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

Abstract

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.

Caricaturing and Categorising in Processes of Argument

“…Gouldner, 1975;Wise, 1983, 1994;Lather, 1991Lather, , 1995McKay and Romm, 1992;Guba and Lincoln, 1994;Lincoln, 1995;Romm, 1995Romm, , 1996aRomm, , 1997McIntyre, 1996;Weil, 1996;Hardy and Clegg, 1997;Jacobson and Jacques, 1997;Cealey Harrison and Hood-Williams, 1998. )…”