pass around on Reddit as some meta-analysis gospel. We don’t know if the author has published something similar in a refereed journal or if anyone in the child development arena is aware of it or has critiqued it.
Part of what makes good science is a transparency in the process and an openness to scientific debate, and I feel that’s been skirted here.
I will add (as most of the above is a copy/paste from a previous comment), this is NOT science-based, but I too had a gut feeling that the author’s writings on child care and development were personal and came from a place of justifying or rationalizing their own decisions.
fromtheearth
New member
@fromtheearth I don’t need a feeling for who they are. I would prefer transparency. What is their name? What is their field of study? What is their academic affiliation?
This same author has (rightly) critiqued Emily Oster, against whom some of the concerns leveled are drawing conclusions from cherry picked evidence, not understanding the primary literature because she is out of her field, and taking money from biased organizations and writing pieces that seem to support an agenda.
We can’t asses this author for any of those possible issues because they are totally anonymous.
This same author has (rightly) critiqued Emily Oster, against whom some of the concerns leveled are drawing conclusions from cherry picked evidence, not understanding the primary literature because she is out of her field, and taking money from biased organizations and writing pieces that seem to support an agenda.
We can’t asses this author for any of those possible issues because they are totally anonymous.
@monchito The author is not going to doxx themselves on Reddit, especially given the hate that is often spewed over an article (not just talking this thread, there have been many of these).
Edit: typo
Eta: since people are either downvoting because someone on Reddit doesn’t want to doxx themself, would you?
Or is it for saying the author has received hate? If so, here is what I am referencing, I clearly stated it was not just this thread I was referring to.
Edit: typo
Eta: since people are either downvoting because someone on Reddit doesn’t want to doxx themself, would you?
Or is it for saying the author has received hate? If so, here is what I am referencing, I clearly stated it was not just this thread I was referring to.
@lizmoshes That’s fine, but they then also don’t stand up to the same scrutiny of scientific publications and shouldn’t be held up as if they do. There’s another commenter on the thread telling OP to be a better parent because they critiqued the article, which would be inane any way you slice it, but we are talking about an anonymous self-published article here.
@monchito But the author did not intend for it to. They literally wrote it as a DM to someone asking info on the sub when they messaged and then kept getting asked to send it to others. It became easier to put it on a website and link it.
The author is in no way responsible for how often it gets linked in the sub or elsewhere, nor did they ever purport to equal peer reviewed research. If people on this sub especially, but anyone really, has taken it to equal peer reviewed research, that is on the reader, not the author of the article.
edit: typo
The author is in no way responsible for how often it gets linked in the sub or elsewhere, nor did they ever purport to equal peer reviewed research. If people on this sub especially, but anyone really, has taken it to equal peer reviewed research, that is on the reader, not the author of the article.
edit: typo
@lizmoshes I’m not saying it’s on the author necessarily. I’m saying it’s on readers in this sub to understand the difference between an anonymous online self-published article and peer reviewed research.
I’m not saying the author has to put that info out there, but that people should understand why it’s relevant that we don’t have that info.
I’m not saying the author has to put that info out there, but that people should understand why it’s relevant that we don’t have that info.
moonlightlaura
New member
@lizmoshes Disagreeing with an article's conclusions isn't "hate". Anyone who writes peer-reviewed literature reviews (which this is not) is used to receiving plenty of criticism about their interpretations, particularly if they disagree with the majority of published literature (which this article seems to).
I'm speaking from experience as someone who has published several reviews as well as original research. Disagreement with your ideas and conclusions is a vitally important part of scientific research, and it's part of the reason why peer review and publication in reputable journals is so important. There are also important reasons why scientific articles (or even news articles) are not published anonymously.
This is not a scientific or peer-reviewed paper and should not be sourced as though it is one. And it definitely should not be used as a counterpoint to "disprove" actual peer-reviewed scientific papers, which I've seen happen over and over here.
I'm speaking from experience as someone who has published several reviews as well as original research. Disagreement with your ideas and conclusions is a vitally important part of scientific research, and it's part of the reason why peer review and publication in reputable journals is so important. There are also important reasons why scientific articles (or even news articles) are not published anonymously.
This is not a scientific or peer-reviewed paper and should not be sourced as though it is one. And it definitely should not be used as a counterpoint to "disprove" actual peer-reviewed scientific papers, which I've seen happen over and over here.
@moonlightlaura I clearly stated that I was not referring to just this thread. I’ve seen this topic pop up a lot on this sub and have seen comments from the author on this, the OG mod even had to ban people for what they were saying to the author if I recall perfectly (it may have just been a note to the author report the users so she could deal with the people).
Also, the author never intended for the article to be held up as a gold standard or equal to peer reviewed research though. They wrote it in a DM for someone that asked them, many others asked for it, so the author put it on a website to make linking it easier. They are not responsible for when people link to it nor are they responsible for people reading it and giving it the same wait as a peer reviewed article, that’s on the reader.
ETA link to the comment from the Mod
Also, the author never intended for the article to be held up as a gold standard or equal to peer reviewed research though. They wrote it in a DM for someone that asked them, many others asked for it, so the author put it on a website to make linking it easier. They are not responsible for when people link to it nor are they responsible for people reading it and giving it the same wait as a peer reviewed article, that’s on the reader.
ETA link to the comment from the Mod
moonlightlaura
New member
@lizmoshes Ah fair enough! I didn't intend any disrespect to the author - my frustration isn't with them or the article itself, but with the way it's commonly used as a source here.
@moonlightlaura Agree and that is definitely on the reader.
I personally liked the article as it pooled links to articles that I was able to read myself (my Googling skills for studies and research papers is ballz haha) but it seems many don’t go beyond the summary which was never intended to be what people are making it out to be.
I personally liked the article as it pooled links to articles that I was able to read myself (my Googling skills for studies and research papers is ballz haha) but it seems many don’t go beyond the summary which was never intended to be what people are making it out to be.