Response to review of Play: Experiential Methodologies.

We are writing in response to the review by Sabina Dosani your journal had published on Play: Experimental Methodologies in Developmental and Therapeutic Settings, edited by Shubada Maitra & Shekhar Seshadri, Orient Blackswan Private Ltd, 2012, $29.95 (pb), 264 pp., ISBN: 9788125047599. At least, this was the title used in the review that appeared in the Psychiatric Bulletin, April 2014, Volume 38, Issue 2. First and most importantly, the reviewer has the title of the book wrong. The title of the book is: Play: Experiential Methodologies in Developmental and Therapeutic Settings, i.e. the word is ‘experiential’ not ‘experimental’. This is critical as the reviewer has moved on to critiquing the book based on her erroneous understanding that it is about experimental methodologies – which it is not, as stated even in the title! The reviewer says ‘My first gripe with this book is the subtitle: ”Experimental Methodologies in Developmental and Therapeutic Settings”. Readers of this journal know an experiment is a study of cause and effect. It differs from non-experimental methods in that it involves the deliberate manipulation of one variable, while trying to keep all other variables constant. There are no experimental methodologies described in this book.’ Very true that no experimental methodologies are described in this book! The methodologies described are experiential methodologies – as discussed in the introduction, the book invited ‘field practitioners working with children and academicians from the field of child and adolescent mental health to write and share their experiences’ and that ‘This volume maps the tapestry of play across settings, populations and methods’. ‘My second quibble is with this book’s use of the term ”play”. Throughout the text, play means so many disparate things, which are sometimes used as synonyms when they ought not to be. ”Play” encompasses working with creative arts, using child-friendly assessment tools, exploring displacement using puppets, observing children with dolls, engaging them with games and using drama as an educational tool in a school campaign to combat sexism’, says your esteemed reviewer. Why is this a quibble? The objective of the book is to ‘document work with children using various forms of play and art’, and to ‘bring to centre-stage the numerous field based innovations of working with children’ (stated in the introduction). Further, the introduction clearly provides a definition of play: ‘Broadly, the term play includes both structured and unstructured activities ranging from the use of art, puppets, dolls, games, drama and theatre, to songs and music.’ Besides, even at ‘quibble’ stage, the reviewer does not seem to have realised her first error about the title and subject of the book, i.e. she does not seem to have reflected on the fact that it is unlikely that a book on ‘experimental methodologies’ would have been talking about a range of qualitative methods! The reviewer is certainly welcome to have ‘gripes’ and ‘quibbles’ about a book but had these been about the quality of the book, the nature of the methods and how effectively they were used, and whether the book had any learning implications for practice, her critique would have been useful. However, this necessitated correct reading of the title and an understanding of the subject of the book, as clearly elucidated in the introduction. Considering that the reviewer misread the title of the book and completely misunderstood its subject, the rest of the review is completely invalid. The remaining part only serves to reflect her continued confusions and a lack of knowledge on the domain of creative methods and play work with children as operationally defined in this book. In the light of her gross error, the sarcastic and pompous tone she uses in the review is quite ironic! We are also concerned that a respectable journal such as yours published a book review without checking that the title was correct (we note that the name of the first author was also misspelled). As regular readers of your journal, and as the institutions with which we are affiliated (Tata Institute of Social Sciences and NIMHANS) regularly subscribe to your journal, we have always believed that your publications have been accurate, of high quality ensuring editorial checks and balances. However, currently, we are deeply disappointed in your publication. We trust you will take the necessary actions to re-instate our faith.