A Reply to Humphries

Hammersley, Martyn

doi:10.5153/sro.107

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there does not seem to be much common ground between us. Here, as with an earlier critique of our position by Humphries, very fundamental disagreements seem to be involved (Humphries, 1997;Hammersley, 1997).…”

supporting

confidence: 53%

A Response to Romm

Hammersley¹,

Gomm²

1997

Sociological Research Online

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We welcome Romm's comment on our article (Hammersley and Gomm, 1997; Romm, 1997). However, there does not seem to be much common ground between us. Here, as with an earlier critique of our position by Humphries, very fundamental disagreements seem to be involved (Humphries, 1997;Hammersley, 1997). 1.2In her article, Romm criticises the account of bias that we put forward because, she claims, it 'excludes (as outside the range of relevant argument in research communities) a serious consideration of alternative epistemological orientations' (Abstract). This is a puzzling accusation given that a whole section of our paper was devoted to discussion of relativism and standpoint epistemology. Perhaps her implication is that our treatment of these was not 'serious'? Of course, we do not find those alternative epistemologies convincing, and we explained why. While, contrary to what Romm says, we would not want to exclude consideration of them from the research community, we do not believe that they provide a sound basis for research. Indeed, we see them as a source of bias. In that sense, at least, it is not the case that we leave the kind of approach that Romm recommends unaccounted for ( ¶8.1)!

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 53%

A Response to Romm

Hammersley¹,

Gomm²

1997

Sociological Research Online

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The omnipresence of oppression relates directly to the concern that emancipation is from specifics rather than generalities (Hammersley 1997). It may be that those who would facilitate emancipatory studies need to carefully consider the scope of their (shared) inquiry.…”

Section: Emancipation From What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory Research with People who have a Earning Difficulty: Journeys without a Map

McClimens

1999

Journal of Learning Disabilities for Nursing, Health, and Socia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emancipatory research has become a focus of interest in the field of disability studies. Despite concerns over its methodological and epistemological position it continues to stimulate debate. Widely adopted by those concerned with social inequity it has become influential in the arena of researching the lives of people who have learning difficulties. Some recent commentators have attempted to use a collaborative approach in conducting their research and in doing so have discovered problems in trying to make the process truly participative. Are these problems inherent in the research design or are they contingent upon the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the researched? This paper considers the theoretical background and the practical problems in the light of the author's experiences of collaborating on a small-scale presentational project with a young man who has a learning difficulty. It is suggested that the purpose of emancipatory research must be made transparent if the intentions are to be translated into a reality. This honesty is necessary in order to appreciate the difference in intention and outcome which will necessarily be shared by parties who approach a ‘common problem’ from different perspectives.

show abstract

“…Hammersley's critique of this position is well developed (for example see Hammersley, 1995: pp. 51 -5;Gomm 1997a and1997b;Hammersley, 1997) and we wish to add just three comments.…”

Section: The Standpoint Of Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

More Varieties than Heinz: Social Categories and Sociality in Humphries, Hammersley and Beyond

Harrison¹,

Hood-Williams²

1998

Sociological Research Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a contribution to a long standing debate over the nature of research and the relations between knowledge and power recently instantiated in exchanges over the criticisms of Hammersley (Hammersley, 1992, 1995, 1997; Gelsthorpe, 1992; Ramazanoglu, 1992; Williams, 1993; Hammersley & Gomm, 1997a and 1997b; Romm, 1997; Temple, 1997). It takes as its starting point Beth Humphries’ recent critical commentary on Hammersley and emancipatory research, and her attempt to ‘go beyond ourselves’ (Humphries, 1997). It argues that the logical endpoint of arguments that suggest the continuous salience of the social divisions commonly found in the current sociological lexicon is a bewildering impossibility and that they should not be taken as guidelines for research practice. It clarifies this critique in relation to ‘gender’. It further argues that Humphries's position, despite her apparent sympathy for post-structuralism, retains much from earlier structuralist positions, which undermines the basis of her attempt to develop a position beyond the constraints of current emancipatory research.

show abstract

A Reply to Humphries

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

A Response to Romm

A Response to Romm

Participatory Research with People who have a Earning Difficulty: Journeys without a Map

More Varieties than Heinz: Social Categories and Sociality in Humphries, Hammersley and Beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About