Bias in Social Research

Hammersley, Martyn; Gomm, Roger

doi:10.5153/sro.55

Cited by 96 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It has long been recognised that it is quite possible for an account to be biased even though produced by someone who sought to be objective; just as those who reject objectivity as an ideal may nevertheless sometimes reach true conclusions. This means that even the facts about bias are not easy to establish (Hammersley and Gomm, 1997). However, the assertion that there is bias 'at the root' of claims to neutrality goes well beyond such factual matters.…”

Section: 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Reply to Humphries

Hammersley¹

1997

Sociological Research Online

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Reply to Humphries

Hammersley¹

1997

Sociological Research Online

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It assumes that these colleagues speak for everyone and are only accountable to themselves. In this article I examine the way in which Hammersley and Gomm (1997) have set up the debate with feminist researchers. I then go on to discuss the notion of ʽthe research communityʼ and the assumptions the authors make about the criteria for evaluating research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

AbstractIn a recent debate about bias in social research, Hammersley and Gomm (1997) discuss error, and bias as a form of error, as ʽa matter of collegial accountabilityʼ. They argue that radical epistemologies are a growing threat to the research community.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?

Temple¹

1997

Sociological Research Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent debate about bias in social research, Hammersley and Gomm (1997) discuss error, and bias as a form of error, as ʽa matter of collegial accountabilityʼ. They argue that radical epistemologies are a growing threat to the research community. Only by using such a community to decide what is reasonable can researchers avoid the threatened slip into the abyss. This threat is illustrated for the authors by, for example, the growing emphasis on the role of users of services by funding agencies.For those researchers who have struggled to be heard within academic life, the desire to install a single community as judges of research is a step backwards. The evaluation criteria used for research have been narrowly defined by some researchers within that community. Feminists, amongst others, have been trying to widen the definitions of validity. The desire to return to an authoritative voice, a particular and restricted group of 'colleagues' in Hammersley and Gomm's case, constitutes the threat rather than the solution for those researchers. It assumes that these colleagues speak for everyone and are only accountable to themselves. In this article I examine the way in which Hammersley and Gomm (1997) have set up the debate with feminist researchers. I then go on to discuss the notion of ʽthe research communityʼ and the assumptions the authors make about the criteria for evaluating research. I finish by introducing an alternative way of being accountable which involves opening up dialogue with a wider audience.

show abstract

“…Of crucial importance to such debates is the definition and value attached to notions such as unbiasedness, disinterestedness, 'truth' and the qualities of social scientists more generally (see Hammersley and Gomm (1997) for an extended discussion of bias in social research). Since many researchers in the social sciences have given up the pretence of being able to conduct value-free, objective, and politically neutral research, what else might we have to offer?…”

Section: 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities

Rappert¹

1997

Sociological Research Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent times have seen a significant reorientation in public funding for academic research across many countries. Public bodies in the UK have been at the forefront of such activities, typically justified in terms of a need to meet the challenges of international competitiveness and improve quality of life. One set of mechanisms advanced for further achieving these goals is the incorporation of users' needs into various aspects of the research process. This paper examines some of the consequences of greater user involvement in the UK Economic and Social Research Council by drawing on both empirical evidence and more speculative argumentation. In doing so it poses some of the dilemmas for conceptualizing proper user involvement. Introduction 1.1The last few years have seen an emphasis in many industrialised countries on harnessing publicly funded research for the goals of national competitiveness and quality of life. These goals have attempted to be achieved by encouraging researchers to pursue topics relevant to 'users' and conduct inquiry in a manner appropriate for them. Now in the UK, all the Research Councils and public sector research agencies operate within a language of users and a policy orientation which reflects the current political focus on wealth creation and quality of life. While attempts to improve the user and commercial relevance of physical sciences and engineering research in universities have generated significant, and sometimes critical, commentary, the social sciences are typically excluded from such analysis. This paper begins to rectify this situation. 1.2While funding changes towards users pose problems for universities and their academic staff (Tapper and Salter, 1995), this paper only looks at problems at the level of researchers. It explores the attitudes of a number of researchers conducting research relevant to users and asks what problems they face in light of this turn to users in funding arrangements. Evidence is drawn from a survey of academics engaged in projects deemed relevant to business by their funding agency, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). As this paper demonstrates, the process of making research appropriate to 'users' is not straightforward. Notions of what constitutes a proper user, for instance, are contested. As a result, it will be argued that the means of incorporating users in the research process are problematic. 1.3The paper is divided into seven sections. The next briefly summarises some of the major policy points surrounding the ESRC and provides some initial comments on user relations. The following two sections describe the survey undertaken along with the findings. Mixed with the findings are more speculative comments on the implications of user relations on the research process. The fifth section builds on these arguments and the problematic aspects of user involvement identified by respondents to consider an existing programme of user involvement. This is followed by a consideration of what types of alternative 'user' relations ...

show abstract

Bias in Social Research

Cited by 96 publications

References 22 publications

A Reply to Humphries

A Reply to Humphries

‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?

Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About