Derek Freeman argued that Mead had misunderstood Samoan culture when she concluded that it placed few restrictions on youths' sexual exploration, contending she gave too little weight to biology and to violence in Samoan life. Later reassessment, notably Paul Shankman's 2009 study, concluded that Freeman himself had cherry-picked data and misrepresented both Mead and Samoan culture. Neither side's account has displaced the other in the scholarly literature, and both original participants (Mead's Samoan informants of the 1920s, Freeman's of the 1960s onward) are separated from the dispute by decades and by the very different circumstances of their fieldwork.
What would resolve this A methodological reassessment capable of adjudicating between Mead's original 1920s participant-observation fieldwork and Freeman's later, structured reinterviewing conducted decades afterward, or additional independent, contemporaneous sources from 1920s Samoa that neither anthropologist could access.
OpenAnthropological historiography and the ethics and methodology of ethnographic fieldworkWikipedia: Coming of Age in Samoa