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

Dados Bibliográficos

ID11635474
AutoresM Hammersley (0000-0001-6842-6276, The Open University, autor correspondente)
Ano2008
Volume29
Fascículo5
Páginas549-558
Data de publicação2008-09-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoBritish Journal of Sociology of Education (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0142-5692 • E-ISSN: 1465-3346
EditoraTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/01425690802263718
OpenAlexW2084629537
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas9
Referências citadas18

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