June 2023: AS Paper 2

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Students generally understood the difference between primary and secondary data. Some were less adept at identifying the advantages of such data. Students who claimed that primary sources were more valid; reliable; representative were required to explain how this is the case to gain credit as such qualities could equally be a feature of secondary sources of data. More successful responses were able to use the fact that the researcher was in control over the entirety of the research process to formulate effective answers.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of two advantages clearly outlined, 1 if partial (e.g. researcher gathers exactly what is needed, operationalises concepts their own way, knows how the data were produced, fills gaps where no secondary data exist)
• bare claims that primary data are more valid, reliable or representative need explaining, since secondary data can share these qualities
• best answers stressed the researcher's control of the whole process

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This was a question that many students found straightforward to engage with. The most popular approach to this question was to begin with the more unique issues relevant to covert observation – which were the ethical problems relating to consent, the right to withdraw and so on. Some students ran out of steam at this point but better informed students were able to raise issues to do with reliability relating to repeating the observation, representativeness concerning small sample sizes and validity regarding ease of recording data. Some students were able to place the above in the positivist anti positivist perspectives debate and gained credit for this. One issue for students with good knowledge of the topic was the application challenge of not drifting into talking about advantages rather than disadvantages, which unless used evaluatively could not gain credit.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• AS essay, 16 marks
• top band needs a range of disadvantages with reasonable evaluation
• drift into problems of observation in general = 4–6
• most began with ethical problems (consent, deception, right to withdraw) and better answers added reliability, representativeness and recording difficulties
• placing points in the positivist/interpretivist debate was credited
• advantages only count if used evaluatively

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

The majority of answers were able to manage the notion of a stereotype as applying to a group and being generalised. Labelling of a group was one common way this was done. If only the group or the generalised aspect was featured in the answer a partial mark was given.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for a generalised or simplified view of a social group
• 1 for only an example, or for only the group or only the generalised aspect

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question was answered in the main successfully and most answers went down the route of sexuality being liable to be subject to various forms of discrimination. One limitation to the effectiveness of student responses was to focus overly on gender and gender identity as opposed to sexuality.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 1 mark for the way sexuality shapes experience, +1 for explaining it (e.g. workplace discrimination, abuse at school, presumption of heterosexuality leading to concealment)
• answers focused on gender or gender identity rather than sexuality lose credit

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline three’ 6 mark question (the third question in every topic area). Students could easily improve outcomes on this question by realising the need to briefly (eg a line or so) expand upon the criticism / feature etc being outlined. Many students struggled with this question, with the discriminating factor being whether the students had any knowledge of postmodernism or not. Those that did were able to use a wide variety of features such as pick and mix / increased choice / hybridity etc to gain credit – the mark scheme was quite generous here. It is worth noting that the students who did this and did not receive full marks mostly did not add a line or so to explain the meaning of the feature so leaving the point undeveloped. If this was the case they received a partial mark.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of three features clearly outlined, 1 if partial (e.g. no metanarratives, consumption, pick and mix choice, diversity, globalisation, body as project)
• the deciding factor was whether students knew postmodernism at all
• listing a feature without a line of explanation gets 1 mark

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline and explain two’ 10 mark question (the fourth question in every topic area). Here students would benefit more if an explicit identification of a way / reason / factor was made, then leading to an explanation of it, making the student’s answer more cogent. Students found this question difficult. The challenge to identify a change in work / working arrangements and then make a suggestion as to how that change might have impacted on how a group / individual may see themselves or those around them proved a step too far for many. Answers tended to make an attempt at the first part but not the second. As a result, marks tended to reside at the lower half of the middle mark band.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• two changes in work each linked to how people see their class identity (e.g. decline of manual work and unions, gig economy, service sector, proletarianisation)
• drift into social class in general = 1–3
• most identified a change in work but did not take the second step to identity, so marks clustered in the lower part of 4–7

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Many students found this question initially challenging however most were able to identify features of the globalising process such as the movement of peoples within processes of migration. From there they were able to make points about how such features might affect identity – such as generating a more homogenised identity or provoking a reaction to it. Within these answers the application to nationalism was implicit rather than explicit. Evaluation tended to feature when perspectives were brought to bear on the globalising process. Postmodernism featured mostly here.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• top band debates perspectives on how globalisation affects national identity in the UK (undermining it and widening choice vs nationalist reaction)
• many discussed migration and homogenised or reactive identities but left nationalism implicit
• evaluation mainly through postmodernism

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

As with previous series, when we have asked questions requiring the definition of a demographic rate for a two mark question, this question proved to be a strong discriminator. Well prepared students managed both aspects of the definition needed for both marks, which was the number of live births per 1000 of the population / per year. Overall only a small number of students gained no marks for this question.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks need both parts: live births per 1000 of the population per year
• 1 mark if one aspect missing
• demographic definitions are a strong discriminator

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Most students found this question straight forward and accessible and in general the question was answered well. The most popular responses referenced differences in levels of parental control, different experiences resulting from specific family forms such as extended or lone parent and differences in the length of childhood.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 1 mark for the difference, +1 for explaining it (e.g. experience of racism, family structure such as lone-parent or extended households, levels of parental control and obligation)
• accessible, answered well

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline three’ 6 mark question (the third question in every topic area). Students could easily improve outcomes on this question by realising the need to briefly (eg a line or so) expand upon the criticism / feature etc being outlined. Many students scored well in this question and were able to identify three features of the symmetrical family. Many answers offered up more than the three features required indicating that students have a good understanding of the symmetrical family. Answers that did not attract full marks tended to list features but not (briefly) expand upon them.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of three features clearly outlined, 1 if partial (e.g. home-centred/privatised, joint conjugal roles, geographically mobile nuclear unit, shared decisions and leisure)
• features listed without brief expansion lose the second mark

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline and explain two’ 10 mark question (the fourth question in every topic area). Here students would benefit more if an explicit identification of a way / reason / factor was made, then leading to an explanation of it, making the student’s answer more cogent. The majority of students could identify two policies – though some answers were generic (eg policies/laws divorce laws etc) – and make a connection to gender roles in the family. The standard approach taken was to identify a policy, for example equal pay, and then apply its impact on the domestic division of labour – typically whether the policy strengthened or weakened traditional instrumental/expressive gender roles. Analysis was frequently generated by reviewing the response of various theories and perspectives to the impact or the change described. For answers which did not gain credit in this question, this was often the result of identifying policies but failing to connect them to gender roles inside the family.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• two policies each linked to gender roles in the family (e.g. equal pay and equality legislation, maternity vs paternity leave, childcare, welfare payments)
• drift into gender roles in general = 1–3
• generic 'laws' weaken answers
• most common failing was naming a policy without connecting it to roles inside the family

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This was a question that most students found accessible and had good material with which to frame their answers. Students who were able to look at the various impacts of an ageing population and link these to sociological concepts and theory were well rewarded. There were two types of approach which emerged that did not manage the above and so limited the reward available. The first kind of response documented often in great detail the causes and reasons for the emergence of an ageing population rather than looking at the impact of the ageing population on the family and wider society. The second type of response focussed on the impact by listing illustrations of the changes and impact: eg the greater preponderance of grandparents helping out with childcare, without linking the illustration to sociological concepts or theories. For example, the emerging child care role of grandparents could be viewed as contributing to a new kind of modified extended family. Evaluation and analysis in this question often took the form of reviewing various theories’ stance towards the impact of an ageing population, the New Right view of beanpole families for example.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• top band evaluates impacts on families and wider society through perspective debates (e.g. New Right on beanpole families)
• two weak approaches: describing causes of population ageing instead of its impact, and listing impacts (grandparent childcare) without concepts such as the modified extended family

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Most students who answered this question gained full credit and could find a synonym for both the social and the construction part of the answer.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for the idea that mental illness results from social processes such as labelling
• 1 for 'a product of society'
• most who attempted it scored full marks

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question was generally answered well. Popular routes were: discrimination within health, physical access to the place of health care and accessibility of the building once there. Partial marks generally arose from students identifying a difficulty but offering no explanation of it.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 1 mark for the difficulty, +1 for explaining it (e.g. professionals' prejudice, mobility problems getting to appointments, information in unsuitable formats)
• naming a difficulty without explanation = 1

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline three’ 6 mark question (the third question in every topic area). Students could easily improve outcomes on this question by realising the need to briefly (eg a line or so) expand upon the criticism / feature etc being outlined. Students found this question difficult. There were two main stumbling points. The first was answers that focussed on health care rather than health chances as demanded by the question. These answers could receive only minimum credit. The second was not identifying cultural factors – such as working class culture may encourage heavier drinking which presents a health risk – as opposed to other factors. The main diversion away from identifying cultural factors tended to be to identify material factors instead, such as a lack of money for food / heating. Again, answers following this path could gain only minimum credit.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of three cultural factors clearly outlined, 1 if partial (e.g. diet, smoking, exercise, drug and alcohol use linked to class)
• answers about health care rather than health chances, or giving material factors such as lack of money, get minimal credit

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline and explain two’ 10 mark question (the fourth question in every topic area). Here students would benefit more if an explicit identification of a way / reason / factor was made, then leading to an explanation of it, making the student’s answer more cogent. Most students were able to engage with this question. The question required students to link a number of elements together. Students could often give good reasons as to why women might seek out health care more than men and why men may do the opposite. This was the most successful part of student answers. Moving on to making a link between the higher/lower morbidity patterns that gender related access created was a less successful feature of student answers.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• two ways gendered access to professionals shapes gender patterns of health (e.g. men less likely to attend surgeries or take time off work, women more willing to admit illness, public health campaigns, gender of professionals)
• general accounts of gender differences in health = 1–3
• many explained why women seek care more but did not link this back to morbidity patterns

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

The main discriminatory factor explaining student outcomes for this question was whether the students knew what “big pharma” was. For those who were knowledgeable the question was relatively straight forward, inviting a pros and cons approach to the activities and impacts of global pharmaceutical companies often accompanied by a perspectives based assessment of such activities (Marxism vs functionalism for example). For students who had no or very limited knowledge of “big pharma” answers tended to list material which was not applied effectively to the demands of the question and so could not score highly.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• top band debates perspectives (Marxist, functionalist, feminist) on the impact of global pharmaceutical companies
• the key discriminator was knowing what 'big pharma' is
• those who did used pros and cons with medicalisation, drug trials and pricing
• others listed unapplied material

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Students were familiar with the notion of poverty and what it is. The relative part of the question proved the main discriminator within the question. Most students gained a partial mark for identifying the “lack of” poverty aspect to the question whilst fewer were able to provide the “relative” full definition.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for being unable to afford the standard of living most of the population considers acceptable
• 1 for 'poor compared to others'
• the 'relative' element was the discriminator

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Many students did not understand what “private” welfare was as opposed to other types such as public etc. As a result, identifying appropriate advantages proved difficult. The most common approach taken by students was therefore to reach for various advantages of different kinds of welfare provision, some of which were creditworthy and others not, so producing uneven responses.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 1 mark for the advantage, +1 for explaining it (e.g. better quality, quicker service, more tailored choice)
• many did not know what private welfare is and gave uneven advantages of welfare in general

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline three’ 6 mark question (the third question in every topic area). Students could easily improve outcomes on this question by realising the need to briefly (eg a line or so) expand upon the criticism / feature etc being outlined. Students found this question straight forward. Where students lacked specific understanding regarding gender and poverty they were readily able to adapt general gender based material such as gender roles / childcare responsibilities etc and apply it to the question. Many students gained full marks for this question.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of three reasons clearly outlined, 1 if partial (e.g. lower pay, smaller pensions, female-headed lone-parent families, career breaks for childbirth, part-time work due to childcare)
• found straightforward, many full marks

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

The ‘outline and explain two’ 10 mark question (the fourth question in every topic area). Here students would benefit more if an explicit identification of a way / reason / factor was made, then leading to an explanation of it, making the student’s answer more cogent. Students generally had no difficulty in finding reasons why people with disabilities may not be able to access work opportunities: discrimination, transport to and from the work place; lack of access within the workplace all featured. The development of the given reasons was the limiting factor for some students who found it difficult to connect the reason to further exploration of it - such as its impact on the individual, its connection with broader sociological perspectives and so on.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• two reasons each developed (e.g. prejudice and discrimination, restricted education, physical and transport barriers, social vs biomedical model)
• general accounts of disabled people's experiences = 1–3
• reasons were easy to find but development (impact on the individual, links to perspectives) limited marks

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This was a question most students found themselves well prepared for and were able to offer responses which covered many of the debates around technology in a ‘for and against’ style of approach: upskilling vs deskilling / freeing the worker from tedium vs increasing alienation. Many students were able to use the item and its focus on surveillance to talk about time work discipline. Some higher level explanations made reference to surveillance making the workplace fairer by identifying those not carrying their weight for example. The most effective answers addressed the debate surrounding the role of technology by locating it within the theoretical framework of Marxism, feminisms and postmodernism.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• top band debates perspectives (Marxist, functionalist, postmodernist) on technology controlling or liberating workers
• most used for-and-against framing (deskilling vs upskilling, alienation vs freedom from tedium) and the item's surveillance hook
• best located the debate in Marxist, feminist and postmodern frameworks