A query on research methodology and ethics

Defending Citizens Advice, its work and goals

Bibliographic Data

ID2373890
AuthorsSiew-Peng Lee (0000-0002-7490-4905, Sociologists Outside Academia, BSA Special Interest Group, corresponding author)
Year2014
Volume28
Issue6
Pages1016-1025
Publication date2014-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueWork Employment and Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0950-0170 • E-ISSN: 1469-8722
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0950017014538338
OpenAlexW2121152372
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited7

This is a response to an article by Holgate et al., in which the authors argue that minority ethnic workers lack support and legal advice on employment problems; in particular they found the Citizens Advice Bureau network to be 'not very successful' and 'ineffectual'. This response raises concerns about research methodology, including the integrity with which existing literature was cited and the rigour with which new data were generated and interpreted. This author uses her insight into Citizens Advice work to contextualize - and contest - some of the interpretations made by Holgate and colleagues. From a research ethics perspective, this case highlights the disparity of power between the researchers and the researched - and reiterates the impact of previous research on future research endeavours. While Open Access is good for those outside academia, those within must become more astute about the myriad contexts within which their published work might be mis/interpreted

Advice (programming · CONTEST · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Perspective (graphical · Political science · Power (physics · Public relations · Research ethics · Rigour · Sociology · Work (physics · Computer Science · Engineering · Labor Movements and Unions · Law · Migration, Refugees, and Integration · Social Policy and Reform Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub