<html>
<font size=3>As a first-time writer, let me say at the outset that I for
one love hugging babies, and I think random utterances that kids generate
are wonderful sources of insight. Now, to me the real question is,
"to what end is all this charming anecdota?" (Has anyone
already come up with "anecdata" or have I coined a new
one??)<br><br>
If folks decide to begin compiling such info, beyond their intrinsic
appeal and their illumination of various lecture topics (as others have
noted), specific utterances that may be included in such a Gems file may
give rise to new ideas. The use of creative and peculiar wugs, er,
words have had a big role in the field. Perhaps some original
utterances from the mouths of babes will have similar innovative
impact. I don't think there's any loss of their heuristic value if
such utterances arise in rare gems discovered while rummaging through the
anecdata.<br><br>
My more serious curiosity comes from my use of parental diaries (of
parent-child conversations about religious and spiritual issues).
Diaries have some obvious pitfalls--including the time-lag
problem--especially on a topic as potentially sensitive as
religion. I appreciate the references to some studies on
limitations of diaries in the language-dev literature. But
the oft-alluded to time lag/validity concern should not cause a loss of
faith in the measure. From my own work, I know that information and
impressions gleaned from the diaries is rather different from, say,
survey data or verbal self-reports from parents on such
conversations. <br><br>
Chris Boyatzis<br><br>
<br><br>
At 04:10 PM 8/5/2004 +0100, Professor Annette Karmiloff-Smith
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>On behalf of the late and much
regretted Elizabeth Bates, you ought to know that the CDI
("MacArthur parent response stuff" that you deem to be worse
than anecdotes) was carefully validated in the laboratory and on hundreds
of children in nearly 40 different languages and cultures.<br>
Annette Karmiloff-Smith<br><br>
At 4:00 pm +0100 5/8/04, r.n.campbell wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Surely in psychology we ought to
know by now that 'no bread is much better than half a loaf'. It's a
difficult enough subject without muddying the waters with dodgy data.
This GEM collection sounds almost as bad as the MacArthur parent-response
stuff.<br><br>
Besides, isn't there an unfortunate whiff of baby-hugging about
it?<br><br>
Robin<br>
--<br>
Dr Robin N Campbell<br>
Dept of Psychology<br>
University of Stirling<br>
STIRLING FK9 4LA<br>
Scotland, UK<br><br>
telephone: 01786-467649 facsimile: 01786-467641<br>
email: r.n.campbell@stir.ac.uk<br>
Website:
<a href="http://www.stir.ac.uk/Departments/HumanSciences/Psychology/Staff/rnc1/index.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.stir.ac.uk/Departments/HumanSciences/Psychology/Staff/rnc1/index.html</a><br><br>
<br>
--<br>
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland
by<br>
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information
may<br>
be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee
indicated<br>
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such<br>
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to
anyone<br>
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is<br>
prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy
this<br>
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please
advise<br>
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet
email<br>
for messages of this kind.</blockquote><br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Chris J. Boyatzis, Ph.D.<br>
Associate Professor of Psychology<br>
Department of Psychology<br>
Bucknell University<br>
Lewisburg PA 17837<br><br>
Office phone: 570.577.1696<br>
FAX 570.577.7007<br>
</font></html>