“A significant amount of research on the impact of separation on child development has been conducted (Rutter, 1981). While there are data pointing in different directions and sometimes fierce ideological debate about current knowledge, it is generally accepted that, although the residential experience can be very stressful for children, separation is seldom a critical factor in explaining impairment to development. Moreover, where effects are recorded, they frequently reduce over time. There is some indication that separations earlier in children’s lives have greater impact than later placements. Such evidence may have influenced reductions in the use of residential settings for children below the age of nine. However, the ability of some very young children to recover from even the most severe forms of maternal deprivation should also be noted (Beckett et al., 2003; Rutter & ERA Study Team, 1998).” From “The impact of residential placement on child development: research and policy implications,” International Journal of Social Welfare 4 (2005): 203
***************************************************************************
A large amount of research has looked at how separation can play a role in the development of children in residential settings. Although research and data in this area lead to different points of view, it has generally been acknowledged that separation does not impair the development of children. While this idea is generally accepted, the effects of separation cannot be totally dismissed and research has shown that separation can bear a greater effect when it happens earlier in a child’s life. This may have been the reason for the reduction of children being placed in residential settings who are under the age of nine. Nonetheless, younger children are still capable of recovering from the effects of maternal separation (Little & Thompson, 2005, p. 203).
This entry was posted in Paraphrasing Exercise. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Paraphrasing exercise

  1. Lee says:
    June 6, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    Shanina,
    Great quote for your paper. I’m impressed with how you, and the other students, found quotes that are so directly relevant to your research question. Excellent job paraphrasing. Much of writing is a matter of style and taste. Writing communicates ideas, obviously, but aside from basic grammar rules, there are choices to make in writing. Writing expresses the author’s personality and we all tend to develop somewhat unique writing styles.
    I say that to preface my suggestions for your above paraphrase. They are merely suggestions. You didn’t break any grammar rules, and when we are writing we often have to make choices about what sounds best in the context. Having said that, here are my two comments. First, in the opening sentence you write: “A large amount of research has looked at…” Typically, when I’m writing more formally, I would use “examined” instead of “looked at.” It just sounds more formal–less colloquial. Also, technically, saying “research has looked at” (or even “research has examined”) is a form of personification. Personification is when we give inanimate objects human characteristics (like saying “society says” or “the article found”). Only people can “say” or “find” or “examine” or “write,” etc. So technically, “research” has not looked at or examined in you sentence, RESEARCHERS have “looked at” or “examined” or whatever verb you want to use. HOWEVER, to avoid the personification in that opening sentence, you would probably have to write such a wordy sentence that it is distracting to the reader. Sometimes it’s ok to make a conscious choice to (kind of) violate a grammar rule in favor of smooth reading and a more concise, effective, clear sentence.
    Another example of that choice is when you write: “This may have been the reason for….” Technically, writers should avoid beginning sentences with “this,” “there,” “these,” “those,” “they,” or “it” because the terms are vague. Typically, substituting the noun for the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence is more appropriate. HOWEVER, the best way to avoid beginning the sentence with the “this” would be to rewrite it as follows: “While this idea is generally accepted, the effects of separation cannot be totally dismissed and research has shown that separation can bear a greater effect when it happens earlier in a child’s life, which may have been the reason for the reduction of children being placed in residential settings who are under the age of nine.” Notice that the rewrite avoids beginning a sentence with “this,” but makes the sentence very long, and it gets confusing to the reader. The way you wrote it is better. It is clearer and more concise.
    All writers make stylistic choices. Sometimes in writing there is a clear right and wrong. All proper nouns must be capitalized. That’s just RIGHT. Failure to do so is WRONG. It’s chipped into stone. There’s no debating it. However, there’s room for style and interpretation and choices about much of our writing.
    Another quick observation. In the original quote, the author wrote: “While there are data….” This author is absolutely grammatically correct–the word data is plural. Often we think of it as a singular noun so we incorrectly use the wrong verb tense. “There IS much data to suggest….” sounds correct to the ear (at least to my ear), but the grammatically correct way to say that is “There ARE much data to suggest.” Since academic writers are so often dealing with data, I figured I’d just make a quick note that “data” is always a plural word.