The Student Room Group

AQA A2 Sociology Unit 4 20th June

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
I think it'll be a theoretical question in the crime and deviance bit- I hope it's right realism!
Also suicide hasn't come up at all under C+D as well as crime prevention and punishment so maybe those to! Or something on age/locality in terms of crime! But I would love state crime!
In context I have no clue- but I would love suicide and documents!
And theory and method- it's got to be a theory this time around!
Reply 61
i dread this exam. can anyone give me structure on writing the 33 marker!
Reply 62
Original post by sweetpea11
i dread this exam. can anyone give me structure on writing the 33 marker!


It's a Hegelian dialectical (something that influenced Marx's theory of class conflict)

Thesis - an opinion
Antithesis - opposing opinion
Synthesis - your view in relation to the above, this then becomes a new thesis so then a new antithesis is created and so on

This is the basis of any essay, also if you can relate the Hegelian dialectic as a theory into your essay examiners will be very impressed :wink:
Reply 63
Original post by Noodlzzz
It's a Hegelian dialectical (something that influenced Marx's theory of class conflict)

Thesis - an opinion
Antithesis - opposing opinion
Synthesis - your view in relation to the above, this then becomes a new thesis so then a new antithesis is created and so on

This is the basis of any essay, also if you can relate the Hegelian dialectic as a theory into your essay examiners will be very impressed :wink:


oh god.. hah.
what do you think could possibly come up in this exam?
Original post by Kay :)
Yes, I know, that's why I said 'like', I meant that they could mix another theory again, but it would make sense for it to be on its own, it's just so unpredictable, isn't!




Thanks so much :smile: I recall this now, I think my teacher gave it to us on a sheet of methods essay q's.

How are both your revision going for methods and theories, and if it had to be a theory - which one would you like?


sorry got ignoring you ! didnt see the reply haha
I think Id be happiest with the labelling approach or some marxism. Though I think I could handle most theory questions, id be screwed if i got a 33 mark on methods.
My teacher was telling is that Suicide has yet to come up so I've got my fingers crossed for that or anything to do with Left/Right Realism. Theres so much to revise!!!
Reply 66
Original post by Lightman123
sorry got ignoring you ! didnt see the reply haha
I think Id be happiest with the labelling approach or some marxism. Though I think I could handle most theory questions, id be screwed if i got a 33 mark on methods.


Haha that's fine :tongue: Yes, I agree with you there, 33 on methods is like grrr. There is just so much that hasn't yet come up, like postmodernism.
This exam is making me feel so depressed and anxious. There is just so much content to revises for.
I need to revise the method and theory section. I really don't want a theory question to come up for the 33 marker especially Interactionism/action theory. The textbook has got so much written about action theory such as labelling, ethnomethology,phenomenology e.t.c. Do we need to know it in that much depth?
Revision for this exam is making revision for my other exams suffer. I feel that I am going to fail this exam which means that I will not be going to University this September :frown:
The question that came up in January about assessing the usefulness of subcultural theory in explaining crime and deviance. What would we put for as evidence for the other side of the arguement? One would be it is useful and then the evidence would be cohen and cloward and ohlin and then the other side may be it is not useful but what would back this up confused.com :frown:
Reply 68
Original post by Daniel123
I find it hard with Ethnomethodology, Symbolic Interactionism and Phenomenology
Hope it doesnt come up


I do know what you mean, it's all a bit wordy and over-complicated. But think of it chronologically, with the differences lying on how much is given to structure/action, and how we construct/create meaning in the social world:

Social action theory (Weber) - balances structure and action as dependent on each other, e.g Calvinism (level of cause and meaning), and also showed four possible ways humans create meanings (instrumentally rational, value-rational, traditional and affectual).

Symbolic interactionism rejects this to a certain degree - giving all weight to action through symbols and taking role of the other (Mead), labelling influences meanings (Becker) and (Goffman) illustrates how interaction with others through either 'presentaton of self + impression management' or 'roles', can also potentially create meanings.

Try and categories these as primary social action theories. Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology criticise symbolic interactionism for focusing too much on the 'how', but not the 'why.

Phenomenology (Schutz) says this is due to 'typifications' - which is a shared meaning based on how the world appears to us, i.e. our senses, although, Ethnomethodologists (Garfinkel) agree with action, like Schutz but say the world is not an objective reality, like structural perspectives assume (Marxism, Functionalism etc), instead the world is very unstable, as the meanings we attach to interaction and the world constantly change, so to control this we are 'reflexive' were we construct a fixed/wordly meaning, which could be classed as 'commonsense', thus preventing instability (indexicality).

Generall with them all, although they differ on the 'how' and 'why' in constructing meanings, they all fall under the category of 'bottum-up' explanations, providing critisicms for structural theories.

Hope that wasn't too long, and I hope that made some sort of sense! :redface:
Original post by chigzy29
And suicide came up as a methods in context not a 12 or 21 mark in crime and deviance


Suicide was an aspect that had to be included in the 33 marker that I sat in January 2011. I believe there was a direct question in relation to Subcultural theory in the first half of that paper too.

Yes, it may be true that suicide was not in the theory section of the paper, so it couldn't be a topic to be completely ruled out for appearing once again. However, this is quite unlikely when you consider the numerous topics that have yet to show their face in the Crime & Deviance papers.

Since it is a relatively new spec, it is the general assumption that they will firstly go through and include each topic in some way, shape or form atleast once and then cycle them in a random order after this has been done.
Original post by Kay :)
I do know what you mean, it's all a bit wordy and over-complicated. But think of it chronologically, with the differences lying on how much is given to structure/action, and how we construct/create meaning in the social world:

Social action theory (Weber) - balances structure and action as dependent on each other, e.g Calvinism (level of cause and meaning), and also showed four possible ways humans create meanings (instrumentally rational, value-rational, traditional and affectual).

Symbolic interactionism rejects this to a certain degree - giving all weight to action through symbols and taking role of the other (Mead), labelling influences meanings (Becker) and (Goffman) illustrates how interaction with others through either 'presentaton of self + impression management' or 'roles', can also potentially create meanings.

Try and categories these as primary social action theories. Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology criticise symbolic interactionism for focusing too much on the 'how', but not the 'why.

Phenomenology (Schutz) says this is due to 'typifications' - which is a shared meaning based on how the world appears to us, i.e. our senses, although, Ethnomethodologists (Garfinkel) agree with action, like Schutz but say the world is not an objective reality, like structural perspectives assume (Marxism, Functionalism etc), instead the world is very unstable, as the meanings we attach to interaction and the world constantly change, so to control this we are 'reflexive' were we construct a fixed/wordly meaning, which could be classed as 'commonsense', thus preventing instability (indexicality).

Generall with them all, although they differ on the 'how' and 'why' in constructing meanings, they all fall under the category of 'bottum-up' explanations, providing critisicms for structural theories.

Hope that wasn't too long, and I hope that made some sort of sense! :redface:


Wow, your knowledge of sociology is impressive. That information is far too complex for me to understand, unfortunately :frown: How come your an expert? Did you sit this exam already? lol

Or, are you a Sociology teacher perhaps?
Reply 71
Absolutely dreading this exam, I have not revised at all been too focused on my other exams. With now about 3weeks from the exam I’ve just realised I got a maths c4 exam straight after it ! :O :O

I haven’t got a clue how I’m going to try and cover everything on top of all my other exam revision. For all the other modules I’ve just passed by pure luck with not much revision but this topic is too broad…
I was also wondering if anyone has the answers to the summary and exam style questions that are in the AQA textbook.

Thanks
Reply 72
Original post by Irishmonkey1992
Wow, your knowledge of sociology is impressive. That information is far too complex for me to understand, unfortunately :frown: How come your an expert? Did you sit this exam already? lol

Or, are you a Sociology teacher perhaps?


Thank you, :smile: Haha, no not at all! I just use my revision notes and class notes, and aim to understand the content first, rather than blankly memorising it first, so that what once was complex now makes sense. If you want you can PM me and we can discuss anything you like on Theory + Methods.
Reply 73
Original post by Kay :)
Thank you, :smile: Haha, no not at all! I just use my revision notes and class notes, and aim to understand the content first, rather than blankly memorising it first, so that what once was complex now makes sense. If you want you can PM me and we can discuss anything you like on Theory + Methods.


Do you (or anyone) have any notes on the post-modernism view of crime? Only thing I'm lacking in my notes :/
Reply 74
Original post by Noodlzzz
Do you (or anyone) have any notes on the post-modernism view of crime? Only thing I'm lacking in my notes :/


No sorry, :frown: I don't do the crime and deviance topic.
Reply 75
Original post by Noodlzzz
Here you go, these notes got me 99% for SCLY3.


Mate...you're a legend! Thanks!!
Reply 76
Original post by Kay :)
I do know what you mean, it's all a bit wordy and over-complicated. But think of it chronologically, with the differences lying on how much is given to structure/action, and how we construct/create meaning in the social world:

Social action theory (Weber) - balances structure and action as dependent on each other, e.g Calvinism (level of cause and meaning), and also showed four possible ways humans create meanings (instrumentally rational, value-rational, traditional and affectual).

Symbolic interactionism rejects this to a certain degree - giving all weight to action through symbols and taking role of the other (Mead), labelling influences meanings (Becker) and (Goffman) illustrates how interaction with others through either 'presentaton of self + impression management' or 'roles', can also potentially create meanings.

Try and categories these as primary social action theories. Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology criticise symbolic interactionism for focusing too much on the 'how', but not the 'why.

Phenomenology (Schutz) says this is due to 'typifications' - which is a shared meaning based on how the world appears to us, i.e. our senses, although, Ethnomethodologists (Garfinkel) agree with action, like Schutz but say the world is not an objective reality, like structural perspectives assume (Marxism, Functionalism etc), instead the world is very unstable, as the meanings we attach to interaction and the world constantly change, so to control this we are 'reflexive' were we construct a fixed/wordly meaning, which could be classed as 'commonsense', thus preventing instability (indexicality).

Generall with them all, although they differ on the 'how' and 'why' in constructing meanings, they all fall under the category of 'bottum-up' explanations, providing critisicms for structural theories.

Hope that wasn't too long, and I hope that made some sort of sense! :redface:


thanks for that. I have gained an insight now into it. Greatly appreciated :smile:
Reply 77
Original post by Daniel123
thanks for that. I have gained an insight now into it. Greatly appreciated :smile:


Your welcome. :smile:
Reply 78
Jesus i wish it was coursework again and not the 33 mark question. Any chance i can learn it all in the next 3 weeks with basic knowledge ?
Hi Yeah its the 33 mark question at the end that l hate- all added to the fact that the exam is on my 18th birthday! oh the joy lol xx

Quick Reply

Latest