IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v3y1998i1p33-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Harrison, W. Cealey
  • J. Hood-Williams

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:3:y:1998:i:1:p:33-41
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.1370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1370
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.1370?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. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. N. Romm, 1998. "Caricaturing and Categorising in Processes of Argument," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(2), pages 79-82, June.

    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. 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. 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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. N. Romm, 1998. "Caricaturing and Categorising in Processes of Argument," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(2), pages 79-82, June.
    7. M. Hammersley, 1997. "A Reply to Humphries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 51-54, December.
    8. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "A Response to Romm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 86-88, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    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:3:y:1998:i:1:p:33-41. 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.