A Reply to Humphries

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BEALS

R. L.

(1969) Politics of Social Research. Chicago: Aldine.

BERLIN

(1969) Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HAMMERSLEY

(1992) What's Wrong with Ethnography? Routledge: London.

HAMMERSLEY

(1994) ‘On feminist methodology: a response’, Sociology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 293–300.

HAMMERSLEY

(1995) The Politics of Social Research. London: Sage.

HAMMERSLEY

, and GOMM

(1997) ‘Bias in social research’, Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/2.html>.

HOROWITZ

I. L.

(editor) (1967) The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship between Social Science and Practical Politics. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

HUMPHRIES

(1997) ‘From Critical Thought to Emancipatory Action: Contradictory Research Goals?’, Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 1, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/3.html>.

LATHER

(1986) ‘Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research’, Interchange, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 63–84.

10.

LATHER

(1991) Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. New York: Routledge.

11.

LATHER

(1993) ‘Fertile Obsession: Validity after Poststructuralism’, Sociological Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 673–93.

12.

LOWITH

(1949) Meaning in History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.

LYOTARD

J.-F.

(1983) The Differend: Phrases in Dispute (English translation). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

14.

MCNAY

(1992) Foucault and Feminism. Oxford: Blackwell.