Abstract
Abstract This article reflects on the significance of re-analysing material from social-science archives in the context of John Goldthorpe's critique of the use of data from the Affluent Worker project. Drawing on my own role in elaborating this approach, most comprehensively in my book Identities and Social Change, I defend the value of re-analysis both as a means of bringing out previously unknown popular testimonies, and also in reflecting on the way that social scientific research has itself been a significant force for social change in recent decades. I consider how the practice of re-analysis can be defended even when social-science protocols regarding replication cannot be used, and reflect more broadly the significance of the Affluent Worker study in shaping understandings of social change in Britain.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
