School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
Module Outline
|
SO306 Introduction to Sociology |
|
Module Convenor: Dr Balihar Sanghera (b.s.sanghera@kent.ac.uk) Office Hours: Tuesdays 2-4 pm, Bridge Wardens’ College |
|
Module Summary This module introduces debates about the nature of economy, polity and culture, exploring traditional issues such as class, gender, ethnicity, sexuality and age as well as key topics in social policy and problems. We shall explore the significant themes in the social science. The module examines: · the major schools of thought that shape our understanding of contemporary society; · insights into how social order is maintained in the face of social divisions and change; · the interaction between social structures and social agents, as well as between public spaces and private lives; · classic and contemporary readings on topics ranging from education and class to family and the state; and · how social scientists undertake social research methods. |
|
Level: Stage 1 |
Teaching Period: 2005-06 |
|
|
Credits: 30 |
ECTS Credits: |
|
|
Pre-requisite and co-requisite modules: None |
||
|
Assessment: |
50% examination, 30% coursework (15% for a long essay and 15% for three reflection essays) and 20% seminar participation |
|
|
Lecture: |
Tuesdays 9.30-10.30 am, Bridge Wardens’ College |
|
Seminar: |
Tuesdays 11-12 noon, Bridge Wardens’ College |
|
Lecturers: Dr Balihar Sanghera Dr Rodanthi Tzanelli |
E-mails: |
|
Coursework deadlines Reflection Essay 1: Week 13 Reflection Essay 2: Week 19 Reflection Essay 3: Week 25 Long Essay: Week 25 |
|
Electronic support: Some course material is available through the server “Ward”. You will need a login in order to access the folder. The folder can be accessed through the following procedure: On a public PC, after the login, you should see an icon labelled “My Computer” on your screen (normally the upper left corner). Double click on “My Computer” and then on “Courses on Ward (V)”. Double click on “Courses”. You will see a great many folders – the folder for this module is SO306. There is a copy of this course outline on “Ward” from which you can click on the internet links to be taken directly to the website. Students are also expected to check their emails accounts regularly. |
|
Learning outcomes The intended learning outcomes are: · Critically assess the ways in which class, gender, ethnicity, age and sexuality are constructed and represented. · Describe and evaluate the debates surrounding key economic and cultural institutions. · Explain how key social policy addresses social inequalities and problems. · Describe and assess a range of theoretical perspectives relating to social stratification, identities, institutions and policy. · Use empirical data to explore the nature and extent of social divisions and problems in society, and critically assess the key data sources. At the end of this module successful students will also have developed skills in: · identify and gather appropriate library and web-based resources; · make judgements about their merits; and · use the available evidence to construct an argument to be presented orally or in writing. |
Key ResourcesBooks The core textbooks for this module are: · Tony Bilton et al., 2003, Introductory Sociology, 4th Edition, Macmillan, London. · Michael Haralambos and Martin Holborn, 2002, Sociology: themes and perspectives, 6th Edition, Collins Educational, London. Multiple copies are held in the Medway Campus Library and the Templeman Library. The following are also recommended: · Anthony Giddens, 2001, Sociology, 4th Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge. · Nicolas Abercrombie and Alan Warde, 2000, Contemporary British Society, 2nd Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge. Journals The Templeman library has a wide selection of journals which include articles on sociological issues. All the journals are available online through the Templeman Library webpage as well as in hard copy. You are encouraged to browse through journals. The most important are: · British Journal of Sociology · Sociology · Sociological Review · American Journal of Sociology · Work, Employment & Society · International Journal of Urban and Regional Research · Theory, Culture & Society Websites There is increasingly a vast amount of material on the internet on sociological issues. The following are recommended. Both have helpful links attached to them. · A Sociological Tour Through Cyberspace: http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/index.html · SOSIG - Social Science Information Gateway: http://www.sosig.ac.uk/sociology/ · Sociosite: http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/ · Home Office: www.homeoffice.gov.uk (contains publications, statistics and policy documents) You can also use other search engines to find other sites (e.g., www.google.co.uk ). However, be careful as the quality of internet material is variable. You should take care to reference internet sources accurately. Dictionaries Any sociology dictionary will be a useful resource but Gordon Marshall (ed.), 1994, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, will be particularly helpful. |
1 Introduction: aims of the course, and a preview of the major themes to be investigated (Bilton et al. Ch1; Giddens Ch1; Abercrombie and Warde Ch1; Haralambos and Holborn Introduction).
Seminar: Introduction
2 Classical Schools: a discussion of Marxism, functionalism and symbolic interactionism (Bilton et al. Chs4&17; Haralambos and Holborn Ch15).
Seminar: Daniel Fuseld, 2002, ‘Marx’s View of Capitalism’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
3 Contemporary Ideas: an exploration of postmodernism, feminism and the ‘normative turn’ in social science (Bilton et al. Ch17; Giddens Ch21; Haralambos and Holborn Ch15).
Seminar: Andrew Sayer, 2004, ‘Agendas for Moral Economy’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
4 Class: the nature of social class and its impact on people's lives, and different perspectives on social class (Bilton et al. Chs4&5; Haralambos and Holborn Chs1&4; Braham and Janes Ch2; Woodward (a) Ch3; Bocock and Thompson Ch1; Giddens Ch10; Abercrombie and Warde Ch3).
Seminar: Mike Savage et al., 2001, 'Ordinary, ambivalent and defensive: class identities in the North West of England', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
5 Reading Week
6 Gender: the social construction of gender, and its consequences on social practices (Bilton et al. Ch6; Haralambos and Holborn Ch2; Braham and Janes Ch3; Woodward (b) Ch2; Bocock and Thompson Chs1&2; Hall and Gieben Ch4; Giddens Ch5Abercrombie and Warde Ch4).
Seminar: Anne Witz, 1986, 'Patriarchy and the Labour Market', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
7 Sexuality: a discussion of the relationship between the body and sexual desires, behaviours and identities (Woodward (b) Ch4; Bocock and Thompson Ch5; Haralambos and Holborn Ch2; Giddens Ch5).
Seminar: Bob Connell, 1995, ‘Men’s Bodies’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
8 Ethnicity: the distinction between 'race' and ethnicity, and the meanings of ethnicity (Bilton et al. Ch7; Haralambos and Holborn Ch3; Braham and Janes Ch4; Bocock and Thompson Ch1; Giddens Ch9; Abercrombie and Warde Ch5).
Seminar: Sharon Lee, 1993, 'Racial classifications in the US census: 1890-1990', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
9 Age: the nature of the aging process, and its implementation for society (Giddens Ch6; Dallos and McLaughlin Ch4).
Seminar: Ann Robertson, 1997, ‘Beyond Apocalyptic Demography: Towards a Moral Economy of Interdependence’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
10 Online Resources Workshop: a session on how to access online resources such as e-journals and academic search engines. To be conducted by a librarian.
Seminar: continuation of workshop
11 Organisations: the nature, functions and conflicts within work organisations (Bilton et al. Ch11; Haralambos and Holborn Ch10; Allen, Braham and Lewis Chs7&8; Hamilton and Thompson Ch4; Giddens Ch12; Abercrombie and Warde Ch1).
Seminar: Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy, 1991, ‘Values: the core of the culture’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
12 Markets: the logic of the market, labour discriminations and state regulations (Bilton et al. Ch11; Haralambos and Holborn Ch10; Allen, Braham and Lewis Ch6; Hall and Gieben Ch3; Hughes and Fergusson Ch3; Giddens Ch13).
Seminar: Sharon Gewirtz, Stephen Ball and Richard Bowe, 1995, 'Choice, equity and control', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
Winter Vacation
13 Family and Households: the changing nature of family and households, and their implications for social practices (Bilton et al. Ch9; Haralambos and Holborn Ch8; Jordan and Pile Ch5; Hughes and Fergusson Ch2; Bennett and Watson Ch1; Abercrombie and Warde Ch6; Giddens Ch7).
Seminar: Faith Elliot, 1989, 'The family: private arena or adjunct of the state', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
14 Test: in-class timed written essay
Seminar: Discussion of essays and self-assessment
15 State: the nature and role of the state in contemporary society (Bilton et al. Ch8; Haralambos and Holborn Ch9; Allen, Braham and Lewis Ch2; Hamilton and Thompson Ch2; Hall and Gieben Ch2; Abercrombie and Warde Ch12; Giddens Ch14).
Seminar: Ralph Miliband, 1989, 'Class and power in contemporary capitalism', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
16 Welfare States: an examination of the different welfare regimes (Hughes and Fergusson Ch4; Cochrane, Clarke and Gewritz Ch1; Hughes and Lewis Chs1&2; Kane Chs8&9; Allen, Braham and Lewis Ch4; Hamilton and Thompson Ch2; Giddens Ch11).
Seminar: John Clarke, Mary Langan and Fiona Williams, 2001, ‘A new welfare mix: varieties of privatisation’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
17 Media: the role and influence of mass media in advanced industrialised societies (Haralambos and Holborn Ch13; Bocock and Thompson Ch8; Jordan and Pile Ch4; Corrigan Chs 5 &6; Thompson Chs1&2; Abercrombie and Warde Ch10; Giddens Ch15).
Seminar: John Thompson, 1995, 'The media and modernity', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
18 Reading Week
19 Consumption: the nature of consumption, and its changing patterns (Bocock and Thompson Ch3; Bennett and Watson Chs4&5; Corrigan Chs2, 3 &11, Slater Ch1; Edwards Ch1).
Seminar: Thorstein Veblen, 1953, 'The American Leisure Class', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
20 Tourism: a discussion of changing patterns of leisure and entertainment, in particular how tourism has developed (Corrigan Ch7; Urry Chs1,2,3&5)
Seminar: John Urry, 1990, ‘The social limits of tourism’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
21 Health and Social Care: the changing nature of management of health and social care in contemporary society (Bilton et al. Ch13; Haralambos and Holborn Ch5; Bocock and Thompson Chs4&5;Dallos and McLaughlin Ch3; Hughes and Fergusson Ch4; Abercrombie and Warde Ch9; Giddens Ch6).
Seminar: Michel Foucault, 1967, 'The birth of asylum', Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
22 Medicine: the nature and role of medicine in contemporary society (Bilton et al. Ch13; Haralambos and Holborn Ch5; Goldblatt Ch1; Hinchliffe and Woodward Ch2; Bocock and Thompson Ch4).
Seminar: Kevin White, 2002, ‘Foucault and the Sociology of Medical Knowledge’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
23 Developing Countries and Health Care: an examination of health care and medical system in transition economies and developing countries (various articles).
Seminar: Leslie Holmes, 1997, ‘Welfare Policies under Post-communism’, Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
24 Revision
Seminar: Revision and essay consultation
Easter Vacation
25 Revision
Seminar: Revision
26 Revision
Seminar: Revision
Tony Bilton et al., 2003, Introductory Sociology, 4th Edition, Macmillan, London.
Michael Haralambos and Martin Holborn, 2002, Sociology: themes and perspectives, 6th Edition, Collins Educational, London.
Anthony Giddens, 2001, Sociology, 4th Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Nicolas Abercrombie and Alan Warde, 2000, Contemporary British Society, 2nd Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Robert Bocock and Kenneth Thompson (eds), 1992, Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge.
John Allen, Peter Braham and Paul Lewis (eds), 1992, Political and Economic Forms of Modernity, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge.
Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben (eds), 1992, Formations of Modernity, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge.
Tim Jordan and Steve (eds), 2001, Social Change, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford.
Peter Braham and Linda Janes (eds), 2002, Social Differences and Divisions, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford.
Tony Bennett and Diane Watson (eds), 2002, Understanding Everyday Life, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford.
Peter Hamilton and Kenneth Thompson (eds), 2002, The Uses of Sociology, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford.
Introduction to Sociology: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
David Goldblatt (ed), 2000, Knowledge and the social sciences: theory, method, practice, Routledge in association with The Open University, Bath.
Steve Hinchliffe and Kath Woodward (eds), 2000, The natural and the social: uncertainty, risk, change, Routledge in association with The Open University, Bath.
Kath Woodward (a) (ed), 2000, Questioning identity: gender, class, nation, Routledge in association with The Open University, London.
Gordon Hughes and Ross Fergusson (eds), 2000, Ordering lives: family, work and welfare, Routledge in association with The Open University, Bath.
Rudi Dallos and Eugene McLaughlin (eds), 1993, Social Problems and The Family, Sage Publications in association with The Open University, London.
Kathryn Woodward (b) (ed), 1997, Identity and Difference, Sage Publications in association with The Open University, London.
Allan Cochrane, John Clarke and Sharon Gewritz (eds), 2001, Comparing Welfare States, Sage Publications in association with The Open University, London.
Gordon Hughes and Gail Lewis (eds), 1998, Unsettling Welfare: the reconstruction of social policy, Routledge in association with The Open University, London.
Sharon Kane and Mark Kirby, 2003, Wealth, Poverty and Welfare, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Peter Corrigan, 1997, The Sociology of Consumption, Sage, London.
Tim Edwards, 2000, Contradictions of consumption: concepts, practices, and politics in consumer society, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Don Slater, 1997, Consumer Culture and Modernity, Polity, Cambridge.
Kenneth Thompson (ed), 1997, Media and Cultural Regulation, Sage Publications in association with The Open University, London.
John Urry, 1990, The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications, London.
Statement of PlagiarismPlagiarism is a very serious offence and is considered as cheating under University rules. Plagiarism includes the following: · Submission of work that is identical or substantially similar for assessment in more than one course, whether in the same department or in other departments. · Passing off work as yours that is really the work of others (whether other students, text from a web page you have found or from a published source). · Duplicating sentences or paragraphs from other works in whole or in part without accurate citation of the text being quoted and proper referencing of the source in the bibliography. In other words, the only time you should use the words of somebody else in your work is in the form of a direct quote. This should be either indented or should clearly be in quotation marks and should include a direct reference immediately after the quote ends (name, date: page number) e.g. (Harvey, 1989: 64). Direct quotes are accepted academic practice but should be used sparingly in your work. The reference from which the quote comes should then appear in your bibliography. e.g. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford, Blackwell. Plagiarism does not include: · Summarising the arguments of someone else in your own words and citing them as a reference · Using published academic work to help you develop your own argument In each case, though, you should still include a reference in your text to the things that you have read at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph if you are referring directly to their work e.g. (Harvey, 1989). Disciplinary action will be taken under the university rules for plagiarism. |
Below you will find our guidelines for evaluating essays and examinations. Please note that these are guidelines. No two essay questions, let alone two essay answers, are the same. In addition, students are expected to improve across their years of study.
Outstanding (70% +)
An excellent understanding of material and contextualises it well; shows capability in handling ideas/theories/concepts/data; communicates clearly and effectively; shows insight and perceptiveness, a well-developed critical faculty and good judgment. A fresh and original, unusual or substantial contribution to the debate. Therefore, excellent work in all relevant respects.
· A mark in this range is given for an accomplished piece of work that offers a thorough, imaginative or highly original but appropriate answer to the question;
· Reading is demonstrated to be comprehensive and going beyond standard course material, bibliography is comprehensive;
· The essay is written in faultless prose with a convincing argument, structure and synthesis;
· A high degree of originality is shown in argument, methodology or presentation of data;
· The answer is imaginative and offers a novel and effective interpretation of the question;
· In rare cases where an essay makes an original contribution to sociological knowledge and is written to a publishable standard, a recognition of outstanding distinction will be given.
Very Good (65-69%)
Very good understanding of material and contextualises it well; tackles well ideas/theories/concepts/data; communicates clearly and effectively; shows insight and perceptiveness, a well-developed critical faculty and good judgment. A substantial contribution to the debate. Therefore, good work in all relevant respects, with only marginal weaknesses.
· the introduction is excellent, clearly and appropriately framing the essay as a whole;
· extensive and relevant readings are identified, outlined and located in an appropriate context with no serious omissions so that the essential points are identified and interrelated in a very good overall grasp of the topic in question and very good command of both the detail and the subtlety of the arguments;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a clear and critical manner that achieves a convincing overall synthesis, and also reveals elements of originality;
· the essay is very well organised, achieving an excellent balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis, with convincing and well-argued conclusions;
· sound rationale for collecting data and other material, including use of specialised resources and/or gathering of original data; very good use of the data and material (where empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is extensive and well-presented.
Good (60-64%)
Shows a firm grasp of material and contextualises it, has good research and presentation skills, argues well and effectively, is able to criticise and evaluate material convincingly and appropriately. In short, good to very good work in most relevant respects, with few weaknesses.
· the introduction is good, clearly and appropriately framing the essay as a whole;
· the most important literatures are outlined and soundly located in an appropriate context with few serious omissions so that the essay presents a sound critical discussion of the topic based on a good overall grasp of the chosen readings;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a clear manner that achieves a good overall synthesis without being original;
· the essay is well organised, achieving a good balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis with valid conclusions grounded in evidence;
· generally competent rationale and use of data collection methodology and good use of data, including specialised resources and/or some original data (empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is quite extensive and well presented.
Satisfactory (50-59%)
A competent essay that shows understanding of material and presents it satisfactorily. There is a coherent argument throughout and an adequate conclusion. In short, acceptable work in most relevant respects, but with some significant weaknesses.
· the introduction is adequate, providing a reasonable frame for the essay as a whole;
· the major approaches are outlined and adequately contextualised so that the major points are reasonably brought out and interrelated to reveal an adequate grasp of the topic but with a relatively unsystematic approach and some weaknesses in understanding and rigour;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together adequately, there is some attempt at synthesis but no originality, and there are some weaknesses in terms of the clarity of argument;
· the essay is adequately organised, achieving some balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis, with broadly satisfactory conclusions;
· weak rationale for gathering data and materials, some problems with actual data and other material collection and its interpretation (where empirical analysis is required)
· the bibliography is adequate, reasonably clear, and well-presented.
Not satisfactory (41-49%)
Limited work in most relevant respects, with several significant weaknesses.
· the introduction is weak, providing only a limited frame for the essay as a whole;
· some relevant literatures are outlined, but this is limited, patchy, unclear, and/or not adequately contextualised so that, although some major points are brought out, there are significant gaps, misunderstandings, and/or little grasp of detail or subtlety;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a weak manner and thus the essay conveys neither a critical understanding nor a reasonable synthesis;
· the essay is poorly organised, with a poor balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis but some attempt is made to draw conclusions ;
· there are significant problems with methodology for gathering material and its interpretation (applies where empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is limited and/or unclear and poorly presented.
Bare pass (40%)
EITHER generally unsatisfactory, inadequately planned and presented, with no or poor understanding but with some redeeming features. OR properly organised but more or less wholly irrelevant. In the former case, the work would have the following features
· the introduction is very weak, barely providing a frame for the essay as a whole;
· there is some mention of relevant literatures or approaches, but this outline is very patchy, unclear, and/or very inadequately placed in context with the result that the essays reveals little or no knowledge of their significance and fails to engage in critical discussion;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are not properly related together, resulting in an unsystematic approach, significant weaknesses in understanding and rigour, and no attempt at synthesis;
· the essay is poorly organised, with little or no structure, serious weaknesses in clarity, and little or no attempt to draw conclusions;
· limited ability to gather and summarize relevant data and other material or to interpret it (applies where empirical analysis is involved);
· the bibliography is very limited and/or unclear and poorly presented.
Poor and Fail (20-39%)
Inadequate work in most relevant respects, with many very serious weaknesses.
· the essay has a weak introduction, if any, providing little or no frame for the essay as a whole;
· there is little mention or understanding of relevant approaches so that they are presented in a highly restricted and unclear manner and/or with no sense of context;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are scarcely related together, and there is no proper synthesis;
· the essay lacks structure, is too short, is unclear, and conclusions are lacking or inadequate and ungrounded;
· no data, irrelevant data, or otherwise flawed data with inadequate rationales, if any, for data selection and overall methodology (applies where empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is non-existent or minimal and/or entirely unclear and inadequately presented.
Outright Fail (less than 19%)
Inadequate work in most relevant aspects, with many very serious weaknesses
· The essay has no introduction and no coherent structure throughout;
· There is no understanding of relevant approaches, the essay is incoherent on major themes and shows no understanding of the question;
· There is no understandable argument or proper synthesis;
· Structure is non-existent, the essay is very short, unclear and wholly lacking in conclusions;
· There is no supporting data, or an entirely inappropriate methodology has been used;
· No bibliography is presented
Grading Guidelines for Seminar ParticipationActive participation means that students are ready to articulate and explain their ideas, and listen and respond to others’ ideas. · ‘70% +’ – Students attend each lecture and seminar with questions about the lectures and readings. In engaged dialogues, they raise these questions for other students to discuss, and listen to contrary opinions. They initiate and develop critical issues concerning the seminar activities. They are well-structured and well-organised for the completion of their research projects. · ‘60-69%’ – Students complete their readings, but do not always reflect on the questions and issues raised during the lectures and seminars. Though they articulate their own views, they passively wait for others to initiate interesting issues. They are reasonably well organised for their own projects. · ‘50-59%’ – Students attend, prepare and listen attentively, but rarely enter into discussions. They are adequately prepared for their own projects. · ‘40-49%’ – Students are inconsistent in their attendance and preparations. They do not respect others’ contributions. They are also poorly prepared for their own projects. · ‘0-39%’ – Students are consistently ill-prepared and have poor attendance. They are rude and disruptive. They also fail to show any signs of organising their own projects. |
Guidelines for Writing Reflection EssaysBelow is a suggestion on how to structure your reflection essays. a) 1-2 paragraphs to summarise the article, and to state its key argument; b) 2-3 paragraphs to examine at least two points supporting the key argument; c) 2-3 paragraphs to investigate at least two counter-points against the key argument; and d) 1 paragraph to conclude, and evaluate the argument and the overall article. Please note this is only a guide, and that you can write more or less paragraphs on each of the sections. Please also begin each section by clearly stating in the opening sentence what you are going to do. For example: a) 'I shall summarise the article . . .' b) 'On one of the key argument of the article is . . .' c) 'There are several points supporting the key argument . . . ' d) 'There are several counter-points . . .' e) 'I shall conclude . . .'
|
Please note that I reserve the right to change the schedule of the meetings and topics as and when necessary. Please look at the course website for additional information and notes about the course. Additional course information will be given during the semester.