@dkeefe Ferguson 2008 definitely doesn't say that nannies are better as a matter of course. The authors take pains to emphasize the demographic, lifestyle, and parental upbringing distinctions that are the primary factors in choosing grandparent v. Daycare v. Nanny.
Use excerpts from the actual publication to make your point. Your gripe with the medium article is a misrepresentation of the research but you're using the phrase "It LITERALLY says" which is almost necessarily followed by a falsehood unless you're about to quote from the paper.
As an aside, the fact that 44% of British little ones were being regularly cared for by their grandparents got me thinking about what the numbers are stateside. I'd love to see an map of the regional variations.
@dkeefe This author did a service for free. It’s not a peer reviewed journal. It actually has a lot of nuance and is well written for a lay audience. The author doesn’t totally reject group care and goes on to distinguish what makes it better or worse. The general conclusions drawn make sense based on what we know about child psychology.
@monchito I think there is bias because of human nature, and also, this is a super informal piece of work, but I meant the review was written as a summary with minimal personal feelings interjected. This is rare on the internet. I tried to say the author had the least amount of personal bias interjected that I've found on informal "lit reviews" online.
@dkeefe You don’t like how the article makes you feel guilty so you cope by attacking the author and nitpicking it.
Is the article perfect? No. But finding one tiny blemish and saying you “hate” the article in general really shows how ruffled your feathers are.
Thank the author for the great information. Use it as a tool to form your opinions. As a parent you gotta do what you gotta do. But unfairly criticizing great articles to try to prop up your worldview and assuage your feelings is not science. It’s emotional fragility.
Please learn from this and be better in the future. I say that as a fellow parent. All the best—
@bcs90 You’re in a science-based sub and part of the process of science is being open to critique and discussion. A self-published article on medium should be very much open to critique.
It’s a pretty nasty stretch to tell someone to be better (as a parent) on a science-based parenting sub for engaging in the process of science.
@bcs90 Pointing out the author's bias and lack of data isn't attacking an article. It's giving meaningful critique to a poorly sourced and written article. I've seen it cited in parenting communities and has been given the same weight as a peer-reviewed paper.
@bcs90 It's not a peer reviewed paper. And even if it was, we should always be open to criticism, that's science. I'm honestly tired of seeing this piece posted anytime the topic comes up and is treated like it's a flawless top review paper in Nature by actual experts in the field and is the one best and true answer for childcare. This was written anonymously by some redditor that we don't know their expertise (they also write on medium about climate change?). I write science communication pieces on a variety of topics for a few science journals, and can distill research papers for a general audience outside my main research area. That doesn't make me an expert in those areas, and I would feel really uncomfortable to have my work put on a pedestal like this.
My kids are home with me, I know there's a benefit to that, and it's a privilege to be at home. My circumstances would be different if we weren't in the financial place that I would need to go in person to work. but it is so so so shitty that folks on here use this piece to make the argument that SAHP is the best possible scenario without the nuance of everyone's very different and very personal situations.
