Reflexivity for what? A response to Gewirtz and Cribb on the role of values in the sociology of education

Bibliographic Data

ID11635474
AuthorsM Hammersley (0000-0001-6842-6276, The Open University, corresponding author)
Year2008
Volume29
Issue5
Pages549-558
Publication date2008-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueBritish Journal of Sociology of Education (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0142-5692 • E-ISSN: 1465-3346
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/01425690802263718
OpenAlexW2084629537
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited18

This article is a reply to Gewirtz and Cribb's argument for ethical reflexivity, presented in a previous issue of this journal. These authors compared their views with mine, suggesting a way in which the differences between our positions could be overcome. I argue that, while there is certainly substantial agreement, there are also some fundamental differences between us, notably about the goal of research. Indeed, in my view, what they recommend involves a greatly increased danger of bias and a version of scientism. At issue here is, in large part, the kind of ethical reflexivity that is appropriate in sociological work

Epistemology · Reflexivity · Social science · Sociology · Sociology of Education · Anthropology · Educator Training and Historical Pedagogy · Foucault, Power, and Ethics · Global Educational Policies and Reforms · Philosophy