Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Studying Children’s Friendships in Bigelow and La Gaipa: Comparison
In this essay you will read slightly the many an(prenominal) similarities and differences of the turn over and look for of kidskinrens companionships expectations, which were approach shoted by Bigelow and La Gaipa (1975) and William Corsaro (2006). Firstly I will introduce some(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) of the varied approaches and methods and I will then subsequently go into the results of their work. I will later go on to talk about the problems with some of the methods and what could endure been changed to solve these and lastly the similarities and differences between them two.Bigelow and La Gaipa in 1975 approached a study on childrens starships they started the study in the 1970 when very little was known on childrens intimacy and the aspects of associations. Their main studies was to breast at the differences in childrens soul of familiarityship at various horizontal surfaces of development and how the childrens interpretation of friendship cha nges as they draw a bead on previous(a). In the Experiment itself they asked cardinal girls and thirty boys from eight divers(prenominal) schools, between the get alongs of sixsome and fourteen to think about their go around friend of the same sex.They were then told to create verbally an essay on what they expected of their outdo friend and how it differs from expectations of different friends. Bigelow and La Gaipa sampled a study of four hundred and fourscore essays. Before the study and research took place Bigelow and La Gaipa wrote a list of antithetic characteristics of a best friend of which they recollectd the children may include in their essays, they created a list of twenty one difference categories of friendship expectations.For the results of this method they took all four hundred and eighty essays and compared them against their list of twenty one categories of friendship expectations, this was to put on care how many times distributively expectation was mentioned, this is commonly referred to as a frequency come. Once they counted all(prenominal) expectation and the occurrences had been remark they could use the frequency count to look for patterns that could give them an insight into childrens friendships expectations and the ever-changing nature of it. Bigelow and La Gaipa found some differences in the expectations of a best friend in different maturates and how gender differs too.Sixteen of the twenty one categories were noned much(prenominal) frequent in the senior childrens essays compared to the younger, it is said that expectations of a best friend expire increasingly complex and sophisticated as children get older. Bigelow and La Gaipa all came up with deuce-ace different st hop ons of development of childrens expectations in friendship First stage- is based on shared activities, so when youre a broadcast younger and your parents take you for meetings with other children to start the development of friendships.S econd stage this change is different from the first stage as the friendships are much(prenominal) emphasized on sharing, dedication and commitment. Third stage this stage is based to a greater extent on growing up and the importance of affinity in attitudes, values and the potential of a more(prenominal) intimate friendship The problem with Bigelow and La Gaipas approach was that younger children lack the use of skills and high education such as verbal and writing skills, older children may be a heap better with words and may be more descriptive, whereas the younger children will keep theres more simple and basic.Another problem with their approach was that Bigelow and La Gaipa created the list themselves of the friendship expectations, this could be seen as unfair because what they wrote down could be their own expectations and not a varied supply of words for everyones views on friendship expectations. To change this they could have asked another(prenominal) variety of p eople on their first thoughts on what is a best friend and utilise a mixed variety of imaginations.William Corsaro was more interested in how children spoke to each other and that research on childrens friendships should focus more on their understanding of the word. William Corsaro wanted to explore more into how friendship changes and is meant in different places and different times, he wanted to look more into the communication of children with each other sort of than have an interviewer. He made notes on the different activities of children and their moveions with each other, whilst video recording them, this is an example of an ethnographic approach.An ethnographic approach can be seen as better when it used with younger children which may not be good with words like elder children, to a fault this way he could get a first-hand account of the Childs experiences. Corsaro had to find a way of mingle in with the social groups without seeming inconspicuous, he believed that a way which has worked well in the past is observe and watching from a distant and waiting to be approached by children, for them to then invite you into the social group.He firstly observed a group of children of the age of three course of studys old matching in a box and discovered in smart set to gain access to be invited to play together you need to already be friends or start friends. He then observed to three year old girls, Jenny and Betty and discovered that they became relate about one another when one disappeared to play with soulfulness else, Betty also reassures Jenny that they are still best friends.William Corsaros last observation slightly contradicts Bigelow and La Gaipas cerebration of give tongue toing concern of each other comes as you get older, whereas Corsaro comes across the dickens girls whom at the age of three become concerned for one another. This may be due to the different approaches they both took in their research, Corsaros approach was more a bout translating the childrens words whereas Bigelow and La Gaipas at the end came down to translating the childrens essays into numbers. They both started off by using more soft data but later Bigelow and La Gaipa adapted theirs to numerical.The problems with Corsaros approach is that he didnt interpolate his ideas enough and kept them to a small, minimum age figure of speech and didnt vary the different situations, although his idea was to see the understanding of childrens idea on friends, if he had mixed situations and ages Corsaro may have had a very different result to what he got. I think it would have made his experiment more interesting if he had varied genders and the amount of children and also seen how boy and girl friends interact with one another.By looking at both studies there is an unmistakable similarity and this is that they both were interested in the research and study of childrens friendships. Another similarity in both these approaches of childrens friend ship is that the children had free will to do or write what they wanted, Bigelow and La Gaipa just told them to write what they looked for in a best friend and William Corsaro allowed the children to play where they wanted and allowed them to introduce him into their social group earlier than approaching it himself which may have altered the results for his study.From my foreland of view there are a lot more differences comparing both the approaches, to start with although they were both looking into childrens friendships, William Corsaro was more interested in the childrens individual understanding of the word friend and how place and time affect this, in severalize Bigelow and La Gaipa wanted to know a range of ideas of what children expect of their best friend. They also used different methods Corsaro used an ethnographic approach irrelevant Bigelow and La Gaipa which used a written quantitative research method.To conclude this essay I believe that the differences overrule ov er similarities with Bigelow and La Gaipas compared to William Corsaros approach. They both make valid points in their methods, studies and oddly their results, but both results contradict one another, by one saying as you get older friendships become more complex and you become more concerned for friends, where on the other hand the other goes on to show that from a young age of three a couple of young girls show concern for each other, which opens the question of every child differs from each other.Bigelow and La Gaipa had a good idea of method by sample distribution a immense number and varied the ages and areas the children were from, whereas William Corsaro only observed a small amount of children which doesnt open his sampling studies as he was then restricted to what he had. I believe that William Corsaro had the better method general though by actually observing how children interact and by seeing it all himself from his own eyes, childrens views on each other can differ all the time, even days when theyre a lot younger.