Sometimes, I'm amused that something as natural as sleep needs training and consists of a variety of methods by different 'experts'. During our parents' time (20+ or 30 years ago?), the only method they knew of was the 'sarong' and the 'experts' were the grandmothers. Then again, sarong may not be for everyone. (Sarong Cradle-Good/Bad?)
Peaceful slumber...
Anyway, with parents' busy working lifestyle, not everyone can afford to wake up few times a night to put baby back to sleep so there are a few popular methods to help with this process. I decided to compile 4 methods by 4 'experts' (I use inverted commas because it depends on who proclaims them as 'experts' -- others or themselves?) to put up tomorrow for all of us to mull over and see what works for you. As long as it doesn't endanger babies' well-being, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all and I hope this doesn't become a 'my-way-better-than-your-way' debate. It's purely for sharing and discussion and if you know of other methods or literature/links, feel free to add on.
We'll go by 'Method/Expert/How to/Pros-Cons/Testimonials' and I may add my personal opinions here and there. Please share yours too!
Carpe Diem, ladies!
Becky
9 comments:
amen, amen!
More and more, i realise that what's recommended by 'experts' eg paediatric guidelines etc are evidence-based, well and good.
However, what one is able to practise in real life is less than ideal.
Even something basic like what can endanger a baby's well-being may involve gray areas besides obvious things like physical safety. What about longer term emotional well-being¿
I'm glad that we have a platform 2 share and keep an open mind.... very important for our own emotional well-being!
During my confinement with my first child, the confinement lady say is important to guide the sleeping time of the infant. She'll wake the infant around evening time (can't remember the exact time). She'll gently wipe the infant's face with her palm, talking to the infant, "bb, wake up ... drink some water and play." She explained that this is so that the baby won't wake up middle of the night, alert and wanted to play. I find it interesting ... I think that's a method of training too, I guess. And, well ... it helps. Some infant, wake up every 2 - 3 hours. But my girl, only the first 2 - 3 days, wake up 2 - 3 hours. After that, about 4 hours. So, not too bad. I only remember to wake up to breastfeed 1 time after confinement, the most 2 times, and after that she straight away sleep again. But I need to wake up one time extra to pump breastmilk (usually before the baby wakes up) because too much and I couldn't sleep.
Sorry ... I'm not an expert. Have no expert support. Only sharing my experience ...
well laifchn and Ss, the idea is for us to share our experience based on what works/doesn't work for us. Books can only tell us so much. We have to bear in mind that they also want to market and sell their products (kaching, kaching $$) so sometimes the examples quoted are meant to support their 'discoveries'. if it works for you, GREAT, if not, maybe there are other alternatives...
Anyway, is it just me or do you guys also think the term 'expert' is used kinda loosely nowadays?
When i think 'expert', I think of someone who spends her/his lifetime studying, researching, conducting interviews, experiments, forums, discussions with other 'experts' to tally their findings before releasing it to the public. (e.g. Piaget, Montessori)
Nowadays, it seems everyone can be an 'expert' overnight just be reading a few research papers, journals, reports...etc.. on a particular subject.
Just my opinion, people.. I'm no 'expert' either..
well, maybe i'll try to give an idea of the concept of level of evidence.
In medicine, evidence-based management is the current standard of good practice. This depends on the treatment being backed by sound scientific evidence. A published article in a scientific journal does not necessarily mean that the level of evidence is good.
To cut the long story short, what we're sharing eg personal experiences has technically the same level of evidence as expert(trained and experienced professionals in a particular field-) consensus which is uh-level 9 (the lowest level).
This is not surprising coz there are some traditional practices and beliefs which were poo-pooed in the past as old-fashioned are now being shown to have some scientific evidence so confinement ladies' experience do count as expertise, just that they don't publish their findings!
The problem is, even in well-designed studies that are large and comprehensive, the results are usually a statistical average of the population studied.
So, to apply that knowledge on an individual level would mean that you have to have similar characteristics as the population studied plus account for other unstudied factors which may influence the outcome.
That's why when you consult an 'expert' eg medical specialist, treatment needs to be evidence-based (based on guidelines formulated acc. to research) BUT tailored to the individual patient which may mean not strictly adhering to guidelines based on sound judgement and discussion with the patient's preferences.
Becky highlighted an important issue, conflict of interest. That's why studies funded by pharmaceutical companies about their own products have to be evaluated with skepticism.
Just as a note, Piaget's observations (small sample size,purely observational method etc) may not hold up to today's standards of scientific rigour but his teachings are still accepted till today, though I think some authors have kinda updated some stuff.
SO, I leave you to mull over the merits of the art and science of parenting :)
Thanks laifchan, very informative!
Anyway, given your reasons for Piaget's findings not "holding up under today's scientific rigour", may I ask what is not acceptable about his teachings/research apart from the way his study was conducted? Does the same reasoning apply to past theorists e.g. Vygotsky, Freud, Skinner...etc?
Complicated ...
oops.. sorry Ss, got carried away there! FYI, Jean Piaget was the one who postulated children are not passive learners, they also construct knowledge. His theories form the backbone for Early Childhood programmes which encourage hands on, manipulative activities. By doing so, children are constantly 'building' on their existing knowledge, assimilating and accommodating new and old information through their own exploration. As opposed to just sitting there and listening to teachers feeding them information.
Is that better? :)
haha,
that's why some people think Freud is a fraud-yeah, this coming from a psychiatrist!
Back to Piaget, I must say my reading is limited to psychiatric textbooks that have a section on developmental child psychology of which Piaget is a pioneer.
Becky, you're prob more well-informed on this than me. Right on about piaget's work having major effects on the transformation of primary school education from rote learning to one that encourages experimentation.
More recent researchers have done longer term and much larger follow-up studies and have confirmed Piaget's findings about the stages of moral judgement matched children's changing concepts of conscience.
However, newer research are also taking more note than Piaget about the influence of environment and context on children's thinking. That's how science progress!
I must correct my assumption that he was purely observational, he did interview children and devised simple experiments for them to do.
As for Skinner, I think his theories remain unchallenged mostly and his contribution to learning theory is still applied to human behaviour eventhough his experiments were mainly based on rats.
Freud is an interesting character. He was a neurologist who somehow became the father of psychoanalysis. His theories about human psychosexual development are hard to swallow, I mean come on, sons having sexual urges towards mothers? And, this has no scientific basis whatsoever.
However, some of his theories about the subconscious mind and defense mechanisms are useful ways to understand the human psyche and how we react psychologically to situations, threats etc.
Becky, how bout enlightening us about Vygotsky?
Just so that its not all Greek, in a nutshell, famous distingushed people may have volumes to say about how children develop and their teachings have been widely accepted but we always have to use our own judgement and logic to apply it in real life.
I don't mean to imply that we should totally be paranoid and distrust scientific findings but some amount of healthy skepticism is in order.
More about scandals in the academic world about fraudulent research findings even about IQ....think South Korea and fake cloning experiment results...
I'm just wondering.. aren't there already existing theories regarding the influence of environment on children? E.g. BF Skinner and Bandura who believed that children's development is determined primarily by the environment? Or did they refine these theories?
[Since I'm not in academia, there may be new developments to 'update' past findings.]
Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) was a Russian psychologist. Although considered a constructivist, he proposed that children need adult guidance in their developmental growth. While Piaget said let children explore and discover by themselves, Vygotsky said children will go further when assisted or guided by adults. For example, if you give a 2 yr old some jigsaw puzzles, she may not be able to do it all by herself (or may take longer), but when we give hints/clues, she is able to complete it (This assistance is called 'scaffolding'- assistance which match the learner's needs).
While theories can be kinda dry, I sometimes find it interesting because whether we realize it or not, it influences our education system, our thinking, our perception towards children and their growth and it forms the foundation for many parenting/children-related books.
But as laifchan said, we should balance it with our own judgment as we know our own children best.
Post a Comment