|
Yep.....By the way, I thought I would note a couple of things: because the samplings are so small in most studies, and there is often a lack of conceptual precision and reliance on subjective assessment, it is considered even more desirable than in other research areas to have many repeated studies, and an attempt to refine the approach. That is why meta- studies, rather than being inferior to original work, are considered superior, because they are more critical, and compare the results of many researchers. Further, there is a continual complaint from all sides of issues of "advocacy research", and with the proliferation of peer- reviewed journals, almost any crap is publishable. Finally, many studies are non- rigorous, and at best qualify to provide an incentive for further research, because they fail to control for an adequate variety of factors, or define their terms sufficiently, or they use skewed samplings. Lack of precision is often fatal. To give a small example from another area: the Union of Concerned Scientists launched their "nuclear winter" campaign on the basis of over- simplified computer modeling. As the models were refined, it turned out that they could only support a "nuclear autumn" scenario, bad enough, but not as dire as the original forecasts. One is ill- advised to jump on any band- wagon on the basis of on- going research, and, lacking expertise, one is ill- advised to try to review the fundamental research oneself. Conspectus articles, summarizing the state of research in an area, are superior to trying to follow it all oneself....Thus, according to what I have read, as in the US News article, moderate corporal punishment is harmless, and may be more effective than other forms of discipline in curbing bad behavior, at appropriate ages. Since this conforms to common sense, I am comfortable with opining in favor of moderate corporal punishment, pending further research, while deploring actual abuse.... |
