Version 1.0: 0112 General Certificate of Education (A-level) January 2013 Sociology SCLY4 (Specification 2191) Unit 4: Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods; Stratification and Differentiation with Theory and Methods Report on the Examination
Further copies of this Report on the Examination are available from: aqa.org.uk Copyright 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. Copyright AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered centres for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre. Set and published by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance. The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723) and a registered charity (registered charity number 1073334). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX.
SCLY4 General The majority of students were able to answer all the questions in their chosen section. Few students missed out whole questions but, when they did, there were obvious consequences for the overall mark. There seems to have been an improvement overall in methods in context responses. Students demonstrated better application and tended to use the Item more effectively in their responses. In some cases, responses to Question 04 and Question 08 appeared to be rushed, with students apparently running out of time. Since this question carries a large proportion of the marks available, this usually had serious consequences. Some students chose to answer this question first: these responses were often more thorough and scored more marks. However, whatever route through a paper is chosen, students still need to manage their time effectively. Section A Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods The great majority of students chose this Section. Crime and Deviance Question 01 This question was generally answered reasonably well. The best responses were able to discuss Durkheim, Merton, Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin, and were able to show internal critiques and comparisons to demonstrate AO2 skills. The other principal source of evaluation was the criticism by Marxists, for example, of the functionalist assumption of shared values. This was also occasionally taken up by students when emphasising, separately, a subcultural response. Some schools/colleges offered Hirschi. A few students referred to the New Right, but often these answers failed to explain the connection to functionalist approaches. Almost all students were able to use Durkheim, occasionally unattributed, but generally accurately, usually with some evaluation along the lines of how much crime is good? and/or seems to ignore victims. Answers then seemed to proceed on a school/college basis: many used Merton, though some simply listed his typology of deviant adaptations, often with errors and/or omissions. Cohen was used surprisingly poorly, if at all, and Cloward and Ohlin were often also simply juxtaposed to other material. Matza and Miller were occasionally mentioned in passing. Some offered an external critique in the form of Marxism and/or feminism, again often as a simple juxtaposition. Others became more focused on Right Realism and New Right theories but, as this was often not well applied to the question, it was hard to reward such responses significantly. Some weaker answers relied on recycling the Item. Teachers are advised to spend time suggesting ways in which the Item can stimulate further ideas, whilst encouraging students to build on the information provided rather than simply repeating it. Some students thought that juxtaposing quantities of Marxism and/or labelling theory counted as evaluation; however, this usually just resulted in an irrelevant drift away from the question. There was a lot of misattribution in the weaker responses, especially regarding the subcultural theorists. 3
Question 02 Students were well prepared for this question and the vast majority of them answered it effectively, with most answers addressing both male and female patterns of crime, although the former was usually covered in a more limited fashion. The range of material used was wide and varied, indicating that this part of the specification was well taught. The best answers were able to show explicit evaluation of the various views presented, for example via a discussion of the accuracy of the statistics and/or factors that prevent or encourage crime in the different genders. Some answers also considered victims of crime, often in an evaluative way. Almost all students knew something of Pollak's chivalry thesis, though accounts ranged from anecdotal to thorough and many presented theirs without evaluation. Students need to be aware of the date of the studies used and of the reasons why they may not be applicable today; for example, while women may have been able to negotiate their way out of speeding offences in the past, this may no longer work with the introduction of speed cameras. Double deviance in various guises often appeared, as did sex role theory and versions of control theory, domestic violence, bedroom culture and the liberation thesis. Heidensohn seemed to be well understood but there was a lot of confusion concerning Carlen and Adler. Weaker answers forgot to look specifically at studies of men s criminality. However, most managed to produce some discussion about whether the difference was because of the workings of the criminal justice system or whether women did indeed commit less crime. When male crime was discussed separately to female crime, the evaluation tended to be list-like, often tacked on at the end. Methods in Context Question 03 Quite a variety of responses appeared here and many were untypical of answers in previous series, in that they focused much more on the issue than on the research method. Stronger answers identified the in-depth nature of suicide notes and diaries and linked this to problems of access (for example, obstruction by relatives who want to keep details of the deceased s life and death private). The interpretivist position was identified. Issues of verification and of the meaning of suicide to friends and relatives were explored in a strong discussion of context. Students who scored the highest marks did so by identifying a number of strengths or limitations of one or more qualitative documents and then fully explaining these with reference to the issue of studying suicide Many students attempted to consider practical, ethical and theoretical factors in relation to qualitative documents, but such attempts were not always successfully applied to the issue of suicide. Most could identify some advantages and limitations of qualitative documents and attempted in one or two places specifically to link this to the study of suicide. Often, this was the problem of access, where grieving relatives might not allow access to documents such as diaries, or the problem that documents might lack validity because relatives could have tampered with them in order to remove any blame from themselves or the deceased. There were two main approaches that essentially failed to apply the method to the context. Some became side-tracked and produced a précis of Durkheim s study, and others wrote about qualitative methods in general rather than the specific features of qualitative documents. Of the latter, many drifted into accounts of unstructured interviews and discussed the verbal responses 4
of family and others to questioning. Some research characteristics of suicide emerged here which could be rewarded as partial application. In addition, some students focused on the usefulness of qualitative documents, data or methods to coroners, rather than to sociologists, thereby seriously limiting the range of marks available. Theory and Methods Question 04 This question was generally answered reasonably well. The positivist-interpretivist debate figured in the core of most answers and most students were able to apply this knowledge to the question, with positivists rejecting the statement and interpretivists in support. The better answers accurately discussed Popper and Kuhn, and applied these views to sociology specifically. Some students were able to extend the debate into the analysis of the realists and towards an analysis of the concept of science, and thus to a more sophisticated evaluation of the issues. Most responses covered the question of whether sociology can be a science, but fewer discussed effectively whether it should be classed as a science. Good answers included a debate about the difference between studying human beings and inanimate objects. Although many students were able to produce a positivist versus interpretivist debate, evaluation was often by juxtaposition rather than being completed explicitly. While Popper and Kuhn were referred to regularly, they were not always used appropriately to answer the question. Value freedom debates often appeared as stand-alone sections in the answer and were not well incorporated into the debate. Weber was often incorrectly cited. There were two reasonably successful types of response. One was a fairly straightforward positivist/interpretivist debate of varying degrees of breadth and/or depth, and better ones were similar but with Popper and Kuhn bolted on. Popper s swans were a cause of confusion for many, who were unable to explain falsificationism adequately; even when this concept was reasonably well explained it was not always linked explicitly to the question. Kuhn was generally offered in a fairly tentative manner, which lacked depth and explicit focus. The Enlightenment was sometimes used as a framework; likewise postmodernism tended to appear in concluding comments with little development in line with the question. Marxism was generally used in a limited manner with a comment about science, sometimes joined by feminism. Very few students explicitly distinguished between cannot and should not, and Gouldner and Becker appeared rarely. Less focused identification of Durkheim s suicide study was presented, often with considerable details of findings. Some students decided that topics like social policy, value freedom or theories should be included without knowing how to link them appropriately. A significant minority of students were unable to develop an answer of much substance, although there was sometimes enough of a sense of the central theoretical issue to access a reasonable mark for AO1 and a low to a middling mark for AO2. A small number were unable even to do this, however, while a very few made no effort to attempt this question. 5
Section B Stratification and Differentiation with Theory and Methods Very few students opted for this section and the following comments are based on a very limited range of student responses. Stratification and Differentiation Question 05 A range of feminist theories was identified in the stronger answers with conceptual, theorybased discussion. Some limited empirical detail was evident. Good answers were able to link feminist theories to an understanding of gender inequality. This was illustrated using a range of inequalities such as work, domestic labour and gender socialisation. Some more sophisticated answers included evaluation from a black feminist perspective and went on to consider the role of class and ethnicity in combination with gender. Most answers could identify some aspects of feminism and how these explain gender inequality. Often these were generalised and lacked different feminist approaches or examples of named feminist studies. Some answers were more reliant on the Item and attempted to develop this, but with limited success, for example, in discussing socialisation. Weaker answers failed to distinguish between, or even consider, feminist theories and showed only generalised awareness of inequality with some assertions about positive change. Answers often focused on a range of gender inequalities (employment, pay and promotion) without linking these to feminist theories of stratification. Question 06 Stronger answers demonstrated a sense of economic changes over recent times. These answers showed a general understanding of the growth of the middle class, including the differentiation of the middle class, and subsequent decline in working-class traditional activities. Many answers were able to discuss the existence of an underclass, using analysis in structural and cultural terms. Some included Marxist theoretical analysis of structural changes. Many showed reasonable links to social class scales by way of recognition of changes. Most answers were able to identify a number of possible factors accounting for the changes in the class structure such as technology and the decline of manual jobs. Some of these were more reliant on reproducing the Item, whereas others were better able to develop points arising from it. In many answers, material was not well applied to the question; for example, there was discussion of scales used to measure social class, but these were not linked to changes in the class structure. Weaker answers described economic and social changes but without reference to class structure and with a timelessness in the use of examples. Such answers also showed a lack of concepts. 6
Methods in Context Question 07 Answers were varied in their ability to demonstrate application of the method to the issues of the effects of poverty on life chances. Where students linked to the issue, this was explored in limited ways, with general comments on material deprivation and its possible causes. By contrast, when these were linked to research characteristics such as limited literacy, or the inability to understand or complete written questionnaires, the answer showed full application. Often points about poverty and life chances were not really tied in to the method, but these were rewardable as limited application. More effective answers used the Item as the basis of discussion about written questionnaires. This often led to more developed application. Many answers showed an absence of focused application and the issue of life chances and links with method were not in evidence in these. Most students were able to offer a methodbased account, but with few showing any attempts at application to the issue of the effects of poverty on life chances. Many answers were largely methods-only responses, differing only in the extent to which they offered a range of strengths and limitations and in their use of relevant methodological concepts. The best of these answers were able to offer practical, ethical and theoretical considerations of written questionnaires and linked these to positivist or quantitative research. Theory and Methods Question 08 This question was generally answered reasonably well. The positivist-interpretivist debate figured in the core of most answers and most students were able to apply this knowledge to the question, with positivists rejecting the statement and interpretivists in support. The better answers accurately discussed Popper and Kuhn and applied these views to sociology specifically. Some students were able to extend the debate into the analysis of the realists and towards an analysis of the concept of science and thus to a more sophisticated evaluation of the issues. Most responses covered the question of whether sociology can be a science, but fewer discussed whether it should be a science effectively. Good answers included a debate about the difference between studying human beings and inanimate objects. Although many students were able to produce a positivist versus Interpretivist debate, evaluation was often by juxtaposition rather than explicit. While Popper and Kuhn were regularly referred to, they were not always used appropriately to answer the question. Value freedom debates often appeared as stand-alone sections in the answer and were not well incorporated into the debate. Weber was often incorrectly cited. There were two reasonably successful types of response. One was a fairly straightforward positivist/interpretivist debate of varying degrees of breadth and/or depth, and better ones were similar but with Popper and Kuhn bolted on. Popper s swans were a cause of confusion for many who were unable to adequately explain falsificationism, and even when it was reasonably well explained it was not always linked explicitly to the question. Kuhn was generally offered in a fairly tentative manner, lacking depth and explicit focus. The Enlightenment was sometimes used as a framework; likewise postmodernism tended to appear in concluding comments with little development in line with the question. Marxism was generally used in a limited manner with a comment about science, sometimes joined by feminism. Very few students explicitly distinguished between cannot and should not, and Gouldner and Becker appeared rarely. 7
Less focused identification of Durkheim s suicide study was presented, often with considerable details of findings. Some students decided that topics like social policy, value freedom or theories should be included without knowing how to link them appropriately. A significant minority of students were unable to develop an answer of much substance, although there was sometimes enough of a sense of the central theoretical issue to access a reasonable mark for AO1 and a low to a middling mark for AO2. A small number were unable even to do this, however, while a very few made no effort to attempt this question. Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website: http://www.aqa.org.uk/over/stat.html Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion 8