Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Qualitative Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hammersley, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Which side was Becker on? Questioning political and epistemological radicalism

Martyn Hammersley

The Open University, Milton Keynes, m.hammersley{at}open.ac.uk

Howard Becker’s article ‘Whose side are we on?’ has been widely cited, and widely misunderstood. It has frequently been interpreted as recommending partisan research, or as suggesting that social research cannot be objective. This article examines Becker’s position in detail, arguing that while there are some ambiguities within it, what it proposes is neither epistemologically nor politically radical in the way that is frequently assumed. What is true, though, is that Becker believes that systematic and rigorous sociological research inevitably tends to have radical political implications. In addition, he adopts a form of cultural relativism, whilst holding on to a notion of objectivity that is grounded in a commitment to pragmatism.

Key Words: objectivity • relativism • researcher partisanship • value neutrality

Qualitative Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, 91-110 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/146879410100100105
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Qualitative ResearchHome page
L. Russell
It's a question of trust: balancing the relationship between students and teachers in ethnographic fieldwork
Qualitative Research, May 1, 2005; 5(2): 181 - 199.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative ResearchHome page
M. Bradshaw
A Politics of Doing Social Research for Fishery Biologists, Managers and Industry
Qualitative Research, December 1, 2003; 3(3): 359 - 376.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative ResearchHome page
N. K. Denzin
Reading and Writing Performance
Qualitative Research, August 1, 2003; 3(2): 243 - 268.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative Social WorkHome page
N. K. Denzin
Social Work in the Seventh Moment
Qualitative Social Work, March 1, 2002; 1(1): 25 - 38.
[Abstract] [PDF]