Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martyn Hammersley (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: