IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v2y1997i1p20-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Critical Thought to Emancipatory Action: Contradictory Research Goals?

Author

Listed:
  • B. Humphries

Abstract

This article results from reading Lather's Getting Smart (1991) and Hammersley's The Politics of Social Research (1995). The theme is the debates between ‘traditional’ research approaches and ‘emancipatory’ research approaches. It is argued that these debates are based on stereotypical views which obscure important characteristics held in common, and both require to be interrogated. The article examines two of these characteristics, appeals to a metanarrative of emancipation and the will to power, and considers the implications of the privileging of scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge. It concludes by considering the possibilities for a praxis-oriented research which may lead to possibilities for emancipatory action.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Humphries, 1997. "From Critical Thought to Emancipatory Action: Contradictory Research Goals?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(1), pages 20-27, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:2:y:1997:i:1:p:20-27
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.47
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.47?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dod Forrest, 2000. "Theorising Empowerment Thought: Illuminating the Relationship between Ideology and Politics in the Contemporary Era," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 4(4), pages 43-57, February.
    2. Harrison, W. Cealey & J. Hood-Williams, 1998. "More Varieties than Heinz: Social Categories and Sociality in Humphries, Hammersley and Beyond," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(1), pages 33-41, March.
    3. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "A Response to Romm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 86-88, December.
    4. B. Humphries, 1998. "The Baby and the Bath Water: Hammersley, Cealey Harrison and Hood-Williams and the Emancipatory Research Debate," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(1), pages 29-32, March.
    5. B. Temple, 1997. "‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 8-14, December.
    6. D. Millen, 1997. "Some Methodological and Epistemological Issues Raised by Doing Feminist Research on Non-Feminist Women," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 114-128, September.
    7. M. Hammersley, 1997. "A Reply to Humphries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 51-54, December.
    8. Kathleen Lynch, 1999. "Equality Studies, the Academy and the Role of Research in Emancipatory Social Change," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 30(1), pages 41-69.
    9. Gallhofer, Sonja & Haslam, Jim & van der Walt, Sibylle, 2011. "Accountability and transparency in relation to human rights: A critical perspective reflecting upon accounting, corporate responsibility and ways forward in the context of globalisation," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(8), pages 765-780.
    10. N. Romm, 1998. "Caricaturing and Categorising in Processes of Argument," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(2), pages 79-82, June.
    11. N. Romm, 1997. "Becoming More Accountable: A Comment on Hammersley and Gomm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 129-136, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:2:y:1997:i:1:p:20-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.