Consensus, conflict, structural and social action theories T&M

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Students should be praised for writing about different types of feminism and patriarchy in depth. Some students were also able to synoptically link patriarchy to other areas of sociology. There were some good attempts to evaluate one type of feminism with another. Students should be encouraged to keep evaluation focused on the question set.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must apply Item C (radical feminism, pay gap, oppression in the family, Marxist critique)
• top band: debate between types of feminism and other perspectives (Marxism, functionalism, postmodernism)
• drift into the history of feminism = 5–8
• strong answers linked patriarchy synoptically to other topics
• evaluation should stay on whether today's society is patriarchal

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Timing issues were evident where some students had run out of time often in the final question. Question 6 saw a varied response from students. It was evident some students did not have the developed knowledge/limited knowledge on social action theory. Some students simply repeated the item. Some students had limited knowledge on social action theory but were able to develop the other theoretical hooks in the item. This question provided the full range of responses with some students presenting a wide range of AO1, knowledge points with developed AO3 evaluative points. There were some timing issues where students had run out of time in this question. Centre recommendations are to encourage retrieval based practice and spaced practice to feed in sociological theory. Students need to develop knowledge of all sociological theory.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• top band debates social action against structural theories (functionalism, Marxism, feminisms, postmodernism)
• drift into alternative theories = 5–8
• many had thin knowledge of social action theory or repeated the item, though some developed the structural hooks
• timing problems on this last question

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This question provided the most varied range of responses, with a few students not attempting the question at all. Some students were able to describe two theories but were not able to link this to social policy. Some students could describe ideas around policy but were not able to give specific examples of social policy.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must link each perspective to the purpose of social policy (e.g. functionalist gradual reform, New Right minimal state, Marxist and feminist views of the state, social democratic redistribution)
• describing theories or policies alone = 1–3 band
• widest spread of responses and some left it blank
• many could not link theory to policy or give specific policy examples

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

In general, answers here were of a reasonable standard but there was wide variation. The weakest answers were usually simply limited developments of information in the Item, or in some cases mere paraphrasing of its content. Weaker answers generally took a topic-based approach, describing inequalities in particular institutions in contemporary society, such as education or the criminal justice system. Many of these answers gave accounts of reasons for class differences in educational achievement but were unable to apply relevant Marxist ideas such as the correspondence principle, reproduction or legitimation, focusing instead on labelling, speech codes and the like. By contrast, the best answers had a solid and extensive knowledge of general Marxist concepts and were able to examine Marxism's contribution to our understanding of today's society via discussion of specifically Marxist approaches to particular topic areas. Evaluation tended to take two paths: firstly, criticism of Marxism from other perspectives, usually functionalist, feminist and/or postmodernist; and secondly, the view that Marxism is outdated - for example because there is now more mobility or equality, or a more complex class structure than when Marx wrote, or because the predicted revolution and/or classless society has failed to materialise. Some answers that took the first path became side-tracked into lengthy accounts of other perspectives, losing sight of the need to bring them into debate with Marxism. Some answers offered a positive evaluation, drawing on empirical evidence to argue that Marxism remains relevant to contemporary society. Other answers showed analysis and evaluation by considering the relative merits of different Marxist approaches, such as those of Althusser and Gramsci.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• AO grid not printed
• must evaluate Marxism's contribution to understanding today's society
• topic-based accounts of inequality without Marxist concepts (e.g. class and achievement via labelling) score low
• long accounts of other perspectives must be brought into debate with Marxism
• top band: debate with functionalism, feminism, postmodernism and/or humanistic vs structuralist Marxism (Gramsci vs Althusser)
• item hook 'outdated' invites points on mobility, complex class structure, failed revolution
• AO split from AQA's standard grid for this paper (this year's mark scheme does not print it).

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Most students managed their time appropriately however a small minority left some questions unanswered. This mainly occurred for Question 06, often resulting from students giving a very broad answer for Question 04. There was a wide range of responses to this question, ranging from the non-response to a sustained examination of two problems of using the functionalist perspective to study today’s society. Many students performed less well on this question than on the rest of the paper. In addition to the issue of timing, this appeared to be due to some students lacking confidence in answering a theoretical question. Whilst the majority of students were able to offer two factors (common responses being ‘outdated, ‘rose tinted’, deterministic or not explaining conflict) few were able to develop these ideas with depth of understanding and analysis. Often good examples of specific functionalist ideas were used and critiqued by Marxism, feminisms or post-modernist perspectives. The best answers showed a clear knowledge of functionalism and why their identified issue is problematic along with sophisticated analysis and application of examples such as fragmentation, diversity and inequalities in society and changing roles and family structures. A small number of students understood the question to be more about the methods used by functionalists, equating functionalism with Positivism. Whereas this was an acceptable approach, it was then difficult for students to develop their response in any depth. Centres are reminded that there are no marks for evaluation for this question. A small number of students had specific evaluative statements regarding the strengths of the functionalist perspective ‘tagged on’ to the end of responses that were not awardable.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• no marks for evaluation in this question type (tagged-on strengths of functionalism not credited)
• drift into how functionalists explain a phenomenon such as crime = 1–3
• common problems: outdated, conservative bias, ignores conflict, deterministic, no value consensus in postmodern society
• many lacked development
• equating functionalism with positivism accepted but hard to develop

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Similarly, in relation to AO3 skills (analysis and evaluation), opportunities to gain marks on the longer questions (04 and 06) were often missed. In these two questions, many students focused on recounting knowledge at the expense of the discussions and debates that could yield marks for AO3 skills. Many students wrote at length on questions 04 and 06. Nearly all students had at least a basic understanding of the consensus-conflict dimension in sociological theory and were able to locate functionalism, Marxism and often feminism within this. However, very weak answers did not go far beyond this basic structure and showed limited and even merely fragmentary knowledge of specific theories. Such answers were often highly dependent on Item C and unable to add much knowledge of their own. Answers that scored somewhat better were able to present an accurate if basic account of at least one main theory. However, the most effective responses showed depth of knowledge of the central ideas and concepts of consensus and conflict approaches. These answers were explicit in debating the usefulness of the two approaches and often applied material from topic areas in an appropriate manner to illustrate their points. On the other hand, some students took the question as an opportunity to write descriptively and at length about the functionalist, Marxist and/or feminist views of the family, education, crime and deviance or other substantive topics, but with little regard to the question and thus without reference to the usefulness of the approaches or even to their central concepts. A few students produced ‘catch all’ theory responses with seemingly obligatory and often lengthy accounts of postmodernism, structuration, etc. These were often presented as ‘evaluation’ but this tended to be of the structure-action debate and, as such, gained no credit. One common weakness was that, where students discussed social action theory, the focus tended to shift from consensus-conflict to structure-action. Similarly, while accounts of labelling theory usually showed at least a basic knowledge of relevant concepts, they were more focused on describing the labelling process and its consequences than on showing how this illustrated ideas of conflict between powerful labellers and the powerless labelled. Thus, knowledge of labelling and social action theory was often tangential to the set question.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must apply Item C
• top band: debate between functionalism, Marxism, feminism and action theories with a judgement on usefulness
• long descriptions of perspectives on substantive topics (family, education) miss the question
• structure–action evaluation gains no credit here
• labelling and Weber need linking to conflict and power
• Item C names functionalism, Marxism, labelling theory and Weber but the question asks about conflict and consensus approaches generally

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• item hooks: class conflict, exploitation, ideology, and differing Marxist views on capitalism and change
• top band debates Marxism with neo-Marxist, functionalist, feminist and postmodern views or structural vs humanist Marxism
• drifting into social class with little Marxism = 5–8