Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
0
University of Edinburgh: School of Social and Political Studies
SOCIOLOGY 2a (SCIL08012) 2014-2015 Thinking Sociologically
Mondays and Thursdays: 14:10-15:00, Teviot Lecture Theatre –
Doorway 5,
Medical School
1
University of Edinburgh: School of Social and Political Studies
SOCIOLOGY 2a (SCIL08012) 2014-2015
Thinking Sociologically
Contents
1. COURSE OUTLINE ....................................................................................................................2
2. COURSE ORGANISATION .......................................................................................................3
3. COURSE TEAM ..........................................................................................................................4
4. COURSE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................4
5. READING AND USE OF THE LIBRARY AND OTHER RESOURCES .................................5
6. ASSESSMENT - SEE ALSO THE FOLLOWING WEB PAGE: ...............................................6
6.1 ESSAYS ………………...……………………………………………………………………..7
6.2 COURSEWORK SUBMISSION DATE …………………………………….……….8
6.3 WORD COUNT PENALTIES ……………………………………………………….8
6.4 ELMA:SUBMISSION & RETURN OF COURSE WORK…………………………..8
6.5 EXTENSION POLICY………………………………………………………….…….9
6.6 PLAGIARSIM GUIDANCE FOR STUDENTS………………………………….…..9
6.7 REFERENCING IN COURSEWORK………………………………………………10
6.8 SEXIST, RACIST AND DISABLIST LANGUAGE……………………………….10
6.9 DISCUSSING SENSITIVE TOPICS ……………………………………………….10
6.10 TAKE HOME EXAM……………………………………………………………...11
7. ERASMUS EXCHANGES .....................................................................................................11
8. UNIT DETAILS........................................................................................................................13
8.1 COURSE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................13
8.2 UNIT 1: CHOICE, CHANGE & BEING HUMAN: KEY DILEMMAS IN
SOCIOLOGICAL THINKING (STEPHEN KEMP) ...............................................................13
8.3 UNIT 2: SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND SOCIAL INEQUALITIES (GIL VIRY) .16
8.4 UNIT 3: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
(HUGO GORRINGE) ................................................................................................................233
8.5 UNIT 4: THINKING THE PRESENT WITH CLASSICAL THEORY (ISABELLE
DARMON) ....................................................................................................................................26
9. TUTORIAL SCHEDULE AND TOPICS ..............................................................................32
10. ESSAY TOPICS .....................................................................................................................36
11. EXAMPLE EXAM QUESTIONS…………………………………………………42
APPENDIX 1: A GUIDE TO REFERENCING ........................................................................43
APPENDIX 2: INFORMATION FOR DISABLED STUDENTS............................................45
2
APPENDIX 3: GUIDE TO USING LEARN FOR ONLINE TUTORIAL SIGN-UP ............46
APPENDIX 4: SPS ESSAY MARKING FORM .......................................................................47
APPENDIX 5: SSPS COMMON ESSAY MARKING DESCRIPTORS……………….48
APPENDIX 6: INSTITUTE OF ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT: PROVISION FOR
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ...............................................................................................50
APPENDIX 7: STUDENTS ON A TIER 4 VISA………………………………………51
SOCIOLOGY 2a (SCIL08012)
2014-2015
Thinking Sociologically
Course Convenor: Hugo Gorringe. Office Hours: Tues 3.00pm-5.00pm. Office: Room 1.02, 1st Floor, 22 George Square. Phone: 650-3940; e-mail: [email protected]
Senior Tutor: James Foley email: [email protected]
Welcome to Sociology 2a.
This half course examines aspects of the development of late modern societies, and related transformations of identity, from a sociological perspective. In particular, the course looks to introduce you to some of the key theoretical approaches in the discipline. It looks at social change from a historical perspective and considers the relevance of ideas of ‘globalization’ to understanding the present day. It also considers the significance of issues of agency, social stratification and social change in contemporary social life. Most themes will be based on UK material, but some also draw on material from elsewhere in Europe, Asia and North America.
The course builds on some of what you have learnt in Sociology 1a and 1b, acts as a preparation for Sociology Honours, and serves as a course complete in itself for those who will not be taking any more Sociology undergraduate courses in Edinburgh.
NB this is only a half-course. To make a full course equivalent you will need to take another half-course. Those intending to proceed to Sociology Honours must take Sociology 2b: Researching Social Life (SCIL08013) in Semester 2. If in doubt check your degree curriculum!
Refer to this handbook regularly: it acts as a kind of contract between you and us. We shall expect you to know what it contains.
1. COURSE OUTLINE
Introduction: Week 1
Unit 1: Weeks 1-3: Choice, Change and Being Human: Key dilemmas in sociological thinking (Steve Kemp)
Unit 2: Weeks 3-5: Social stratification and Social Inequalities (Gil Viry)
3
Unit 3: Weeks 5-7: Social Movements & Social Change in a Global Context (Hugo Gorringe)
Unit 4: Weeks 7-10: Thinking the Present with Classical Sociology (Isabelle Darmon)
Course Round-Up and Exam Session: Week 10
2. COURSE ORGANISATION
2.1 Lectures
These take place from 14:10-15:00, Mondays and Thursdays in in weeks 1-10 of Semester 1.
Mondays and Thursdays: 14:10-15:00, Teviot Lecture Theatre – Doorway 5,
Medical School
Lectures will start at 14.10 prompt – please be seated by this time.
2.2 Tutorials
You are required, as a matter of University policy, to attend all tutorials and to let your tutor know whenever you have good reason (e.g. illness) for failing to attend. Tutorial attendance and the prompt submission of coursework are requirements for all students.
Please note that pressure due to work and problems of time management are not considered acceptable reasons for not attending tutorials or not submitting work on time.
Tutorials have a number of purposes. Firstly, they allow us to explore particular topics in more detail through reading and discussion (topics and readings are listed in Section 9). Secondly, they provide the opportunity to discuss lecture material and essay topics in small groups. Thirdly, we also use them to develop note-taking, précis and presentation skills. These are crucial skills for all undergraduate courses: for example, good note-taking and précis skills minimise the chances of 'unwitting plagiarism', and help you to think critically and independently. Tutors differ in how they run the sessions, but they may, at the end of a tutorial, assign set reading to be summarized for the following week. You should bring an outline of the assigned reading, written in your own words (i.e. not a photocopy with phrases highlighted!), summarising the key points and structure of the argument. You may be asked to present your précis as a basis for discussion of the set topic, and could also be asked, for example, to assess others' note-taking, and/or begin to use the combined notes from a number of readings to construct an essay plan, etc.
Tutorials will be held weekly, in weeks 2-10.
Tutorial Sign Up is done online using Learn. See Appendix 3 for full instructions on how to do this. You must sign up for a tutorial by Friday 19th September (the end of Week 1) or you will be randomly assigned to a group.
2.3 Course Information
In the course of the year, all important class information will be announced during lectures; copies will also be posted on the notice board outside Room G04/05, CMB (the School of Social and Political Studies Undergraduate Teaching Office). It is also important that you check your university email account regularly as this is the only way that teaching and office
4
staff can contact you.
A range of information and course material, including PowerPoint presentations and Key Readings, will be posted on Learn.
PLEASE DO NOT DISTURB THE SECRETARIAL STAFF OR THE COURSE TUTORS UNLESS YOU HAVE CHECKED THAT THE INFORMATION IS NOT ALREADY IN YOUR HANDBOOK, ON THE NOTICE BOARD, OR POSTED ON THE WEB-PAGE OR LEARN.
2.4 Student Representation
Sociology welcomes student input into the management of the course and its assessment and runs a Staff-Student Liaison Committee on which Sociology 2 is entitled to two representatives. A committee made up of one representative from each tutorial group will choose these representatives, and this will be arranged during the first half of the Semester. This committee will also have a chance to discuss issues and problems with the course convenor who will provide feedback on the action that will be taken. Any problems with the course should first be raised with your tutor or with the course convenor, Hugo Gorringe. We will also ask you to fill in an overall assessment form at the end of the course.
2.5 Sociology 2 Prize
This year we will be offering a cash prize and certificate to the student who gains the highest mark in Sociology 2a, to celebrate students’ achievements on the course. The Dorothy Smith award is named in honour of one of the leading thinkers in Sociology who was awarded an Honorary Doctorate here in 2014. The award will also appear on the student’s academic record.
3. COURSE TEAM
Stephen Kemp: Room 5.09, 5th Floor, Chrystal Macmillan Building, ph 650 3895/ [email protected] Office Hours: Thursday 10.30am-12.30pm
Gil Viry: Room 3.09, 3rd Floor, 18 Buccleuch Place, ph 651 5768/ [email protected], Office hours: Tuesdays 10.30am-12.30pm
Hugo Gorringe (Course Convenor): Room 1.02, 1st Floor, 22 George Square, ph 650 3940/ [email protected], Office Hours: Tuesdays 3.00 pm-5.00pm
Isabelle Darmon: Room 6.27, 6th Floor, Chrystal Macmillan Building, ph 651 1574/ [email protected] Office Hours: Tuesdays 3.00 pm – 5.
Elaine Khennouf (Course Secretary): Room G04/05, Ground Floor, Chrystal Macmillan Building, 651 1480 / [email protected]
4. COURSE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Aims:
• To provide continuity and contrast with the material taught in Sociology 1
• To extend the theoretical depth of Sociology 1
5
• To provide a basis for entry to Honours in Sociology, through the presentation of topics and theories that students will meet encounter in further study, such as debates around globalization, agency and social stratification
• To provide an interesting and useful stand-alone course for students not intending to pursue Honours Sociology
• To draw upon the Department's sociological and pedagogic strengths in a way that is appropriate at 2nd year level
• To deliver a course, using a variety of teaching approaches that will not only raise interest amongst students; but also introduce topics of theoretical significance in contemporary sociology.
Objectives:
By the end of the course, students should be able to:
understand and participate in key debates in sociology about core theoretical questions;
Be able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of different theoretical approaches;
Have learned how empirical research in sociology is informed and shaped by theoretical questions;
place debates about matters of current social interest into a theoretical and comparative framework;
read and interpret tables containing simple descriptive statistics relating to everyday matters of one or more societies;
present their ideas clearly and concisely to their peers, using reading and presentational materials appropriate to the topic.
5. READING AND USE OF THE LIBRARY AND OTHER RESOURCES
In order to get to grips with the key ideas examined in the course you need to read widely. The BASIC reading consists of the journal articles or book chapters listed on tutorial or essay reading lists, some of which will be available on Learn.
Most reading list entries indicate whether the reading is on Learn, on Reserve in the library, or available through the library’s electronic journals (e-journals) or as e-books. Some readings are available in more than one format (e.g. a book chapter may be available in Reserve, and on the open shelves) so make sure you investigate other sources if the one listed is unavailable. The handbook is up-to-date at the beginning of the semester, but the status of some readings may change – make sure you check the references properly on the Library Catalogue and on Learn.
The course does not use a text-book for teaching, but The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (ed. Gordon Marshall) is a very useful reference source. Electronic journals: where possible we refer you to relevant articles in journals to which the University has an electronic subscription. You should ensure that you familiarise yourself with
6
the extent of the University’s subscriptions and how to access them by visiting the following site: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/information-services/services/library-museum-gallery/finding-resources/find-ejournal/overview-ejournals Remember that electronic subscriptions may change and that some journal articles described in this handbook as ‘ejournal’ may no longer be available to you in electronic form. In most such cases you will find the paper copy of the relevant journal in the Library’s serials sections.
To access e-books, look up the book on the library catalogue as you would normally do;, and then follow the links from the catalogue page for the book
6. ASSESSMENT - see also the following web page:
http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/year_1_2/assessment_and_regs/coursework_requirements [Note though that Sociology 2 essays will now be submitted electronically only]
Our aim in assessment is to encourage students to cover a wide range of the themes raised, through reading, discussion and writing, and to examine knowledge of the course materials. With this in mind, we seek to differentiate each item of assessment, and to minimise the extent to which it is possible to pass the course by focussing excessively on just one or two elements.
One essay, and a 24-hour Take Home Examination constitute the assessment for the course.
In order to pass Sociology 2a you must achieve an overall mark of at least 40% (this mark is based on a weighted combination of essay and exam marks – see below). You must also achieve a mark of at least 40% on the exam.
In order to proceed automatically to Honours Sociology, students have to achieve a pass mark of at least 50% in each of these courses: Sociology 2a and 2b as well as meeting other School requirements. For more details see:
http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/year_1_2/progression_to_honours
Sociology uses the University's extended common marking scheme (please see Appendix 5). Marks for essays, tutorial participation and examinations are totalled separately.
Your final mark will be made up as follows: your essay contributes 40%; and the Take Home Examination contributes the remaining 60%.
The essay and examination script of any candidate falling on a margin (e.g. between passing and failing, or at a merit border) will be seen additionally by the external examiner before the final mark is awarded at the examiners' meeting in late May 2015. There is no fixed percentage of passes or of merits.
The most common cause of failure is that students do not complete the course-work or do not attend the examination. All students who fail the course must take the re-sit examination in August 2015. Details found here:
http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/year_1_2/assessment_and_regs/examination_requirements
Note: The Institute of Academic Development provides support for students’ learning and
7
study skills. For further information see Appendix 6
Resits: Please note that students who fail to complete their essay or exam for whatever reason; fail to gain 40% on the course overall; or who fail the exam will need to resit their assessment. Insert resit dates here.
Monitoring Attendance and Engagement
It is the policy of the University as well as good educational practice to monitor the engagement and attendance of all our students on all our programmes. This provides a positive opportunity for us to identify and help those of you who might be having problems of one kind or another, or who might need additional support. Monitoring attendance is particularly important for our Tier 4 students, as the University is the sponsor of your UK visa. Both the School and the individual student have particular responsibilities to ensure that the terms of your visa are met fully so that you can continue your studies with us. Tier 4 students should read carefully the advice set out in the Appendix to this Handbook. This can also be found here www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/current_students/student_support/students_on_a_tier_4_visa .You can also contact: www.ed.ac.uk/immigration
6.1 Essays:
• Essay topics, together with recommended readings, are provided in section 10 of this handbook. The essay relates to Units 1 and 2 of this course, and contributes 40% to your final class mark.
• Your essay should be between 1,500 and 2,000 words in length, including footnotes/endnotes but excluding the bibliography. The penalty for exceeding the 2000 word limit is one mark deducted for each additional 20 words over the limit. E.g., for a word count between 2001 and 2020 words one point will be reduced. If there are serious doubts about the stated word count, this will be checked electronically. Essays that are less than 1500 words will almost certainly fail to cover the topic in appropriate depth, and will be achieve a lower mark for these reasons.
• Essays must be: word-processed; double or one-and-a-half spaced, with left and right margins of at least 2 cm to allow room for tutor's comments. The font-size should be 11 or 12 point.
The essay forms a major part of the course, both in terms of its contribution to overall assessment and in terms of what you will learn from the course. We believe the exercise of putting your own views on paper is a very valuable discipline: it helps you to read the work of other people carefully, to sharpen your critical skills, to confront all sides of contentious issues and to present your arguments clearly and concisely. If you are not happy with your essay-writing techniques, refresh your memory about the advice in the Sociology 1 Handbooks, or look at one of the following:
Clanchy, J. and Ballard, B. 1998. How to Write Essays: a practical guide for students. (3rd edition)
8
Melbourne: Longman.
Northedge, A. 1990. The Good Study Guide. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
In Sociology 2 we use a structured form [a copy is provided in Appendix 4 at the end of this manual] to help us with the assessment of your essay, and to ensure that you receive feedback on a full range of aspects of your essay writing.
6.2 Coursework Submission Date:
ESSAY DEADLINE: 12pm (noon), Monday 27th October 2014 (week 7)
We will provide feedback on your essay, with appropriate comments and a provisional grade, within three weeks of submission. Feedback for coursework will be returned online via ELMA on 10 November 2014. Please note that your final grade is not confirmed until the external examiner has considered the marks given by the internal examiners.
6.3 Word Count Penalties
Your essay should be between 1,500 and 2,000 words (excluding bibliography)*. Essays above (2,000) words will be penalised using the Ordinary level criterion of 1 mark for every 20 words over length: anything between (2001 and 2020) words will lose one mark, between (2020 and 2040) two marks, and so on.
You will not be penalised for submitting work below the word limit. However, you should note that shorter essays are unlikely to achieve the required depth and that this will be reflected in your mark.
6.3 ELMA: Submission and return of coursework
Coursework is submitted online using our electronic submission system, ELMA. You will not be required to submit a paper copy of your work.
Marked coursework, grades and feedback will be returned to you via ELMA. You will not receive a paper copy of your marked course work or feedback.
For information, help and advice on submitting coursework and accessing feedback, please see the ELMA wiki at https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SPSITWiki/ELMA. Further detailed guidance on the essay deadline and a link to the wiki and submission page will be available on the course Learn page. The wiki is the primary source of information on how to submit your work correctly and provides advice on approved file formats, uploading cover sheets and how to name your files correctly.
When you submit your work electronically, you will be asked to tick a box confirming that your work complies with university regulations on plagiarism. This confirms that the work you have submitted is your own.
Occasionally, there can be technical problems with a submission. We request that you monitor your university student email account in the 24 hours following the deadline for submitting your work. If there are any problems with your submission the course secretary will email you at this stage.
9
We undertake to return all coursework within 15 working days of submission. This time is needed for marking, moderation, second marking and input of results. If there are any unanticipated delays, it is the course organiser’s responsibility to inform you of the reasons.
All our coursework is assessed anonymously to ensure fairness: to facilitate this process put your Examination number (on your student card), not your name or student number, on your coursework or cover sheet.
6.4 The Operation of Lateness Penalties
Management of deadlines and timely submission of all assessed items (coursework, essays, project reports, etc.) is a vitally important responsibility in your university career. Unexcused lateness will mean your work is subject to penalties and will therefore have an adverse effect on your final grade.
If you miss the submission deadline for any piece of assessed work 5 marks will be deducted for each calendar day that work is late, up to a maximum of five calendar days (25 marks). Work that is submitted more than five days late will not be accepted and will receive a mark of zero. There is no grace period for lateness and penalties begin to apply immediately following the deadline. For example, if the deadline is Tuesday at 12 noon, work submitted on Tuesday at 12.01pm will be marked as one day late, work submitted at 12.01pm on Wednesday will be marked as two days late, and so on.
6.5 Extension Policy
If you have good reason for not meeting a coursework deadline, you may request an extension from either your tutor (for extensions of up to five calendar days) or the course organiser (for extensions of six or more calendar days), normally before the deadline. Any requests submitted after the deadline may still be considered by the course organiser if there have been extenuating circumstances. A good reason is illness, or serious personal circumstances, but not pressure of work or poor time management. Your tutor/course organiser must inform the course secretary in writing about the extension, for which supporting evidence may be requested. Work which is submitted late without your tutor's or course organiser's permission (or without a medical certificate or other supportive evidence) will be subject to lateness penalties.
6.6 Plagiarism Guidance for Students:
Avoiding Plagiarism:
Material you submit for assessment, such as your essays, must be your own work. You can, and should, draw upon published work, ideas from lectures and class discussions, and (if appropriate) even upon discussions with other students, but you must always make clear that you are doing so. Passing off anyone else’s work (including another student’s work or material from the Web or a published author) as your own is plagiarism and will be punished severely. When you upload your work to ELMA you will be asked to check a box to confirm the work is your own. ELMA automatically runs all submissions through ‘Turnitin’, our plagiarism detection software, and compares every essay against a constantly-updated database, which
10
highlights all plagiarised work. Assessed work that contains plagiarised material will be awarded a mark of zero, and serious cases of plagiarism will also be reported to the College Academic Misconduct officer. In either case, the actions taken will be noted permanently on the student's record. For further details on plagiarism see the Academic Services’ website:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/students/undergraduate/discipline/plagiarism
6.7 Referencing in Coursework:
The recommended style for referencing follows the one used by the journal of the British Sociological Association, Sociology. Please consult with this journal (available online through the university’s e-journal service) to see how footnoting and referencing are done. In the bibliography, you should give enough information so that readers can verify for themselves the accuracy of both the information used and individual(s) referenced. Even if you are using E-Journals or Websites, you should give full details. This means the names of all the authors, the date of publication (and which edition, if several have been produced), and the title of the article or book. If you refer to an article, give the journal title, volume number and pages; if you refer to a book, give the publisher and place of publication. If you are not using this system (or an equivalent one) your essay will lose marks. See appendix 1 for a detailed guide to referencing.
6.8 Sexist, Racist and Disablist Language:
The language we use to write about social life can hide some very insidious assumptions: e.g. 'the working class' sometimes actually means 'the white, male, English working class’. The British Sociological Association has published useful guidelines on the way language can easily reflect racist and sexist views of the world. Your tutor will discuss these before your first essay is due. The gist of our advice is that you should never use male nouns and pronouns when you are referring to people of both sexes (use a plural 'they', 'their' or think of a different way to phrase your argument; or use 's/he', 'his/her'). You should also never use language which suggests that human races exist with distinct biologies, nor language which suggests that people disabled in some way are less than full members of society. You should also check the geographical dimension: for example is your source based on data from Britain, or only from England & Wales?
6.09 Discussing Sensitive Topics
The discipline of Sociology 2A: Thinking Sociologically addresses a number of topics that some might find sensitive or, in some cases, distressing. You should read this handbook carefully and if there are any topics that you may feel distressed by you should seek advice from the course convenor and/or your Personal Tutor.
For more general issues you may consider seeking the advice of the Student Counselling Service, http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-counselling
6.10 Take Home Exam
11
• You must complete one 24-hour Take Home Examination, held in December.
• There are no exemption arrangements.
• You must answer two questions, one relating to Unit 3, the other relating to Unit 4.
• The examination marks contribute 60% of the overall assessment.
• You must pass the examination in order to pass the course.
The Take Home Exam will be posted on Learn on XXX the XX of
December at 12 noon.
You will have until 12 noon on XXX the X X of D e c e m b e r to answer two
questions, one for each of the last two units of the course. The Take Home Exam will be submitted online using our submission system –
ELMA. For information, help and advice on submitting coursework and accessing feedback, please see the ELMA wiki at https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SPSITWiki/ELMA
Each answer must be no more than 1000 words. Include a word count for each answer. Do not exceed the word count. Word count penalties apply. Footnotes, endnotes and in-text references are included in the word count.
Your answers will be marked as exam answers written under semi-exam
conditions. Unlike an essay, you will not need to produce a bibliography.
You must pass the Take Home Exam (with a grade of 40% or above) to pass the course.
The exam marks contribute 60% of the overall assessment.
There are example Take Home Exam questions at the end of this handbook. Please
also consult the various Take Home Exam resources available on Learn. The emphasis in this year’s exam will be on questions that require students to draw on material across that unit, not just focus on one lecture/tutorial.
The board of examiners includes all course lecturers and one of the Department's external examiners (Prof Bernadette Hayes, University of Aberdeen). Questions for the December examination are set in Semester 1, and are designed to cover Units 3 and 4 of the course. We make considerable effort (including taking the advice of the external examiner) to ensure that the questions are easy to understand and not ambiguous. The questions should be answerable if you have attended the lectures and done the set reading: an answer that draws only on lecture notes will not receive good marks. The marking distributions of all markers are compared to ensure that no member of staff is marking particularly harshly or very leniently. Some scripts may be marked twice, particularly if they receive a failing mark or a first-class mark.
7. ERASMUS EXCHANGES
Joint and single honours Sociology students may apply to spend their third year at the University of Copenhagen or Jacobs University in Bremen under the Erasmus exchange scheme. This is an ideal opportunity to study abroad at leading universities that host many
12
international students. Many courses at Copenhagen are offered in English so fluency in Danish is not required; courses at Jacobs University are taught in English.
You can find out more about the Erasmus scheme here:
http://www.international.ed.ac.uk/exchanges/Erasmus/index.html
More about the University of Copenhagen here:
http://www.ku.dk/english/
And more about Jacobs University, Bremen here:
http://www.jacobs-university.de/welcome
If you are interested please contact the course convener in the first instance.
13
8. UNIT DETAILS
WEEK 1
8.1 COURSE INTRODUCTION
Monday 15 September: Introduction to the course (Course Team)
In this lecture the course team will introduce the main themes of the course, and provide an overview of the content of the four units that make up the course.
8.2 UNIT 1: CHOICE, CHANGE & BEING HUMAN: KEY
DILEMMAS IN SOCIOLOGICAL THINKING (STEPHEN KEMP)
This unit provides an introduction to some of the key theoretical issues that have stimulated and intrigued sociologists in recent times. In each lecture we look at a different conceptual distinction or contrast, in order to explore its value as a way of structuring social scientific thought. The particular distinctions we will consider are: human/non-human, real/constructed, rational/irrational, and structure/agency. One of the questions that we will explore in relation to each of these distinctions is whether it is (i) a productive and insightful way of distinguishing aspects of what sociology studies; or (ii) an artificial and problematic distinction that obscures more than it reveals. In exploring these theoretical distinctions we will also be engaging with the ideas of key classical and contemporary sociologists and social theorists, including Weber, Becker, Haraway, Latour and Archer.
Thursday 18th September: Human/Non-human
In this lecture we look at the question of whether sociologists should invoke a clear divide between humans and non-humans, or whether it is productive to blur that divide.
Key reading:
Latour, B. (2008) ‘Where are the Missing Masses: The Sociology of a Few Mundane
Artifacts’ in Deborah Johnson and Jameson Wetmore, eds. Technology and Society, Building
Our Sociotechnical Future, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 151-180, available at:
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/50-MISSING-MASSES-GB.pdf (see
especially pp.151-163, 172-175)
Cerulo, K. A. (2011) ‘Social Interaction: Do Non‐humans Count?’ Sociology Compass, 5(9),
775-791. (e-Journal)
Haraway, D. (2003) Excerpt from The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and
Significant Otherness, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, pp.26-32 (E-reserve)
Further Reading:
Cassidy, R. (2006). ‘Book Review: “I Want to Know about the Dogs”’, Theory, Culture &
Society, 23(7-8): 324-328 (e-journal)
14
Lorimer, J. (2007) ‘Nonhuman charisma’, Environment and Planning D, 25(5): 911-932 (E-
journal)
Barron, C. (2003) ‘A strong distinction between humans and non-humans is no longer
required for research purposes: a debate between Bruno Latour and Steve Fuller' History
of the Human Sciences, 16(2): 77-99 (E-journal)
Berman, P. (1994) ‘Rats, Pigs and Statues on Trial: The Creation of Cultural Narratives in
the Prosecution of Animals and Inanimate Objects’, New York University Law Review, Vol
69, May, pp.288-326 (e-journal)
Layder, D. (2006) ‘Chapter one: A Map of the Terrain’, Understanding Social Theory, second
edition, London: Sage (e-book)
Sayers, S. (2003) ‘Creative Activity and Alienation in Hegel and Marx’, Historical
Materialism, 11(1): 107-128, (see especially pp. 107-115) (E-journal)
Edwards, D. (1994) ‘Imitation and artifice in apes, humans, and machines’, American
Behavioral Scientist, 37(6): 754-771 (e-journal)
WEEK 2
Monday 22nd September : Real/Constructed
One key dispute within sociology relates to whether aspects of society and nature should be treated as ‘real’ or ‘constructed’. We look at this issue in relation to social problems and matters of nature/environment.
Key Reading:
Becker, H. (1963) ‘Outsiders’, Chapter 1 of Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York:
The Free Press (E-reserve)
Gardner, Carol Brooks (2003) ‘Pregnant Women as a Social Problem’, in D. Loseke and
J. Best (eds.) Social Problems: Constructionist Readings, New York: Aldine de Gruyter (E-
reserve)
Peterson, A. (1999). ‘Environmental ethics and the social construction of nature’,
Environmental Ethics, 21(4): 339-357 (E-journal)
Further Reading:
Proctor, J. D. (1998). ‘The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations,
pragmatist and critical realist responses’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
88(3): 352-376 (E-journal)
Burningham, K., & Cooper, G. (1999). ‘Being Constructive: Social Constructionism and
the Environment’, Sociology, 33(2), 297-316. (e-journal)
Jones, S. (2002). Social constructionism and the environment: through the quagmire.
Global Environmental Change, 12(4), 247-251 (e-journal)
15
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982) ‘Risks are Selected’ from Risk and Culture: An
Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley: University of
California Press (E-book)
Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988) ‘The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas
model’, American journal of Sociology, 94(1): 53-78 (e-journal)
Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985) ‘Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social
problems explanations’, Social Problems, 32(3): 214-227 (e-journal)
Abbott, A. (2001) ‘The Fraction of Construction’, Ch. 3 of The Chaos of Disciplines, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
Hacking, I. (1999) ‘Why ask What?’ in The Social Construction of What?, Cambridge
Massachusetts: Harvard UP
Thursday 25th September: Rational/Irrational
This session will analyse how useful it is to account for action by reference to its ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ character. It will also look at the way in which ideas of rationality fit into disagreements between economics and sociology about how to explain social action.
Key reading:
Hirsch, P., Michaels, S., & Friedman, R. (1987). “Dirty hands” versus “clean models”.
Theory and society, 16(3), 317-336. (e-journal)
Weber, M. (1947) excerpt from ‘The Fundamental Concepts of Social Action’ in The
Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Trans A. Henderson and T. Parsons, New York:
The Free Press, pp 115-118 (E-reserve)
Further reading:
Sharot, S. (2002). Beyond Christianity: A critique of the rational choice theory of religion
from a weberian and comparative religions perspective. Sociology of Religion, 63(4), 427-
454. (e-journal)
England, P. (1989). ‘A feminist critique of rational-choice theories: Implications for
sociology.’ The American Sociologist, 20(1), 14-28. (e-journal)
Wrong, D. H. (1997). Is rational choice humanity’s most distinctive trait?. The American
Sociologist, 28(2), 73-81. (e-journal)
Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice
theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Social Policy & Administration, 41(3), 232-250. (e-
journal)
Scott, J. (2000). ‘Rational choice theory.’ In G. Browning, A. Halcli, and F. Webster
(Eds).Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present, 126-138. Sage
16
WEEK 3
Monday 29th September: Structure/Agency
It is common in sociology to argue that social outcomes are the result of an interplay between social structures (e.g. institutions, power-relations) and agents (individuals and perhaps groups). In this session I introduce the structure/agency idea and then look at a number of challenges to it.
Key Readings:
Archer, M. (1995) excerpt from Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach,
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp.1-6 (e-reserve)
Gill Hubbard (2000) 'The Usefulness of Indepth Life History Interviews for Exploring
the Role of Social Structure and Human Agency in Youth Transitions', Sociological Research
Online, vol. 4, no. 4, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/4/hubbard.html (E-journal)
Further Readings:
Porpora, D. V. (1989) ‘Four Concepts of Social Structure’, Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 19(2), 195-211. (E-journal)
Layder, D. (2006) Understanding Social Theory, second edition, London: Sage (e-book)
Lipsky, M. (1980) ‘Street-Level Bureaucrats as Policy Makers’, Ch 2 of Street-Level
Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation
(E-reserve)
King, Anthony (1999) ‘Against Structure: A Critique of Morphogenetic Social Theory’,
The Sociological Review, 47: 199-227
New, Caroline (1994) ‘Structure, Agency and Social Transformation’, Journal for the Theory
of Social Behaviour, 24(3): 187-205 (E-journal)
8.3 UNIT 2: SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND SOCIAL
INEQUALITIES (GIL VIRY)
Unit 2 Overview: This unit explores the causes and consequences of current social inequalities in the UK and other democratic societies. The study of social stratification goes beyond individual-level explanations (e.g. ability, intelligence, hard work) to explain the unequal distribution of material and symbolic rewards across social groups. The primary goals of this unit are to better understand what social stratification is, how it is measured, how it works and how it is justified. Rather than covering multiple areas of stratification and types of inequalities, the unit will expose students to some central theories and mechanisms of social stratification. Theoretical and empirical research will give a better understanding of the persistence of social inequalities in democratic liberal societies. Because of their centrality within the sociological research, we will focus particularly on class, gender and race inequalities, although some ‘new’ forms of inequalites in the context of globalisation, such as cyber-gap and environmental racism, will be discussed in the last lecture of the unit.
17
Thursday 2nd October: Class structure and class inequalities
In this first lecture we will introduce the topic of social inequalities, focusing on class structure and class inequalities. We will begin by discussing classical approaches of Marx and Weber. We will then turn to contemporary approaches of class structure. In particular, we will question postmodern arguments that class is of declining significance in the light of other social divisions along the lines of identity, life trajectories or lifestyle. We will argue that investigating class and stratification needs to draw upon both ‘economic’ and ‘cultural’ approaches. This lecture will also be concerned with conceptual clarification, emphasising the different ways in which class and stratification have been defined. Differences and linkages between the concepts of inequalities, stratification, injustice, inequities and discrimination will also be explained. We will examine evidence about current class inequalities at the extremes: social elite vs. poverty and deprivation in the UK.
Key reading:
Chan, T. W. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2007). Class and status: the conceptual distinction and its
empirical relevance. American sociological review, 72(4), 512-532. [E-journal]
Neckerman, K. M. Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: causes and consequences. Annual Review
of Sociology, 33, 335-357. [E-journal]
Wilkinson, R. G. Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction. Annual
Review of Sociology, 35, 493-511. [E-journal]
Further Reading:
Beynon, H. (1999). A classless society?. In: Beynon, H. Glavanis, P. (Eds.). Patterns of
social inequality. Pearson Education, 36-53.
Clark, T. N. Lipset, S. M.(1991). Are social classes dying?. International sociology, 6(4), 397-
410.
Crompton, R. Scott, J. (1999). Introduction: the state of class analysis. The Sociological
Review, 47(S2), 1-15.
Jencks, C. (2002). Does inequality matter?. Daedalus, 49-65.
Marx, K. Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the communist party. Any edition or electronic
version on Marxist.org:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Nisbet, R. A. (1959). The decline and fall of social class. Pacific sociological review, 11-17.
Pakulski, J. Waters, M. (1996). The death of class. Sage (short loan).
Pantazis, C. Gordon, D. (Eds.). (2000). Tackling inequalities: where are we now and what can be
done?. Bristol: Policy Press (short loan).
Scott, J. (2004). If class is dead, why won’t it lie down?. In: Kohli, M. Woodward, A.
(Eds.). Inclusions and exclusions in European societies. Routledge, 127-146 (e-reserve).
Tilly, C. (2003). Changing forms of inequality. Sociological Theory, 21(1), 31-36.
Weber, M. (2004). In: The essential Weber, a reader. Whimster, S. (Ed.). Chapters 13, 176-
181 & Chapter 14, 182-194 (e-reserve).
18
Westergaard, J. (1994). Who Gets What: the hardening of class inequality in late twentieth century.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Western, B. Bloome, D. Sosnaud, B. Tach, L. (2012). Economic insecurity and social
stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 341-359.
Wright, E. O. (2002). The shadow of exploitation in Weber's class analysis. American
Sociological Review, 832-853.
WEEK 4
Monday 6th October: Families, Social Mobility and Educational Achievement
We will start this lecture about how operationalising (measuring) social inequalities and social mobility. In particular, we will look at the ‘employment-aggregate’ approach of social class and discuss how social mobility has changed over the last generations. Based on empirical evidence, we will show that the family and the education system play a major role in the reproduction of social inequalities. We will discuss the argument that neo-liberal policies in Britain and other industrial countries has enhanced the economic, cultural and social capital of the middle class and is associated with declining rates of social mobility. We will also emphasize the unexplained part of class inequality, underlining the strong variance in status or class among people with the same education and family background. In the second part of the lecture, we will discuss some stratification theories and stratification mechanisms through four contemporary (or late 20th-century) scholars: (1) Pierre Bourdieu: cultural reproduction and the role of habitus; (2) Dale Dannefer: Matthew’s effect or cumulative advantage over the life course; (3) DiMaggio: the network effect; (4) Thomas Piketty: the weight of inheritance.
Key Reading:
Gaddis, S. M. (2013). The influence of habitus in the relationship between cultural capital
and academic achievement. Social science research, 42(1), 1-13. [E-Journal]
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and
white families. American sociological review, 747-776. [E-Journal]
McLanahan, S. Percheski, C. (2008). Family structure and the reproduction of
inequalities. Annual review of sociology, 34, 257-276. [E-Journal]
Further Reading:
Blackburn, R. M. Prandy, K. (1997). The reproduction of social inequality. Sociology,
31(3), 491-509. [E-Journal]
DiPrete, T. A. Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality:
A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual review of sociology, 271-297.
Grusky, D. Social stratification. 4th edition. Westview Press (Part 6: Who gets ahead? Class
mobility) [Short loan].
Bourdieu, P. Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4). Sage
[Short loan].
Crompton, R. (2006). Class and family. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 658-677.
19
Crompton, R. (2008). Class and Stratification. 3rd Edition. Polity Press. Chapter 7, 117-135
[E-reserve].
Dannefer, D. (2003). Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course: Cross-
fertilizing age and social science theory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(6), S327-S337.
DiMaggio, P. Garip, F. (2012). Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of
Sociology, 38, 93-118.
Dumais, S. A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of habitus.
Sociology of education, 44-68.
Li, Y. Devine, F. (2011). Is social mobility really declining? Intergenerational class
mobility in Britain in the 1990s and the 2000s. Sociological Research Online, 16(3), 4.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Harvard University Press (e-book).
Savage, M., Devine, F., Cunningham, N., Taylor, M., Li, Y., Hjellbrekke, J., Le Roux, B.,
Friedman, S., Miles, A. (2013). A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC’s
Great British Class Survey Experiment. Sociology, 47(2), 219-250.
Schwalbe, M. Holden, D. Schrock, D. Godwin, S. Thompson, S. Wolkomir, M. (2000).
Generic processes in the reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social
Forces, 79(2), 419-452.
Thursday 9th October: Intersectionality: inequalities in interaction
In this lecture, we will explore the interrelations between class, gender, sexual and racial inequalities through the concept of intersectionality. In particular, we will show that these inequalities are often mutually produced and reproduced through formal and informal practices in work organisations. Such inequalities are often invisible to people in dominant groups. For example, heterosexuality is simply assumed in the workplace, not questioned. The lecture will discuss the impact of globalisation, mobile technologies and neo-liberal policies on the domination of the unencumbered white male model in the labour market. We will also emphasise that inequalities which exist within work organisations (and changes occurring in these) need to be related to inequalities in other areas of social life, in particular the household. We will show that, in most households, women still carry the major responsibility for childcare and household management for various reasons related to socialisation, labour market segmentation and gender identities. We will discuss how this gendered division of work is associated with inequalities of power and resource distribution, also outside the home.
Key reading:
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender &
Society, 20(4), 441-464. [E-Journal]
Browne, I. Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market.
Annual review of sociology, 487-513. [E-Journal]
Scott, J. L. Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (2010). Introduction: what’s new about gender
inequalities in the 21st century? In: Scott, J. L. Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (Eds.). Gender
inequalities in the 21st century. Edward Elgar Publishing, 1-18 [E-reserve].
Further reading:
20
Allan, G. Crow, G. (2001). Families, households and society. Palgrave (Chapter 5) [Short
loan].
Beasley, C. (2005). Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. Sage [Short
loan].
Bottero, W. Irwin, S. (2003). Locating difference: class,‘race’and gender, and the shaping
of social inequalities. The Sociological Review, 51(4), 463-483.
Cotter, D., Hermsen, J. M. Vanneman, R. (2011). The End of the Gender Revolution?
Gender Role Attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259-289.
Crompton, R. (2006). Employment and the Family. Cambridge University Press [E-book].
Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (2010). Family, class and gender ‘strategies’ in mothers’
employment and childcare. In: Scott, J. L. Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (Eds.). Gender
inequalities in the 21st century. Edward Elgar Publishing, 174-192 (Short Loan).
England, P. (2010). The gender revolution uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2),
149-166.
Glenn, E. N. (2009). Unequal freedom: How race and gender shaped American citizenship and
labor. Harvard University Press (Short Loan).
Jackson, S. Scott, S. (2010). Theorizing Sexuality. Open University Press (Short Loan).
Landry, B. Marsh, K. (2011). The evolution of the new black middle class. Annual Review
of Sociology, 37, 373-394.
Leicht, K. T. (2008). Broken down by race and gender? Sociological explanations of new
sources of earnings inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 237-255.
Mckie, L. Bowlby, S. Gregory, S. (2001). Gender, caring and employment in Britain.
Journal of Social Policy, 30(02), 233-258.
Kerbo, H. (2012). Social Stratification and Inequality, Eighth Edition. McGraw Hill (Chapter
10 & 11) (Short Loan).
Walby, S., Armstrong, J. Strid, S. (2012). Intersectionality: multiple inequalities in social
theory. Sociology, 46(2), 224-240
Walby, S. (2009). Globalization and inequalities: Complexity and contested modernities. Sage.
Chapter 7, 250-276 [E-reserve].
WEEK 5
Monday 13th October: Are social inequalities unfair?
Every persisting system of inequalities exists along with a meaning system which seek both to explain and justify the unequal distribution of resources. In this lecture we will explore how social inequalities are legitimised in present-day societies. In particular, we will discuss the controversial argument that capitalist society based on individual initiative and self-interest is dynamic because it is unequal. We will discuss various conceptions of distributive justice and the relation between social class and social justice. We will show that gender and race inequalities are often legitimated when embedded in legitimate class processes. The tension between liberty and
21
equality, already highlighted by De Tocqueville and other political philosophers, will be considered. Finally, we will discuss to what extent the class structure of contemporary Britain is meritocratic based on the notion of equality of opportunity.
Key Readings:
Dorling, D. (2011). Inequality: the antecedent and outcome of injustice. In: Injustice:
Why social inequality persists? Policy Press. Chapters 2, 13-32 [E-reserve].
Lovell, T. (2007). Nancy Fraser's integrated theory of justice: a 'sociologically rich' model
for a global capitalist era?. In: Lovell, T. (Ed). (Mis)recognition, social inequality and social
justice: Nancy Fraser and Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge, 66-87 [E-reserve].
Marshall, G. Swift, A. (1993). Social class and social justice. British Journal of Sociology, 187-
211. [E-Journal]
Further Readings:
Arneson, R. J. (1997 [1989]). Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. In: Pojman, L.
P. Westmoreland, R. Equality: selected readings. Chapter 23, 229-242 [Short Loan].
De Tocqueville, A. (1972). Democracy in America. Volume 1. Chapters 6-9 [Short Loan].
Fishkin, J. S. (1997 [1978]). Liberty versus equal opportunities. In: Pojman, L. P.
Westmoreland, R. Equality: selected readings. Chapter 15, 148-158 [Short Loan].
Fraser, N. Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition?: a political-philosophical exchange.
Verso [Short Loan].
Hume, D. (1997 [1740]). Justice and equality. In: Pojman, L. P. Westmoreland, R.
Equality: selected readings. Chapter 4, 46-49 [Short Loan].
Lucas, J. R. (1997 [1965]). Against equality. In: Pojman, L. P. Westmoreland, R. Equality:
selected readings. Chapter 11, 104-112 [Short Loan].
Nozick, R. (1997 [1974]). Justice does not imply equality. In: Pojman, L. P.
Westmoreland, R. Equality: selected readings. Chapter 10, 102-104 [Short Loan].
Rawls. J. (1997 [1971]). Justice and equality. In: Pojman, L. P. Westmoreland, R. Equality:
selected readings. Chapter 19, 183-190 [Short Loan].
Rousseau, J.-J. (1997 [1775]). The discourse on the origins of inequality. In: Pojman, L.
P. Westmoreland, R. Equality: selected readings. Chapter 3, 36-45 [Short Loan].
Vlastos, G. (1997 [1962]). Justice and equality. In: Pojman, L. P. Westmoreland, R.
Equality: selected readings. Chapter 13, 120-133 [Short Loan].
Thursday 16th October: Social inequalities in a globalising world
The profound changes arising from globalisation and digital technologies produce new opportunities but also ‘new’ forms of inequalities, such as the cyber-gap, mobility inequalities, environmental racism and cultural imperialism, to name a few. In this lecture, we will explore the growing importance of some forms of inequality in a globalising world and how they interact with more traditional bases of inequality. In particular, we will examine inequalities within global cities and across the North South divide. As a major issue raised in this unit, we will examine how globalisation has impacted social structures in advanced societies and potentially contributed to the widening of (some forms of) social inequalities. We will discuss the need of transnational
22
institutions and broad social movements to tackle social inequalities. The latter point will make the transition to the next unit of the course about social movements in a global context.
Key Readings:
Beck, U. (2007). Beyond class and nation: reframing social inequalities in a globalizing
world. The British journal of sociology, 58(4), 679-705. [E-Journal]
Chen, W. Wellman, B. (2005). Minding the cyber-gap: the Internet and social inequality.
In: Romero, M. Margolis, E. The Blackwell Companion of social inequalities, Chapter 22, 523-
545 [E-reserve].
Mills, M. (2009). Globalization and inequality. European sociological review, 25(1), 1-8. [E-
Journal]
Munck, R. (2005). Globalization and social exclusion: A transformationalist perspective. Kumarian
Press, Chapter 2. 21-39.
Further Readings:
Burawoy, M. Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology. In: Burawoy,
M. Chang, M. Fei-yu Hsieh, M. (Eds.). Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global
Sociology, Introduction, 3-27.
Cohen, R., Kennedy, P. M. Perrier, M. (2000). Global sociology. Palgrave Macmillan [short
loan].
Naguib Pellow, D. (2005). Environmental racism: Inequality in a toxic world. In:
Romero, M. Margolis, E. The Blackwell Companion of social inequalities (Chapter 7, 147-164)
[E-book].
Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its discontents. New Press (Chapter 7) [short loan].
Tickamyer, A. R. (2000). Space matters! Spatial inequality in future sociology.
Contemporary Sociology, 805-813.
Walby, S. (2000). Analyzing social inequality in the twenty-first century: Globalization
and modernity restructure inequality. Contemporary Sociology, 813-818.
REMINDER: Essay due by 12 pm (noon) Monday 27th October
WEEK 6
23
8.4 UNIT 3: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN A
GLOBAL CONTEXT (HUGO GORRINGE)
Unit 3 Overview: This Unit focuses on social movements and social change. Social
Movements are collectivities of individuals, organisations and networks who act in concert
to advance or stave off processes of social change. As such, they offer us an insight into
the interplay between structure and agency and allow us to ask why structures endure and
how things change. It will look at who chooses to protest, how they mobilise and what
impact activism has and ask how we should understand why people choose to/not to engage
in forms of protest.
Monday 20th October: Disrupting the Quotidian?
This first lecture seeks to place activism within its wider socio-structural context and ask why forms of inequality and injustice persist for as long as they do. It will outline some of the key arguments about false consciousness and the reproduction of the social order and take issue with them. It will then reflect on more interactive accounts of non-participation in social movements and explore how social movements seek to challenge taken-for-granted ways of being in the world.
Key Readings
Melucci, A. 1988. ‘Social Movements & The Democratization of Everyday Life’. In J.
Keane (ed.) Civil Society & the State. London: Verso: pp245-60 (e-reserve)
Norgaard, K. M. 2011. ‘Introduction: The Failure to Act, Denial versus Indifference, Apathy and Ignorance’ in Living in Denial. (E-Resource, available as book from New College: BF353.5.C55 Nor.)
Scott, J. 1990. ‘False Consciousness or Laying it on Thick? Chapter 4 in Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press: pp70-107 (HM1281 Sco.) (e-reserve)
Further Readings
Boycoff, J. 2007. ‘Limiting Dissent: The Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA’, Social Movement Studies 6(3): pp281-310
Buechler, S. 2000. ‘Local Structures and Social Movements’, in Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: Chapter 6 – pp145-160. Oxford: Oxford University Press (HN13 Bue.) (e-reserve)
Castells, M. 1997 ‘Communal Heavens: Identity and Meaning in the Network Society.’ M. Castells. The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell: 5-65. (short-loan)
Crossley, N. 2003. ‘From reproduction to Transformation: Social Movement Fields and the Radical Habitus’, Theory, Culture and Society 20(6): pp43-68
Gorringe, H and Rafanell, I 2007: ‘The Embodiment of Caste’. Sociology 41(1): pp97-114
Meyer, D. S. (2012) Protest and Political Process, in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology (eds E. Amenta, K. Nash and A. Scott). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons: (E-Resource)
Norgaard, K. 2006. ‘”People Want to Protect themselves a Little Bit”: Emotions, denial
and SM Nonparticipation’, Sociological Inquiry 76(3): pp372-396 (e-Journal)
24
Snow, D; Cress, D; Downey, L; and Jones, A. 1998. ‘Disrupting the 'quotidian': reconceptualizing the relationship between breakdown and the emergence of collective action’. Mobilization 3(1):1-22: available from GoogleScholar- wdfiles
Tarrow, S. 1998. ‘Acting Contentiously’, Chapter 6 in Power in Movement. Cambridge: C.U.P: pp91-105 (HM291 Tar.) (e-reserve)
Tilly, C .2005. ‘Introduction to Part II: Invention, Diffusion, and Transformation of the Social Movement Repertoire’, European Review of History 12(2): pp307-320
Thursday 23rd October: Activist Participation & Non-Participation: A Case Study of the Student Protests in the UK
Why might people who are sympathetic to the goals of a protest campaign choose not to participate in them? What distinguishes them sociologically from those who do participate? This lecture uses the 2010/11 student protests in the UK as a case study for understanding how contemporary social movements mobilise individuals into more alternative forms of political participation. The student protests saw large-scale regional and national demonstrations take place, as well as the formation of a network of simultaneous campus occupations across the UK, presenting a greater scale and diversity of protest participation opportunities than had been seen for a generation.
Key Readings
Hensby, A. 2013: ‘Networks, counternetworks and political socialisation – paths and barriers to high-cost/risk activism in the 2010/11 student protests against fees and cuts’, Contemporary Social Science 9(1): pp92-105 (e-journal)
McAdam, D. 1986. ‘Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer’, American Journal of Sociology 92(1) 64-90 (e-journal)
Further Readings
Snow, D; Soule, S & Kriesi, H. (eds) (2004). Blackwell Companion to Social Movements: Chapters 15, 16, 18 (E-Resource).
Barr, D & Drury, J. 2005. ‘Activist Identity as a Motivational Resource’, Social Movement Studies 8(3): 243-260
Corrigall-Brown, C. 2011. Patterns of Protest: Trajectories of Participation in Social Movements: Chapter 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press (E-Resource)
*Crossley, N. and Ibrahim, J. 2012. ‘Critical Mass, Social Networks and Collective Action: Exploring Student Political Worlds’, Sociology 46:596
Klandermans, B & Oegema, D. 1987. ‘Potentials, Networks, & Barriers’, American Sociological Review 52(4): 519-531
Norgaard, K. 2006. ‘”People Want to Protect themselves a Little Bit”: Emotions, denial and SM Nonparticipation’, Sociological Inquiry 76(3): pp372-396
Opp, K-D. 1988. ‘Grievances and Participation in Social Movements’, American Sociological Review 53(6): pp853-64
Salter, L. and Kay, J.B. (2011) "The UWE student occupation," Social Movement Studies 10(4) 423-429
25
*Van Steckelenburg, J & Klandermans, B. 2013. ‘The Social Psychology of Protest’, Current Sociology 61(5-6): 886-905
Schussman, A & Soule, S. 2006. ‘Process and Protest’, Social Forces 84(2): 1083-1108
REMINDER: Essay due by 12 pm (noon) Monday 27th October
WEEK 7
Monday 27th November: Globalising Change?
Contemporary movements emerge, mobilise and operate within a global context. Ideas, tactics and resources are diffused across countries and continents and both Political Opportunities and targets of mobilisation are no longer confined to the nation state in which protest arises. In this lecture we will consider globalisation as context, process and ideal in social movement enterprises.
Key Readings
Juris, J. 2004. ‘Networked Social Movements: Global Movements for Global Justice’ in M. Castells (ed) The Network Society. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: pp341-362 (e-reserve)
Smith, J 2002. ‘Bridging Global Divides? Strategic Framing & Solidarity in Transnational SMOs’, International Sociology 17(4): 505-528 (e-journal)
Further Readings
Crossley, N 2003. ‘Even Newer Social Movements? Anti-Corporate Protests, Capitalist Crises and the Remoralization of Society’, Organization 10(2): pp287-305
Gorringe, H and Rosie, M 2006: ‘“Pants to Poverty”? Making Poverty History, Edinburgh 2005’. Sociological Research Online, 11 (1)
Halvorsen, S. 2012. ‘Beyond the Network? Occupy London & The Global Movement? Social Movement Studies 11(3-4):427-33
Moghadam, V. M. 2012. ‘Global Social Movements and Transnational Advocacy’, in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology (eds E. Amenta, K. Nash and A. Scott). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons (E-Resource)
Olesen, T 2004: ‘Globalising the Zapatistas: From Third World Solidarity to Global Solidarity?’ pp.255-267 in Third World Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, 2004
Smith, J. 2004. ‘The World Social Forum and the challenges of global democracy’, Global Networks 4(4): pp413–421
Tarrow, S. 2001. ‘Transnational Politics’, Annual review of Political Science 4: pp1-20
Thorn, H. 2007. ‘Social Movements, the Media and the Emergence of a Global Public Sphere: From Anti-Apartheid to Global Justice’, Current Sociology 55(6): pp896-918
Uitermark, J & Nicholls, W. 2012. ‘How Local Networks Shape a Global Movement’, Social Movement Studies 11(3-4): 295-301
Van Stekelenberg, J. 2012. ‘The Occupy Movement: Product of this Time’, Development 55(2): 224-231
26
Thursday 30th October: Power to the People?
Occasionally, very occasionally, social movements succeed in overthrowing governments, transforming political systems or radically restructuring the world we live in. The fact that most movements do not, however, does not mean that they are meaningless or ineffectual. In this final lecture of the unit we will consider the outcomes of social movements and reflect on the questions of power and social change.
Key Readings
Fox-Piven, F. 2008. ‘Can Power from Below Change the World?’ American Sociological Review 73(1): pp1-14 [e-journal]
Castells, M. 2012. ‘Opening: Networking Minds, Creating Meaning, Contesting Power’, in M. Castells. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope. Cambridge: Polity: pp1-19 [HM851 Cas.] (e-reserve)
Further Readings
Burgess, S & Keating, C. 2013. ‘Occupy the Social Contract! Participatory Democracy and Iceland’s Crowd-Sourced Constitution’, New Political Science 35(3): pp417-431
Graeber, D. 2013. The Democracy Project. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Especially Chapter 2). [HC79.I5 Gra.]
Rucht, D and Neidhardt, F. 2002. ‘Towards a ‘Movement Society’? On the Possibilities of Institutionalising social movements’, Social Movement Studies 1(1): pp7-30
Wagner, D & Cohen, M 1991. ‘The Power of the People’. Social Problems 38(4):543-61
These ideas are illustrated in two more informal exchanges between key theorists:
Holloway J and Wainwright H. 2011. ‘Crack capitalism or reclaim the state?’ Red Pepper. Available at: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/crack-capitalism-or-reclaim-the-state/
Foran, J. 2012. ‘Let’s change the world without taking power violently’, The Journal of Classical Sociology 12(2): pp240-247
WEEK 8
8.5 UNIT 4: THINKING THE PRESENT WITH CLASSICAL
THEORY (Isabelle Darmon) This Unit harnesses so-called ‘classical’ social theorists to reflect on the dynamic of contemporary capitalism – and more particularly on the shaping of our habits, dispositions, and subjectivities. By asking questions to our present with ‘classical’ thinkers, we intend to both refresh our gaze on our world and to de-canonise these authors.
Monday 3rd November: Capitalism, habit – and the beginnings of social science
In this first lecture, we go back to the beginnings of social sciences to learn about the kinds of questions that haunted our authors and set the agenda of the social sciences: as we shall see, perhaps surprisingly, we do not leave the question of habit and the everyday posed in the previous unit. Capitalism – or rather, industrial
27
society – and the disruption of a world of habits and custom, as well as the shaping of a new habitus – these were some of the key questions presiding over if not the birth, at least over a key phase in the emergence and development of the social sciences, in the wake of utopian social reform.
Key readings
To nnies, F. (2001). Community and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [‘The argument’, pp. 17-21; Book 1, Section I, 1. pp. 22-24; 6. Pp. 27-29; 19. Pp 52-54] (e-reserve) + read the editors’ ‘general introduction’ (ix – xxx).
Simmel, G. (1997) The Metropolis and Mental Life in Simmel on Culture, edited by D. Frisby and M. Featherstone. London: Sage: 174-186. (e-reserve)
Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political And Economic Origins Of Our Time Author: Karl Polanyi, Publisher: Beacon Press. Chapter 3: “Habitation versus Improvement” (pp. 35-44). (e-reserve)
Additional readings
Thompson, E. P. (1993). Customs in common. New York: New Press. Chapter 1 (Introduction: Custom and Culture). (e-reserve)
Aldous, J., Durkheim, E., & Tonnies, F. (1972). An exchange between Durkheim and Tonnies on the nature of social relations, with an introduction by Joan Aldous. American Journal of Sociology, 1191-1200. (e-journal)
Camic, C. (1986). The matter of habit. American journal of sociology, 1039-1087. (e-journal)
Thursday 6th November: Max Weber and the ‘significance’ of capitalism
Max Weber thought that the newly emerging ‘social and cultural sciences’ should focus on understanding the
(social and cultural) ‘significance’ of capitalism. For Weber (as for Marx) there was nothing natural about
capitalism, its institution had to be explained as well as the way in which it transformed social relations and
individual human beings. In this class we explore Weber’s understanding of capitalism, its main features and
conditions, and we study his analysis of the defeat of traditionalist attitudes and modes of relation by capitalism,
in particular through the ‘capitalist’ spirit and the attendant fostering of ‘rational’ conduct of life.
Key readings
Weber, M. (1927) General economic history. Translated from the German by Frank H. Knight. London: George Allen & Unwin. Part 4, chapters 22, 27 and 30. (e-reserve)
Weber, M. (2002) The Protestant ethic and the "spirit" of capitalism and other writings. New York, N.Y. ; London : Penguin Books. [I.2. The “spirit” of capitalism, 8-28, + notes 37-42 + Weber’s notes 47 - 55] (e-reserve)
Kalberg, S. (2008) ‘The uniqueness and origins of the modern western work ethic’ in Kalberg, S. (Ed.). Max Weber: Readings and commentary on modernity. John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 69-74 [e-resource]
Additional readings
Kalberg, S. (2001) ‘Introduction’ in Weber, M. The Protestant ethic and the "spirit" of capitalism. Los Angeles: Roxbury Press. (offprint, hub reserve)
28
Löwith, K., Max Weber and Karl Marx, London: Routledge 1993. Introduction, pp. 42-50. (e-book on order)
Hennis, W. (1983) 'Max Weber's 'Central Question'', Economy and Society, 12: 2, 135 — 180 (e-journal)
Weber, M. (1989 [1894]), "Developmental tendencies in the situation of East Elbian rural labourers", in Tribe, K. (ed.) Reading Weber London and New York: Routledge , 158-187. (e-reserve)
Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political And Economic Origins Of Our Time Author: Karl Polanyi, Publisher: Beacon Press. Chapter 3. (e-reserve)
Ghosh, P. (2010). Max Weber, Werner Sombart and the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft: The authorship of the ‘Geleitwort’(1904). History of European Ideas, 36(1), 71-100. [see there translation of Weber and Sombart’s ‘Foreword’] (e-journal)
WEEK 9
Monday 10th November: Max Weber and contemporary capitalism –
capitalism without ‘spirit’?
In this class, we examine with Weber what happens when the ‘spirit’ vanishes and capitalism remains – thanks to its affinity with new forms of domination (especially bureaucratic/managerial domination) and the fostering of an (‘ingrained’) orientation towards it: in short we ask how it is possible to live in the ‘iron cage’ (or rather, as we shall see, the shell as hard as steel), Weber’s metaphor for a contemporary world dominated by capitalism and its attendant bureaucracy. We explore Weber’s characterisation of contemporary culture and the contemporary human being through the lens afforded by that image: i.e. the lens of ‘rationalisation’. We ask whether Weber’s account of the inner and external conditions for that cage or shell to prevail is sufficient to account for the enduring prevalence of capitalist relations. Finally we ask what paths of struggle were advocated by Weber.
Key readings
Weber, M. (2002) The Protestant ethic and the "spirit" of capitalism and other writings. New York, N.Y. ; London : Penguin Books. [II.2. Asceticism and the capitalist spirit, 105-127, + Weber’s notes 176 - 202] (e-reserve)
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Univ of California Press [ Volume 1, Part II – IV – The Market: Its Impersonality and Ethic (Fragment) 635-640; Volume 2, XI, Bureaucracy 956-1005] (e-reserve)
Additional readings
Weber, M. (1992) ‘Author’s introduction’, in M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, London: Routledge, pp. 13-31, translated by T. Parsons (1930, first English edition). (electronic resource)
Scaff, L. A. (1991). Fleeing the iron cage: Culture, politics, and modernity in the thought of Max Weber. Univ of California Press. Chapter 3 (pp. 73-120). [standard loan]
Weber, M. (2008) ‘Science as a Vocation’ in Max Weber's complete writings on academic and
29
political vocations. Edited by J. Dreijmanis. Algora Publishing, p. 25-52. (e-book)
Löwith, K., Max Weber and Karl Marx, London: Routledge 1993. Chapter 2. (E-Book on order)
Thursday 13th November: Marx and the capitalist production of social
relations
Marx too, of course, had sought to denaturalise capitalism and re-historicise it (against
the account provided by the classical political economists). On the back of Marx’s
understanding of practice, we discuss Marx’s view of how capitalism ‘produced’ entirely
new forms of social relations: for him, capitalism meant the switch from unmediated
domination of human beings over other human beings to domination mediated by ‘things’
(commodities). We also explore Marx’s analysis of the conditions for the reproduction of
capitalism, and in particular his analysis of the constant revolutionising involved in
capitalism (to compare with Weberian rationalisation).
Key readings
Marx, K. (1977). Capital, vol. 1, translated by Ben Fowkes. New York: Vintage.
Chapter 1 (‘The Fetishism of the Commodity and Its Secret’, 163-177). Readable on
line in the Internet archive, at
https://archive.org/stream/MarxCapitalVolume1ACritiqueOfPoliticalEconomy/Marx
%20-
%20Capital__Volume_1__A_Critique_of_Political_Economy#page/n5/mode/2up
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2014). The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. With
an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm. London: Verso. [multiple editions available in the
Library but I would recommend this one. Also available online at
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/]
Balibar, E. (1995). The Philosophy of Marx. London: Verso. Chapter 3: pp. 56-79
(‘Commodity fetishism’) (e-reserve)
Additional readings
Osborne, P. (2006) How to Read Marx, New York: Norton. Chapter 1: pp. 9-21) [e-
reserve]+ read chapter 2: 22-32.
Lefebvre, H. (1982). The sociology of Marx. Columbia University Press. Chapter 2:
25-58 (standard loan)
Löwith, K., Max Weber and Karl Marx, London: Routledge 1993.Chapter 3: pp. 51-
88. (E-Book)
WEEK 10
30
Monday 17th November: Dynamics of capitalism today and the
possibility of social transformation
In this class we turn our attention to the other key dynamics of capitalism unveiled by
Marx, namely that of primary or original accumulation (rather than ‘primitive
accumulation’). The two dynamics of capitalism unveiled by Marx – primary
accumulation and the reproduction of capital – are still ongoing today, and very much
so. In fact the rediscovery of dynamics of primary accumulation has opened one of the
most fertile theoretical perspectives for an understanding of contemporary capitalism –
and its constant opening of ‘new frontiers’ of accumulation (debt, land – urban and
rural, but also the body etc.). We review some of the most stimulating developments on
the basis of Marx’s thought (e.g. ‘accumulation by dispossession’ – David Harvey – and
other ‘contemporary versions of primitive accumulation’ – Saskia Sassen) and discuss
contemporary illustrations. Finally we raise the question of the possibility of social
transformation, from a Marxian perspective.
Key readings
Marx, K. (1977). Capital, vol. 1, translated by Ben Fowkes. New York: Vintage. Part
8. Readable on line in the Internet archive, at
https://archive.org/stream/MarxCapitalVolume1ACritiqueOfPoliticalEconomy/Marx
%20-
%20Capital__Volume_1__A_Critique_of_Political_Economy#page/n5/mode/2up
Harvey, D. (2009). The 'new' imperialism: accumulation by dispossession. Socialist
register, 40(40). Downloadable from
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/srv/article/view/5811
Mezzadra, S. (2011). The Topicality of Prehistory: A New Reading of Marx's
Analysis of “So-called Primitive Accumulation”. Rethinking Marxism, 23(3), 302-
321. (e-journal)
Additional readings
Sassen, S. (2010). A savage sorting of winners and losers: contemporary versions of
primitive accumulation. Globalizations, 7(1-2), 23-50. (e-journal)
Osborne, P. (2006) How to Read Marx, New York: Norton. Chapters 8 and 9: pp. 91-
111. (standard loan)
Bensaid, D. (2002). Marx for our times: Adventures and misadventures of a critique.
Verso. Chapter 4, 97-121. (standard loan)
Thursday 20th November: Course Wrap-up (Course team) In this final session we will bring some of the themes of the course together and provide advice about the exam.
31
Feel free to email questions to us in advance or come prepared with questions to the lecture.
WEEK 11
READING WEEK – No classes
32
9. TUTORIAL SCHEDULE AND TOPICS The table below lists the tutorial topic that is set for each week.
Week Date Tutorial Topic
1 Sep 15-19 No Tutorial
2 Sep 22-Sep 26 Human/Non-Human
3 Sep 29- Oct 3 Social Constructionist Accounts
4 Oct 6-10 Inequality and Poverty
5 Oct 13-17 Families & Class Reproduction
6 Oct 20-24 Distributive Justice?
7 Oct 27–31 Protest Participation and Non-Participation
8 Nov 3-7 Social Movement Outcomes
9 Nov 10-14 Tőnnies: Society vs Community
10 Nov 17-21 Weber and the Iron Cage
11 Nov 24-28 No Tutorial
Details of the tutorial topic for each unit can be found below.
TUTORIAL TOPICS FOR UNIT 1 Choice, Change and Being Human
Tutorial 1 Question: Pick a side and put together some arguments for either rejecting or retaining the human/non-human distinction. Bring in fresh examples to the discussion if you can (i.e. not those from the lecture or the reading!)
Cerulo, K. A. (2011) ‘Social Interaction: Do Non‐humans Count?’ Sociology Compass, 5(9),
775-791 (E-journal)
Haraway, D. (2003) Excerpt from The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and
Significant Otherness, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, pp.26-32 (E-reserve)
Tutorial 2 Question: Is a realist or constructionist account of ‘social problems’ and the ‘condition of the natural environment’ preferable?
Becker, H. (1963) ‘Outsiders’, Chapter 1 of Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York:
The Free Press (E-reserve)
Peterson, A. (1999). ‘Environmental ethics and the social construction of nature’,
Environmental Ethics, 21(4): 339-357 (E-journal)
33
TUTORIAL TOPICS FOR UNIT 2
Social Stratification and Social Inequalities
Tutorial 3 Question: Based on empirical evidence, discuss the often-heard argument that mainly poor people benefit from greater equality.
Neckerman, K. M. Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: causes and consequences. Annual Review
of Sociology, 33, 335-357.
Wilkinson, R. G. Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction. Annual
Review of Sociology, 35, 493-511.
Tutorial 4 Question: What is the relevance of examining cumulative advantages over the life course if class reproduction is taking place largely through the family in earlier years?
DiPrete, T. A. Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality:
A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual review of sociology, 271-297.
[E-Journal]
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and
white families. American sociological review, 747-776. [E-Journal]
McLanahan, S. Percheski, C. (2008). Family structure and the reproduction of
inequalities. Annual review of sociology, 34, 257-276. [E-Journal]
Tutorial 5 Question: Using the various conceptions of distributive justice described in the course and readings, discuss whether the inequalities examined in Acker’s piece are justified or unjustified.
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender &
Society, 20(4), 441-464. [E-Journal]
Lovell, T. (2007). Nancy Fraser's integrated theory of justice: a 'sociologically rich' model
for a global capitalist era?. In: Lovell, T. (Ed). (Mis)recognition, social inequality and social
justice: Nancy Fraser and Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge, 66-87 [E-reserve].
Marshall, G. Swift, A. (1993). Social class and social justice. British Journal of Sociology, 187-
211. [E-Journal]
TUTORIAL TOPICS FOR UNIT 3
Social Movements and Social Change
Tutorial 6 Question: Why do people participate or not participate in social protests? Ahead of this tutorial please think about a protest event that you heard about in advance:
If you chose to attend the protest:
Why did you choose to attend?
Do you think that you were sufficiently informed about the issues in question?
34
How did you get that information?
Did any of your friends attend?
Did you go as part of a group/organisation or in an individual capacity (either alone or with friends).
If you chose not to participate:
Why didn’t you take part?
Did you agree or disagree with the cause? Did you identify or not with the participants?
Did any of your friends attend? If so, did they ask you to go along?
What might have persuaded you to take part? Key Readings
Norgaard, K. M. 2011. ‘Introduction: The Failure to Act, Denial versus Indifference, Apathy and Ignorance’ in Living in Denial. (E-Resource, available as book from New College: BF353.5.C55 Nor.)
Hensby, A. 2013: ‘Networks, counternetworks and political socialisation – paths and barriers to high-cost/risk activism in the 2010/11 student protests against fees and cuts’, Contemporary Social Science 9(1): pp92-105 (e-journal)
Van Steckelenburg, J & Klandermans, B. 2013. ‘The Social Psychology of Protest’, Current Sociology 61(5-6): 886-905 (e-journal)
Tutorial 7 Question: How do social movements change the world and what changes do they achieve? Think of one concrete example of social change that is the result of social mobilisation. Is this outcome clearly the result of social protest? How do you think social movements work? Key Readings for Tutorial
Melucci, A. 1988. ‘Social Movements & The Democratization of Everyday Life’. In J.
Keane (ed.) Civil Society & the State. London: Verso: pp245-60 (e-reserve)
Crossley, N. 2003. ‘From reproduction to Transformation: Social Movement Fields and the Radical Habitus’, Theory, Culture and Society 20(6): pp43-68
Castells, M. 2012. ‘Opening: Networking Minds, Creating Meaning, Contesting Power’, in M. Castells. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope. Cambridge: Polity: pp1-19 [HM851 Cas.] (e-reserve)
Fox-Piven, F. 2008. ‘Can Power from Below Change the World?’ American Sociological Review 73(1): pp1-14 [e-journal]
TUTORIAL TOPICS FOR UNIT 4
Capitalism and Classical Theory
35
Tutorial 8 Question: Discussion in groups: Toennies contrasted 2 different types of
social bonds and human desires/affects (as ‘society’ vs. ‘community’) – but both types
are present in our contemporary world. How useful are these types to describe our social
bonds today? Provide examples + examples of tensions between the 2.
Readings
Tonnies, F. (2001). Community and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. [‘The argument’, pp. 17-21; Book 1, Section I, 1. pp. 22-24; 6. Pp. 27-29; 19.
Pp 52-54] (e-reserve) + read the editors’ ‘general introduction’ (ix – xxx).
Aldous, J., Durkheim, E., & Tonnies, F. (1972). An exchange between Durkheim and
Tonnies on the nature of social relations, with an introduction by Joan Aldous.
American Journal of Sociology, 1191-1200. (e-journal)
Tutorial 9 Question: Discussion in groups: Weber and Marx loved metaphors and came
up with really powerful images: Weber coined the metaphor of the ‘iron cage’ (or rather
the shell as hard as steel) for our rationalised world whilst Marx and Engels famously
suggested that, in Bourgeois society, ‘all that is solid melts into air’. What does each of
these images refer to exactly? Are they helpful metaphors to analyse the world we live
in? Are they as contradictory as they appear?
Key Readings
Weber, M. (2002) The Protestant ethic and the "spirit" of capitalism and other
writings. New York, N.Y. ; London : Penguin Books. [II.2. Asceticism and the
capitalist spirit, 05-127, + Weber’s notes 176 - 202] (e-reserve)
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2014). The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. With
an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm. London: Verso. [multiple editions available in the
Library but I would recommend this one. Also available online at
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/]
Additional reading
Weber, M. (1992) ‘Author’s introduction’, in M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism, London: Routledge, pp. 13-31, translated by T. Parsons (1930,
first English edition). (e-book)
36
10. ESSAY TOPICS
The essay is due by 12pm (noon) Monday 27th October (Week 7)
For this essay you need to choose one of the essay questions below.
See section 6 of this Handbook, and the relevant entries in the School Handbook for conditions surrounding extensions and late submission penalties. They can be found on the web here:
http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/year_1_2/assessment_and_regs/coursework_requirements
Essay Questions on Unit 1
1. How convincing is the idea that sociologists should avoid making a clear
division between humans and non-humans?
Latour, B. (2008) ‘Where are the Missing Masses: The Sociology of a Few Mundane
Artifacts’ in Deborah Johnson and Jameson Wetmore, eds. Technology and Society, Building
Our Sociotechnical Future, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 151-180, available at:
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/50-MISSING-MASSES-GB.pdf (see
especially pp.151-163, 172-175)
Cerulo, K. A. (2011) ‘Social Interaction: Do Non‐humans Count?’ Sociology Compass, 5(9),
775-791.
Haraway, D. (2003) Excerpt from The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and
Significant Otherness, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, pp.26-32 (E-reserve)
Cassidy, R. (2006). ‘Book Review: “I Want to Know about the Dogs”’, Theory, Culture &
Society, 23(7-8): 324-328 (e-journal)
Layder, D. (2006) ‘Chapter one: A Map of the Terrain’, Understanding Social Theory, second
edition, London: Sage (e-book)
Lorimer, J. (2007) ‘Nonhuman charisma’, Environment and Planning D, 25(5): 911-932 (E-
journal)
Barron, C. (2003) ‘A strong distinction between humans and non-humans is no longer
required for research purposes: a debate between Bruno Latour and Steve Fuller' History
of the Human Sciences, 16(2): 77-99 (E-journal)
Berman, P. (1994) ‘Rats, Pigs and Statues on Trial: The Creation of Cultural Narratives in
the Prosecution of Animals and Inanimate Objects’, New York University Law Review, Vol
69, May, pp.288-326 (e-journal)
Sayers, S. (2003) ‘Creative Activity and Alienation in Hegel and Marx’, Historical
Materialism, 11(1): 107-128, (see especially pp. 107-115) (E-journal)
37
Edwards, D. (1994) ‘Imitation and artifice in apes, humans, and machines’, American
Behavioral Scientist, 37(6): 754-771 (e-journal)
2. Does rational choice theory offer a convincing account of human action?
Hirsch, P., Michaels, S., & Friedman, R. (1987). “Dirty hands” versus “clean models”.
Theory and society, 16(3), 317-336. (e-journal)
Weber, M. (1947) excerpt from ‘The Fundamental Concepts of Social Action’ in The
Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Trans A. Henderson and T. Parsons, New York:
The Free Press, pp 115-118 (E-reserve)
Sharot, S. (2002). Beyond Christianity: A critique of the rational choice theory of religion
from a weberian and comparative religions perspective. Sociology of Religion, 63(4), 427-
454. (e-journal)
England, P. (1989). ‘A feminist critique of rational-choice theories: Implications for
sociology.’ The American Sociologist, 20(1), 14-28. (e-journal)
Wrong, D. H. (1997) ‘Is rational choice humanity’s most distinctive trait?’ The American
Sociologist, 28(2), 73-81. (e-journal)
Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice
theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Social Policy & Administration, 41(3), 232-250. (e-
journal)
Scott, J. (2000). ‘Rational choice theory.’ In G. Browning, A. Halcli, and F. Webster
(Eds).Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present, 126-138. Sage
3. Are the phenomena studied by sociologists ‘real’ or ‘constructed’? Develop your
argument in relation to either ‘social problems’ or ‘environmental issues’.
Becker, H. (1963) ‘Outsiders’, Chapter 1 of Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York:
The Free Press (E-reserve)
Gardner, Carol Brooks (2003) ‘Pregnant Women as a Social Problem’, in D. Loseke and
J. Best (eds.) Social Problems: Constructionist Readings, New York: Aldine de Gruyter (E-
reserve)
Peterson, A. (1999). ‘Environmental ethics and the social construction of nature’,
Environmental Ethics, 21(4): 339-357 (E-journal)
Proctor, J. D. (1998). ‘The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations,
pragmatist and critical realist responses’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
88(3): 352-376 (E-journal)
Burningham, K., & Cooper, G. (1999). ‘Being Constructive: Social Constructionism and
the Environment’, Sociology, 33(2), 297-316. (e-journal)
Jones, S. (2002). Social constructionism and the environment: through the quagmire.
Global Environmental Change, 12(4), 247-251 (e-journal)
38
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982) ‘Risks are Selected’ from Risk and Culture: An
Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley: University of
California Press (E-book)
Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988) ‘The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas
model’, American journal of Sociology, 94(1): 53-78 (e-journal)
Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985) ‘Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social
problems explanations’, Social Problems, 32(3): 214-227 (e-journal)
Abbott, A. (2001) ‘The Fraction of Construction’, Ch. 3 of The Chaos of Disciplines,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Hacking, I. (1999) ‘Why ask What?’ in The Social Construction of What?, Cambridge
Massachusetts: Harvard UP
Essay Questions on Unit 2
4. Building on the analysis of one or two examples, discuss the argument that
economic inqualities can only be fully understood if they are related to other
forms of inequality.
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender &
Society, 20(4), 441-464. [E-Journal]
Browne, I. Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market.
Annual review of sociology, 487-513. [E-Journal]
Scott, J. L. Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (2010). Introduction: what’s new about gender
inequalities in the 21st century? In: Scott, J. L. Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (Eds.). Gender
inequalities in the 21st century. Edward Elgar Publishing, 1-18 [E-reserve].
Allan, G. Crow, G. (2001). Families, households and society. Palgrave (Chapter 5) [Short
loan].
Bottero, W. Irwin, S. (2003). Locating difference: class,‘race’and gender, and the shaping
of social inequalities. The Sociological Review, 51(4), 463-483. [E-Journal]
Crompton, R. (2006). Employment and the Family. Cambridge University Press [E-book].
Crompton, R. (2008). Class and Stratification. 3rd Edition. Polity Press. Chapter 7, 117-135
[E-reserve].
Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (2010). Family, class and gender ‘strategies’ in mothers’
employment and childcare. In: Scott, J. L. Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (Eds.). Gender
inequalities in the 21st century. Edward Elgar Publishing, 174-192 [Short loan].
Glenn, E. N. (2009). Unequal freedom: How race and gender shaped American citizenship and
labor. Harvard University Press [Short loan].
Landry, B. Marsh, K. (2011). The evolution of the new black middle class. Annual Review
of Sociology, 37, 373-394. [E-Journal]
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and
white families. American sociological review, 747-776. [E-Journal]
39
Leicht, K. T. (2008). Broken down by race and gender? Sociological explanations of new
sources of earnings inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 237-255. [E-Journal]
Mckie, L. Bowlby, S. Gregory, S. (2001). Gender, caring and employment in Britain.
Journal of Social Policy, 30(02), 233-258. [E-Journal]
Kerbo, H. (2012). Social Stratification and Inequality, Eighth Edition. McGraw Hill (Chapter
10 & 11) [Short loan].
5. Discuss to what extent the British society is not a meritocracy. You will answer
this question by describing the role of the family and school in the class
reproduction.
Neckerman, K. M. Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: causes and consequences. Annual Review
of Sociology, 33, 335-357. [E-journal]
Dorling, D. (2011). Inequality: the antecedent and outcome of injustice. In: Injustice: Why
social inequality persists? Policy Press. Chapters 2, 13-32 [E-reserve].
Lovell, T. (2007). Nancy Fraser's integrated theory of justice: a 'sociologically rich' model
for a global capitalist era?. In: Lovell, T. (Ed). (Mis)recognition, social inequality and social
justice: Nancy Fraser and Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge, 66-87 [E-reserve].
Marshall, G. Swift, A. (1993). Social class and social justice. British Journal of Sociology, 187-
211. [E-Journal]
Pantazis, C. Gordon, D. (Eds.). (2000). Tackling inequalities: where are we now and what can be
done?. Bristol: Policy Press [Short loan].
Crompton, R. (2006). Employment and the Family. Cambridge University Press [E-book].
Crompton, R. (2008). Class and Stratification. 3rd Edition. Polity Press. Chapter 7, 117-135
[E-reserve].
Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (2010). Family, class and gender ‘strategies’ in mothers’
employment and childcare. In: Scott, J. L. Crompton, R. Lyonette, C. (Eds.). Gender
inequalities in the 21st century. Edward Elgar Publishing, 174-192 [Short loan].
Mckie, L. Bowlby, S. Gregory, S. (2001). Gender, caring and employment in Britain.
Journal of Social Policy, 30(02), 233-258. [E-Journal]
Kerbo, H. (2012). Social Stratification and Inequality, Eighth Edition. McGraw Hill (Chapter
10 & 11) [Short loan].
6. From the analysis of the following table, draw the main conclusions about class
reproduction and social mobility. Suggest a sociological interpretation of these
results.
40
Source: Li, Y. Devine, F. (2011). Is social mobility really declining? Intergenerational class mobility in Britain in the 1990s and the 2000s. Sociological Research Online, 16(3), 4.
Essay Readings:
Gaddis, S. M. (2013). The influence of habitus in the relationship between cultural capital
and academic achievement. Social science research, 42(1), 1-13. [E-Journal]
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and
white families. American sociological review, 747-776. [E-Journal]
McLanahan, S. Percheski, C. (2008). Family structure and the reproduction of
inequalities. Annual review of sociology, 34, 257-276. [E-Journal]
Neckerman, K. M. Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: causes and consequences. Annual Review
of Sociology, 33, 335-357. [E-journal]
Blackburn, R. M. Prandy, K. (1997). The reproduction of social inequality. Sociology,
31(3), 491-509. [E-Journal]
41
DiPrete, T. A. Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality:
A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual review of sociology, 271-297.
Grusky, D. Social stratification. 4th edition. Westview Press (Part 6: Who gets ahead? Class
mobility) [Short loan].
Bourdieu, P. Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4). Sage
[Short loan].
Crompton, R. (2006). Class and family. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 658-677.
Crompton, R. (2008). Class and Stratification. 3rd Edition. Polity Press. Chapter 7, 117-135
[E-reserve].
Dannefer, D. (2003). Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course: Cross-
fertilizing age and social science theory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(6), S327-S337. [E-Journal]
DiMaggio, P. Garip, F. (2012). Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of
Sociology, 38, 93-118. [E-Journal]
Dumais, S. A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of habitus.
Sociology of education, 44-68. [E-Journal]
Li, Y. Devine, F. (2011). Is social mobility really declining? Intergenerational class
mobility in Britain in the 1990s and the 2000s. Sociological Research Online, 16(3), 4. [E-
Journal]
Schwalbe, M. Holden, D. Schrock, D. Godwin, S. Thompson, S. Wolkomir, M. (2000).
Generic processes in the reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social
Forces, 79(2), 419-452. [E-Journal]
42
11. EXAMPLE EXAM QUESTIONS AND GUIDANCE
This is the first time that this course has run and so there are no mock exam papers as such. The following questions, however, are designed to give you a good idea of the sorts of questions you might expect. The key readings for each Unit offer the best starting point for revision. Please remember, though, that the best examples will demonstrate a familiarity with the Unit as a whole rather than particular lectures.
The exam itself will take the form of a Take Home Paper that you will have up to 24 hours to complete. The exam paper will be put up on Learn and emailed out and you will need to answer one question relating to each Unit.
Example Questions for Unit 3:
With reference to examples, explain why some people with similar grievance sand opportunities to others choose to participate in social movements whilst others do not.
Critically discuss the ways in which processes of globalisation have altered the ways in which social movements mobilise and organise.
By reference to examples, outline some of the outcomes of social mobilisation and consider how they are achieved.
Example Questions for Unit 4:
Early sociologists were spurred to sociological inquiry out of interest in the transformation of social bonds effected in ‘industrial society’. Compare 2 such analyses and the kind of insights they afford for sociological understanding today.
Max Weber and Karl Marx both thought that capitalism amounted to a complete as well as ongoing transformation of social relations. Discuss.
The study of ‘capitalism’ was crucial to early social scientists. It is back on the agenda of the social sciences. Discuss the need for this from a sociological perspective today.
43
APPENDIX 1: A GUIDE TO REFERENCING
The fundamental purpose of proper referencing is to provide the reader with a clear idea of where you obtained your information, quotes, ideas, etc. In Sociology we prefer the Harvard system of referencing. The following instructions explain how it works but if you need more details a good source is: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm
1. After you have quoted from or referred to a particular text, add in parentheses the author’s name, the publication date and page numbers (if relevant). Place the full reference in your bibliography. Here is an example of a quoted passage and its proper citation:
Quotation in essay:
‘Marx and Freud are the two great heroes of the radicalized Enlightenment’ (Callinicos, 1989: 172).
Book entry in bibliography:
Callinicos, A. 1989. Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Note the sequence: author, year of publication, title, edition or translation information if needed, place of publication, publisher.
2. If you are employing someone else’s arguments, ideas or categorizations, you will need to cite them even if you are not using a direct quote. One simple way to do so is as follows:
Callinicos (1989: 162-5) argues that postmodernism is more a symptom of ‘Good Times’ than of ‘New Times.’
3. Your sources may well include journal or newspaper articles, book chapters, and internet sites. Below we show you how to cite these various sources.
(i) Chapters in book:
In your essay, cite the author, e.g. (Jameson, 1999).
In your bibliography details should be arranged in this sequence: author of chapter, year of publication, chapter title, editor(s) of book, title of book, place of publication, publisher, article or chapter pages.
For example:
Jameson, F. 1999. ‘The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.’ A. Elliott. (ed.). The Blackwell Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell: 338-50.
(ii) Journal article:
In your essay, cite the author, e.g. (Gruffydd-Jones, 2001).
In your bibliography, details should be arranged in this sequence: author of journal article, year of publication, article title, journal title, journal volume, journal issue or number, article pages.
For example:
Gruffydd-Jones, B. 2001. ‘Explaining Global Poverty: A Realist Critique of the Orthodox Approach.’ Journal of Critical Realism, 3 (2): 2-10.
(iii) Newspaper or magazine article:
If the article has an author, cite as normal in the text (Giddens, 1998).
44
In bibliography cite as follows:
Giddens, A. 1998. ‘Beyond left and right.’ The Observer, 13 Sept: 27-8.
If the article has no author, cite name of newspaper in text (The Herald) and list the source in the bibliography by magazine or newspaper title.
For example:
The Herald. 1999. ‘Brown takes on the jobless’, 6 Sept: 14.
(iv) Internet sites:
If the text has an author specified:
Cite in the text as normal, e.g. (Weiss and Wesley, 2001). The date should be that which the text was published on. If this is not supplied, put ‘n.d.’ e.g. (Weiss and Wesley, n.d.)
In the bibliography, provide a full reference which should include author, date, title of website, URL address as well as date accessed. For example:
Weiss, S. and Wesley, K. 2001. ‘Postmodernism and its Critics.’ Available at: http://.www.brief.berkeley.edu/phil/postmodern.html [Accessed May 12, 2010]
If there is no date for the material on the website, enter ‘n.d.’ in its place, e.g.
Weiss, S. and Wesley, K. n.d.. ‘Postmodernism and its Critics.’ Available at: http://.www.brief.berkeley.edu/phil/postmodern.html [Accessed May 12, 2010]
If the text has no author specified:
In the text cite the organization/publisher behind the website if this is apparent e.g. (Centre for Europe’s Children, 2000). If this is not apparent cite the web address, e.g. (http://Eurochild.gla.ac.uk/, 2000). The date should be that which the text was published on. If this is not supplied, put ‘n.d.’, e.g. (http://Eurochild.gla.ac.uk/, n.d.).
In the bibliography, if the organization/publisher is apparent provide a full reference including the title of the website, URL address, publisher or owner of the site.
For example: ASEM Resource Centre (2001) ‘Fourteen Countries Meet in Manila to Tackle Childhood Trafficking’ (www.asem.org). [Accessed 23 Oct, 2010].
If there is no organization/publisher apparent start the bibliographic citation with the website: For example:
www.asem.org 2001. ‘Fourteen Countries Meet in Manila to Tackle Childhood Trafficking’ [Accessed 23 Oct, 2010].
If there is no date for the material on the website, enter ‘n.d.’ in its place, for example:
www.asem.org n.d. ‘Fourteen Countries Meet in Manila to Tackle Childhood Trafficking’ [Accessed 23 Oct, 2010]
45
APPENDIX 2: INFORMATION FOR DISABLED STUDENTS
The School welcomes students with disabilities (including those with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia) and is working to make all its courses accessible. If you have special needs which may require adjustments to be made to ensure access to such settings as lectures, tutorials or exams, you should discuss these with your Personal Tutor who will advise on the appropriate procedures.
You can also contact the Disability Office, Third Floor Main Library Building, (telephone 650 6828) and an Advisor will be happy to meet with you. The Advisor can discuss possible adjustments and specific examination arrangements with you, assist you with an application for Disabled Students' Allowance, give you information about available technology and personal assistance such as note takers, proof readers or dyslexia tutors, and prepare a Learning Profile for your School which outlines recommended adjustments. You will be expected to provide the Disability Office with evidence of disability - either a letter from your GP or specialist, or evidence of specific learning difficulty. For dyslexia or dyspraxia this evidence must be a recent Chartered Educational Psychologist's assessment. If you do not have this, the Disability Office can put you in touch with an independent Educational Psychologist.
For more information see:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-disability-service/home
46
APPENDIX 3: Guide to Using Learn for Online Tutorial Sign-Up
Guide to Using LEARN for Online Tutorial Sign-Up:
The following is a guide to using LEARN to sign up for your tutorial. If you have any
problems using the LEARN sign up, please contact the course secretary by email
Tutorial sign up will open on (15 September 2014 at 15.00), after the first lecture has
taken place, and will close at 12 noon on the Friday of Week 1 26 September 2014.
Step 1 – Accessing LEARN course pages
Access to LEARN is through the MyEd Portal. You will be given a log-in and password
during Freshers’ Week. Once you are logged into MyEd, you should see a tab called
‘Courses’ which will list the active LEARN pages for your courses under ‘myLEARN’.
Step 2 – Welcome to LEARN
Once you have clicked on the relevant course from the list, you will see the Course
Content page. There will be icons for the different resources available, including one
called ‘Tutorial Sign Up’. Please take note of any instructions there.
Step 3 – Signing up for your tutorial
Clicking on Tutorial Sign Up will take you to the sign up page where all the available
tutorial groups are listed along with the running time and location.
Once you have selected the group you would like to attend, click on the ‘Sign up’ button.
A confirmation screen will display.
IMPORTANT: If you change your mind after having chosen a tutorial you cannot go
back and change it and you will need to email the course secretary. Reassignments once
tutorials are full or after the sign-up period has closed will only be made in exceptional
circumstances.
Tutorials have restricted numbers and it is important to sign up as soon as possible. The
tutorial sign up will only be available until 12 noon on the Friday of Week 1 26
September 2014 so that everyone is registered to a group ahead of tutorials commencing
in Week 2. If you have not yet signed up for a tutorial by this time you will be
automatically assigned to a group which you will be expected to attend.
47
APPENDIX 4: SPS ESSAY MARKING FORM
Exam number
Course
Essay title
Marker’s name
Initial Mark
Penalties
Adjusted Mark
Overview
Aspect of performance + Avg -
Thinking skills (criticism, analysis, interpretation, logic,
argumentation, evaluation, use of comparison,
anticipating counter-arguments, etc.)
x
Comprehension (accuracy in facts, details and
representation of author’s views, breadth of reading,
grasp of major issues, etc.)
x
Writing skills (structure and organisation, clarity,
precision, grammar/spelling, referencing, use of
illustration, style, etc.)
x
Major advice to student
Main
strength(s) of
the essay
Main
weakness(es) of
the essay
This and
future essays
could be
improved by…
48
APPENDIX 5: SSPS COMMON ESSAY MARKING DESCRIPTORS
A1 (90-100%) An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality.
A2 (80-89%) An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content.
A3 (70-79%) A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.
B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%)
A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish.
Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-.
C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)
A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.
D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)
A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, over-reliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.
49
E (30-39%) An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps.
F (20-29%) An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources.
G (10-19%) An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts.
H (0-9%) An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing.
50
Appendix 6: Institute of Academic Development: Provision for undergraduate
students The Study Development Team at the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) provides resources and workshops aimed at helping all students to enhance their learning skills and develop effective study techniques. Resources and workshops cover a range of topics, such as managing your own learning, reading, note making, essay and report writing, exam preparation and exam techniques.
The study development resources are housed on 'LearnBetter' (undergraduate), part of Learn, the University's virtual learning environment. Follow the link from the IAD Study Development web page to enrol: www.ed.ac.uk/iad/undergraduates
Workshops are interactive: they will give you the chance to take part in activities, have discussions, exchange strategies, share ideas and ask questions. The schedule is available from the IAD Undergraduate web page (see above).
Workshops are open to all undergraduates but you need to book in advance, using the MyEd booking system. Each workshop opens for booking 2 weeks before the date of the workshop itself. If you book and then cannot attend, please cancel in advance through MyEd so that another student can have your place. (To be fair to all students, anyone who persistently books on workshops and fails to attend may be barred from signing up for future events.)
Study Development Advisors are also available for an individual consultation if you have specific questions about your own approach to studying, working more effectively, strategies for improving your learning and your academic work. Please note, however, that Study Development Advisors are not subject specialists so they cannot comment on the content of your work. They also do not check or proof read students' work.
To make an appointment with a Study Development Advisor, email [email protected]
(For support with English Language, you should contact the English Language Teaching Centre.)
Learning Resources for Undergraduates:
The Study Development Team at the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) provides
resources and workshops aimed at helping all students to enhance their learning skills and
develop effective study techniques. Resources and workshops cover a range of topics,
such as managing your own learning, reading, note making, essay and report writing,
exam preparation and exam techniques.
The study development resources are housed on 'LearnBetter' (undergraduate), part of
Learn, the University's virtual learning environment. Follow the link from the IAD Study
Development web page to enrol: www.ed.ac.uk/iad/undergraduates
Workshops are interactive: they will give you the chance to take part in activities, have
discussions, exchange strategies, share ideas and ask questions. They are 90 minutes long
and held on Wednesday afternoons at 1.30pm or 3.30pm. The schedule is available from
the IAD Undergraduate web page (see above).
Appendix 8 Students on a Tier 4 Visa:
51
STUDENTS ON A TIER 4 VISA (Long Version)
As a Tier 4 student, the University of Edinburgh is the sponsor of your UK visa. The University has a number of legal responsibilities, including monitoring your attendance on your programme and reporting to the Home Office where:
you suspend your studies, transfer or withdraw from a course, or complete your studies
significantly early;
you fail to register/enrol at the start of your course or at the two additional registration
sessions each year and there is no explanation;
you are repeatedly absent or are absent for an extended period and are excluded from the
programme due to non-attendance. This includes missing Tier 4 census points without due
reason. The University must maintain a record of your attendance and the Home Office can
ask to see this or request information about it at any time;
As a student with a Tier 4 visa sponsored by the University of Edinburgh, the terms of your visa require you to, (amongst others):
Ensure you have a correct and valid visa for studying at the University of Edinburgh, which, if
a Tier 4 visa, requires that it is a visa sponsored by the University of Edinburgh;
Attend all of your University classes, lectures, tutorials, etc where required. This includes
participating in the requirements of your course including submitting assignments,
attending meetings with tutors and attending examinations . If you cannot attend due to
illness, for example, you must inform your School. This includes attending Tier 4 Census
sessions when required throughout the academic session.
Make sure that your contact details, including your address and contact numbers are up to
date in your student record.
Make satisfactory progress on your chosen programme of studies.
Observe the general conditions of a Tier 4 General student visa in the UK, including studying
on the programme for which your visa was issued, not overstaying the validity of your visa
and complying with the work restrictions of the visa.
Please note that any email relating to your Tier 4 sponsorship, including census dates and times will be sent to your University email address - you should therefore check this regularly.
Further details on the terms and conditions of your Tier 4 visa can be found in the “Downloads” section at www.ed.ac.uk/immigration
52
Information or advice about your Tier 4 immigration status can be obtained by contacting the International Student Advisory Service, located at the International Office, 33 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9JS
Email: [email protected]
