Studying Children’s Friendships in Bigelow and La Gaipa: Comparison

In this essay you ordain read active the many similarities and contrarietys of the study and research of childrens associations expectations, which were approached by Bigelow and La Gaipa (1975) and William Corsaro (2006). first off I testament introduce twain of the different approaches and methods and I will then later go into the results of their work. I will later go on to talk about the problems with well-nigh of the methods and what could have been changed to solve these and ultimately the similarities and differences between them both.Bigelow and La Gaipa in 1975 approached a study on childrens fri mop upships they started the study in the 1970 when very little was lie withn on childrens friendship and the aspects of friendships. Their main studies was to look at the differences in childrens brain of friendship at various phase angles of increment and how the childrens interpretation of friendship changes as they get onetime(a). In the Experiment itself they ask ed thirty girls and thirty boys from octette different schools, between the terms of six and quaternionteen to think about their opera hat friend of the same sex.They were then told to write an essay on what they expect of their best friend and how it differs from expectations of other friends. Bigelow and La Gaipa sampled a study of four hundred and eighty essays. Before the study and research took institutionalise Bigelow and La Gaipa wrote a magnetic dip of different characteristics of a best friend of which they believed 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 entirely four hundred and eighty essays and compared them against their list of twenty one categories of friendship expectations, this was to count how many times separately expectation was mentioned, this is usually referred to as a frequency count. Once they counted each expectation and t he occurrences had been noted they could use the frequency count to look for patterns that could confuse them an insight into childrens friendships expectations and the changing nature of it. Bigelow and La Gaipa found some differences in the expectations of a best friend in different ages and how sex activity differs too.Sixteen of the twenty one categories were noted much frequent in the senior childrens essays compared to the spring chickener, it is said that expectations of a best friend bring increasingly complex and sophisticated as children get older. Bigelow and La Gaipa all came up with three different stages of development of childrens expectations in friendship First stage- is based on shared activities, so when youre a lot younger and your parents take you for meetings with other children to start the development of friendships.Second stage this change is different from the first stage as the friendships are to a greater extent emphasized on sharing, loyalty and c ommitment. Third stage this stage is based to a greater extent on growing up and the richness of similarity in attitudes, values and the potential of a more sexual friendship The problem with Bigelow and La Gaipas approach was that younger children miss the use of skills and higher education such as verbal and authorship skills, older children may be a lot better with words and may be more descriptive, whereas the younger children will keep on that acids more simple and basic. some other 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 variety of raft on their first thoughts on what is a best friend and utilize a coalesce variety of musical themes.William Corsaro was more interest in how ch ildren rung 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 conversation of children with each other rather 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 ethnographical approach.An ethnographic approach can be seen as better when it employ with younger children which may not be good with words like elder children, also this way he could get a first-hand account of the Childs experiences. Corsaro had to sire a way of blending in with the genial groups without seeming inconspicuous, he believed that a way which has worked well in the past is observing and observance from a distant and waiting to be approached by children, for them to then suc k in you into the social group.He firstly observed a group of children of the age of three years old laddering in a knock and discover in order to gain access to be invited to play together you need to already be friends or become friends. He then observed to three year old girls, Jenny and Betty and discovered that they became doctored about one another when one disappeared to play with soul else, Betty also reassures Jenny that they are still best friends.William Corsaros cultivation observation slightly fights Bigelow and La Gaipas idea of showing disturbance of each other comes as you get older, whereas Corsaro comes across the two 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 about 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 qualitative data but later Bigelow and La Gaipa altered theirs to quantitative.The problems with Corsaros approach is that he didnt vary his ideas enough and kept them to a small, minimum age range 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 elicit if he had varied genders and the measuring stick of children and also seen how boy and girl friends interact with one another.By looking at both studies there is an explicit 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 friendship 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 rather than approaching it himself which may have altered the results for his study.From my point of view there are a lot more differences analyze 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 contrast Bigelow and La Gaipa wanted to know a range of ideas of what children expect of their best friend. They also use different methods Corsaro used an ethnographic approach unlike Bigelow and La Gaipa which used a written quantitative research method.To conclude this essay I believe that the differences overrule over similarities with Bigelow and La Gaipas compared to William Corsaros approach. They both make valid points in their methods, studies and especially their results, but both results contradict one an other, 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 sampling a vast 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 curtail to what he had. I believe that William Corsaro had the better method overall 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.