Feeding Approaches of Western and Japanese Primatologists
When it came to feeding the primates during the course of a study, the Westerners and the Japanese used different ways. The Europeans feared that feeding the primates under investigation would interfere with the animals' natural behavior in the long run, thereby interfering with the study's conclusions. Westerners believed that the monkeys under investigation should be allowed to consume what they were used to eating in their natural settings. The Japanese, on the other hand, believed that they should establish contact with the primates being studied. They believed that as one took some time to feed the animals, they would have an opportunity of spending some time with the animals and thus they would be able to understand the primates more and this would help in documenting more comprehensive findings (Asquith 6).
Differences in Study Duration and Approaches
The Western primatologists were not for the idea of feeding the primates under study, and also they carried studies that were short-term. The Japanese, on the other hand, held the opinion that enough time should be taken when it came to studying particular primates so that one can understand all the important characteristics about them and that is why their studies took much longer. The two different approaches had their different advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the short-term studies that were carried out by the westerners were that they were able to study the social set up of many different animals. They were able to find out how different individual animals behaved when it came to the difference in authority between the male and the female animals. The study period being a short one meant that fewer resources were required to carry out the research and that made it more economically affordable. The short period spent doing a particular research also meant that they were able to do studies on many different primates meaning they were able to understand how different animals behaved. However, the Western studies had some disadvantages due to their short time nature. They did not get time to interact with the animals fully to have more understanding of the animals. Their studies had assumptions that the study of a particular group represented an entire species. Their studies also focused on the male species, and so the females were mostly left out.
Comprehensive Findings through Long-Term Japanese Studies
The Japanese studies were interested in understanding every member of a particular group of animals, and so their findings were more comprehensive and reliable (Asquith 9). As the researchers were feeding the animals, they were able to interact with the animals, and that made it easier for them to understand even the feeding habits from the young ones in the group to the old ones. They were also able to understand how males and females behaved at different seasons because they took time to study them over a period. At the end of each study, they would have more documented information ranging from how the animals behaved socially to their different feeding habits. However, the research work carried out by the Japanese being long-term had different demerits. First being long-term meant using more resources. That means that more funds had to be set aside for every research project. Following a particular group of animals for a long period interfered with their outcomes regarding numbers as some of the animals would die along the way while others would also run away for various reasons. The food they were feeding the animals with required money to buy and this increased the overall cost of any research work.
Different Perspectives in Western and Japanese Studies
The Western researchers based their research work on the male animals and how they headed the different groups and the role they played in reproducing while the Japanese were more interested with the individuals of every group and all these perspectives gave different understandings of every study. Every group was able to answer their thesis questions at the end of every study.
Work Cited
Asquith, Pamela J. "Japanese Science and Western Hegemonies: Primatology and the Limits Set to Questions." Naked Science : Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. (1996). Print
