IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v2y1997i4p51-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Reply to Humphries

Author

Listed:
  • M. Hammersley

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Hammersley, 1997. "A Reply to Humphries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 51-54, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:2:y:1997:i:4:p:51-54
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.107
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.107?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "Bias in Social Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(1), pages 7-19, March.
    2. B. Humphries, 1997. "From Critical Thought to Emancipatory Action: Contradictory Research Goals?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(1), pages 20-27, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "A Response to Romm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 86-88, December.
    2. N. Romm, 1997. "Becoming More Accountable: A Comment on Hammersley and Gomm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 129-136, September.
    3. B. Temple, 1997. "‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 8-14, December.
    4. N. Romm, 1998. "Caricaturing and Categorising in Processes of Argument," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(2), pages 79-82, June.
    5. B. Rappert, 1997. "Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 69-81, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Robert Hollands & Liz Stanley, 2009. "Rethinking ‘Current Crisis’ Arguments: Gouldner and the Legacy of Critical Sociology," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(1), pages 13-25, January.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Martyn Hammersley, 1999. "Sociology, What's it for? A Critique of Gouldner," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 4(3), pages 113-121, September.
    13. John Stephen Mckenzie, 2017. "Emotional Reflexivity and the Guiding Principle of Objectivity in an Inter-Disciplinary, Multi-Method, Longitudinal Research Project," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(1), pages 68-80, February.
    14. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:4:p:51-54. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.