I was more curious about the researcher and how he decided to allow the squatter to remain just to get data. I think what drove me off was the length of the narrative. It seemed repetitive and left many questions unanswered, such as why Brad might have left. Why did Wolcott chose to make Brad a research target? His reasons seem few. Wolcotts analysis seems shallow and does make clear links to his evaluation of educations' responsibility to Brad's outcomes. Most of the article does not make sense to me, and I struggle with understanding how to apply it to learning about research in this class, or for that matter, what to look for that makes it good research.
I do not understand why Brad was allowed to squat, because squatters can legally stake a claim after so many years, or declare themself your dependent that you must continue to support if you do not charge rent. Living out in the country you learn about property rights. Fences, put up by your neighbor on your side of the property line become legal boundary changes after five years if you do not contest them. After we bought property and moved in, we found our neighbors had attached a TV antenna to a pole on our mountain. We followed it down the mountain and found it was connected to our three neighbors homes. My husband was upset and wanted to take the antenna off our property immediately.
Though our neighbors were unwelcoming to newcomers in that quaint little gold mining town, I wanted to be neighborly. Our attorney suggested they sign a waiver of rights and have it recorded so that they would not have permanent rights. We offered this to them, and all three neighbors refused to sign. One day my husband climbed up our hill, pulled the antenna and cable straight down the hill and a threw it into a pile in the road. We sold out and bought a country place in Escalon around the corner from my in-laws where we have beenfor 25 years in the company of good neighbors.