sociology research paper example

How To Write A Sociology Research Paper Outline: Easy Guide With Template

Table of contents

• 1 What Is A Sociology Research Paper?
• 2 Sociology Paper Format
• 3 Structure of the Sociology Paper
• 4 Possible Sociology Paper Topics
• 5.1 Sociology Research Paper Outline Example
• 6 Sociology Research Paper Example

Writing a sociology research paper is mandatory in many universities and school classes, where students must properly present a relevant topic chosen with supporting evidence, exhaustive research, and new ways of understanding or explaining some author’s ideas. This type of paper is very common among political science majors and classes but can be assigned to almost every subject.

Learn about the key elements of a sociological paper and how to write an excellent piece.

Sociology papers require a certain structure and format to introduce the topic and key points of the research according to academic requirements. For those students struggling with this type of assignment, the following article will share some light on how to write a sociology research paper and create a sociology research paper outline, among other crucial points that must be addressed to design and write an outstanding piece.

With useful data about this common research paper, including topic ideas and a detailed outline, this guide will come in handy for all students and writers in need of writing an academic-worthy sociology paper.

What Is A Sociology Research Paper?

A sociology research paper is a specially written composition that showcases the writer’s knowledge on one or more sociology topics. Writing in sociology requires a certain level of knowledge and skills, such as critical thinking and cohesive writing, to be worthy of great academic recognition.

Furthermore, writing sociology papers have to follow a research paper type of structure to ensure the hypothesis and the rest of the ideas introduced in the research can be properly read and understood by teachers, peers, and readers in general.

Sociology research papers are commonly written following the format used in reports and are based on interviews, data, and text analysis. Writing a sociology paper requires students to perform unique research on a relevant topic (including the appropriate bibliography and different sources used such as books, websites, scientific journals, etc.), test a question or hypothesis that the paper will try to prove or deny, compare different sociologist’s points of view and how/why they state certain sayings and data, among other critical points.

A research paper in sociology also needs to apply the topic of current events, at least in some parts of the piece, in which writers must apply the theory to today’s scenarios. In addition to this, sociology research requires students to perform some kind of field research such as interviews, observational and participant research, and others.

Sociology research papers require a deep understanding of the subject and the ability to gather information from multiple sources. Therefore, many students seek help from experienced online essay writers to guide them through the research process and craft a compelling paper. With the help of a professional essay writer, students can craft a comprehensive sociology research paper outline to ensure they cover all the relevant points.

After explaining what this type of paper consists of, it is time to dive into one of the most searched questions online, “What format are sociology papers written in?”. Below you can find a detailed paragraph with all the information necessary.

Sociology Paper Format

A sociology paper format follows some standard requirements that can be seen on other types of papers as well. The format commonly used in college and other academic institutions consists of an appropriate citation style, which many professors ask for in the traditional APA format, but others can also require students to write in ASA style (very similar to APA, and the main difference is how you write the author’s name).

The citation is one of the major parts of any sociological research paper that needs to be understood perfectly and used according to the rules established by it. Failing to present a cohesive and correct citing format is very likely to cause the failure of the assignment.

As for the visual part of the paper, a neat and professional font is called for, and generally, the standard sociology paper outline is written in Times New Roman font (12pt and double spaced) with at least 1 inch of margin on both sides. If your professor did not specify which sociology format to use, it is safe to say that this one will be just fine for your delivery.

Sociology papers have a specific structure, just like other research pieces, which consist of an introduction , a body with respective paragraphs for each new idea, and a research conclusion . In the point below, you can find a detailed sociology research paper outline to help you write your statement as smoothly and professionally as possible.

Structure of the Sociology Paper

A traditional sociology research paper outline is based on a few key points that help present and develop the information and the writer’s skills properly. Below is a sociology research paper outline to start designing your project according to the standard requirements.

• Introduction. In this first part, you should state the question or problem to be solved during the article. Including a hypothesis and supporting the claim relevant to the chosen field is recommended.
• Literature review. Including the literature review is essential to a sociology research paper outline to present the authors and information used.
• Methodology. A traditional outline for a sociology research paper includes the methodology used, in which writers should explain how they approach their research and the methods used. It gives credibility to their work and makes it more professional.
• Outcomes & findings. Sociological research papers must include, after the methodology, the outcomes and findings to provide readers with a glimpse of what your paper resulted in. Graphics and tables are highly encouraged to use on this part.
• Discussion. The discussion part of a sociological paper serves as an overall review of the research, how difficult it was, and what can be improved.
• Conclusion. Finally, to close your sociology research paper outline, briefly mention the results obtained and do the last paragraph with the writer’s final words on the topic.
• Bibliography. The bibliography should be the last page (or pages) included in the article but in different sheets than the paper (this means, if you finished your article in the middle of the page, the bibliography should start on a new separate one), in which sources must be cited according to the style chosen (APA, ASA, etc.).

This sociology research paper outline serves as a great guide for those who want to properly present a sociological piece worthy of academic recognition. Furthermore, to achieve a good grade, it is essential to choose a great topic.

Below you can find some sociology paper topics to help you decide how to begin writing yours.

Possible Sociology Paper Topics

To present a quality piece, choosing a relevant topic inside the sociological field is essential. Here you can find unique sociology research paper topics that will make a great presentation.

• Relationship Between Race and Class
• How Ethnicity Affects Education
• How Women Are Presented By The Media
• Sexuality And Television
• Youth And Technology: A Revision To Social Media
• Technology vs. Food: Who Comes First?
• How The Cinema Encourages Unreachable Standards
• Adolescence And Sex
• How Men And Women Are Treated Different In The Workplace
• Anti-vaccination: A Civil Right Or Violation?

These sociology paper topics will serve as a starting point where students can conduct their own research and find their desired approach. Furthermore, these topics can be studied in various decades, which adds more value and data to the paper.

Writing a Great Sociology Research Paper Outline

If you’re searching for how to write a sociology research paper, this part will come in handy. A good sociology research paper must properly introduce the topic chosen while presenting supporting evidence, the methodology used, and the sources investigated, and to reach this level of academic excellence, the following information will provide a great starting point.

Three main sociology research paper outlines serve similar roles but differ in a few things. The traditional outline utilizes Roman numerals to itemize sections and formats the sub-headings with capital letters, later using Arabic numerals for the next layer. This one is great for those who already have an idea of what they’ll write about.

The second sample is the post-draft outline, where writers mix their innovative ideas and the actual paper’s outline. This second type of draft is ideal for those with a few semi-assembled ideas that need to be developed around the paper’s main idea. Naturally, a student will end up finding their way through the research and structuring the piece smoothly while writing it.

Lastly, the third type of outline is referred to as conceptual outline and serves as a visual representation of the text written. Similar to a conceptual map, this outline used big rectangles that include the key topics or headings of the paper, as well as circles that represent the sources used to support those headings. This one is perfect for those who need to visually see their paper assembled, and it can also be used to see which ideas need further development or supporting evidence.

Furthermore, to write a great sociology paper, the following tips will be of great help.

• Introduction. An eye-catching introduction calls for an unknown or relevant fact that captivates the reader’s attention. Apart from conducting excellent research, students worthy of the highest academic score are those able to present the information properly and in a way that the audience will be interested in reading.
• Body. The paragraphs presented must be written attractively, to make readers want to know more. It is important to explain theories and add supporting evidence to back up your sayings and ideas; empirical data is highly recommended to be added to give the research paper more depth and physical recognition. A great method is to start a paragraph presenting an idea or theory, develop the paragraph with supporting evidence and close it with findings or results. This way, readers can easily understand the idea and comprehend what you want to portray.
• Conclusion. For the conclusion, it is highly important, to sum up the key points presented in the sociology research paper, and after doing so, professors always recommend adding further readings or suggested bibliography to help readers who are interested in continuing their education on the topic just read.

No matter the method you choose to plan out your sociological papers, you’ll need to cover a few bases of how to assemble your final draft. If you’re stuck on where to begin your work, you can always buy sociology research paper from professional writers. Many students go to the pros to shore up their grades and make time when deadlines become overwhelming. If you do it independently, double-check your assignment’s requirements and fit them into the following sections.

Sociology Research Paper Outline Example

The following sociology research paper outline example will serve as an excellent guide and template which students can customize to fit their topics and key points. The outline above follows the topic “How Women Are Presented By The Media”.

Sociology Research Paper Example

PapersOwl website is an excellent resource if you’re looking for more detailed examples of sociology research papers. We provide a wide range of sample research papers that can serve as a guide and template for your own work.

“Changing Demographics Customer Service to Millennials” Example

Students who structure their sociological papers before conducting in-depth research are more likely to succeed. This happens because it is easier and more efficient to research specific key points rather than diving into the topic without knowing how to approach it or presenting the information, data, statistics, and others found.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

How to Write a Sociological Essay: Explained with Examples

This article will discuss “How to Write a Sociological Essay” with insider pro tips and give you a map that is tried and tested. An essay writing is done in three phases: a) preparing for the essay, b) writing the essay, and c) editing the essay. We will take it step-by-step so that nothing is left behind because the devil, as well as good grades and presentation, lies in the details.

Those who belong to the world of academia know that writing is something that they cannot escape. No writing is the same when it comes to different disciplines of academia. Similarly, the discipline of sociology demands a particular style of formal academic writing. If you’re a new student of sociology, it can be an overwhelming subject, and writing assignments don’t make the course easier. Having some tips handy can surely help you write and articulate your thoughts better. 

[Let us take a running example throughout the article so that every point becomes crystal clear. Let us assume that the topic we have with us is to “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” .]

Phase I: Preparing for the Essay  

Step 1: make an outline.

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” . Your outline will look something like this:

Step 2: Start Reading 

Once you have prepared an outline for your essay, the next step is to start your RESEARCH . You cannot write a sociological essay out of thin air. The essay needs to be thoroughly researched and based on facts. Sociology is the subject of social science that is based on facts and evidence. Therefore, start reading as soon as you have your outline determined. The more you read, the more factual data you will collect. But the question which now emerges is “what to read” . You cannot do a basic Google search to write an academic essay. Your research has to be narrow and concept-based. For writing a sociological essay, make sure that the sources from where you read are academically acclaimed and accepted.  

Step 3: Make Notes 

This is a step that a lot of people miss when they are preparing to write their essays. It is important to read, but how you read is also a very vital part. When you are reading from multiple sources then all that you read becomes a big jumble of information in your mind. It is not possible to remember who said what at all times. Therefore, what you need to do while reading is to maintain an ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY . Whenever you’re reading for writing an academic essay then have a notebook handy, or if you prefer electronic notes then prepare a Word Document, Google Docs, Notes, or any tool of your choice to make notes. 

Annotate and divide your notes based on the outline you made. Having organized notes will help you directly apply the concepts where they are needed rather than you going and searching for them again.] 

Phase II: Write a Sociological Essay

Now let us get into the details which go into the writing of a sociological essay.  

Step 4: Writing a Title, Subtitle, Abstract, and Keywords 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Make the font color of your subtitle Gray instead of Black for it to stand out. 

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” . 

Your abstract should highlight all the points that you will further discuss. Therefore your abstract should mention how diasporic communities are formed and how they are not homogeneous communities. There are differences within this large population. In your essay, you will talk in detail about all the various aspects that affect food and diasporic relationships. ]

Keywords are an extension of your abstract. Whereas in your abstract you will use a paragraph to tell the reader what to expect ahead, by stating keywords, you point out the essence of your essay by using only individual words. These words are mostly concepts of social sciences. At first, glance, looking at your keywords, the reader should get informed about all the concepts and themes you will explain in detail later. 

Your keywords could be: Food, Diaspora, Migration, and so on. Build on these as you continue to write your essay.]   

Step 5: Writing the Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusion 

Your introduction should talk about the subject on which you are writing at the broadest level. In an introduction, you make your readers aware of what you are going to argue later in the essay. An introduction can discuss a little about the history of the topic, how it was understood till now, and a framework of what you are going to talk about ahead. You can think of your introduction as an extended form of the abstract. Since it is the first portion of your essay, it should paint a picture where the readers know exactly what’s ahead of them. 

Since your focus is on “food” and “diaspora”, your introductory paragraph can dwell into a little history of the relationship between the two and the importance of food in community building.] 

The main body is mostly around 4 to 6 paragraphs long. A sociological essay is filled with debates, theories, theorists, and examples. When writing the main body it is best to target making one or two paragraphs about the same revolving theme. When you shift to the other theme, it is best to connect it with the theme you discussed in the paragraph right above it to form a connection between the two. If you are dividing your essay into various sub-themes then the best way to correlate them is starting each new subtheme by reflecting on the last main arguments presented in the theme before it. To make a sociological essay even more enriching, include examples that exemplify the theoretical concepts better. 

The main body can here be divided into the categories which you formed during the first step of making the rough outline. Therefore, your essay could have 3 to 4 sub-sections discussing different themes such as: Food and Media, Caste and Class influence food practices, Politics of Food, Gendered Lens, etc.] 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: As the introduction, the conclusion is smaller compared to the main body. Keep your conclusion within the range of 1 to 2 paragraphs. 

Step 6: Citation and Referencing 

This is the most academic part of your sociological essay. Any academic essay should be free of plagiarism. But how can one avoid plagiarism when their essay is based on research which was originally done by others. The solution for this is to give credit to the original author for their work. In the world of academia, this is done through the processes of Citation and Referencing (sometimes also called Bibliography). Citation is done within/in-between the text, where you directly or indirectly quote the original text. Whereas, Referencing or Bibliography is done at the end of an essay where you give resources of the books or articles which you have quoted in your essay at various points. Both these processes are done so that the reader can search beyond your essay to get a better grasp of the topic. 

How to add citations in Word Document: References → Insert Citations 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Always make sure that your Bibliography/References are alphabetically ordered based on the first alphabet of the surname of the author and NOT numbered or bulleted. 

Phase III: Editing 

Step 7: edit/review your essay.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: The more you edit the better results you get. But we think that your 3rd draft is the magic draft. Draft 1: rough essay, Draft 2: edited essay, Draft 3: final essay.

What this handout is about

This handout introduces you to the wonderful world of writing sociology. Before you can write a clear and coherent sociology paper, you need a firm understanding of the assumptions and expectations of the discipline. You need to know your audience, the way they view the world and how they order and evaluate information. So, without further ado, let’s figure out just what sociology is, and how one goes about writing it.

What is sociology, and what do sociologists write about?

Unlike many of the other subjects here at UNC, such as history or English, sociology is a new subject for many students. Therefore, it may be helpful to give a quick introduction to what sociologists do. Sociologists are interested in all sorts of topics. For example, some sociologists focus on the family, addressing issues such as marriage, divorce, child-rearing, and domestic abuse, the ways these things are defined in different cultures and times, and their effect on both individuals and institutions. Others examine larger social organizations such as businesses and governments, looking at their structure and hierarchies. Still others focus on social movements and political protest, such as the American civil rights movement. Finally, sociologists may look at divisions and inequality within society, examining phenomena such as race, gender, and class, and their effect on people’s choices and opportunities. As you can see, sociologists study just about everything. Thus, it is not the subject matter that makes a paper sociological, but rather the perspective used in writing it.

So, just what is a sociological perspective? At its most basic, sociology is an attempt to understand and explain the way that individuals and groups interact within a society. How exactly does one approach this goal? C. Wright Mills, in his book The Sociological Imagination (1959), writes that “neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” Why? Well, as Karl Marx observes at the beginning of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), humans “make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” Thus, a good sociological argument needs to balance both individual agency and structural constraints. That is certainly a tall order, but it is the basis of all effective sociological writing. Keep it in mind as you think about your own writing.

Key assumptions and characteristics of sociological writing

What are the most important things to keep in mind as you write in sociology? Pay special attention to the following issues.

The first thing to remember in writing a sociological argument is to be as clear as possible in stating your thesis. Of course, that is true in all papers, but there are a couple of pitfalls common to sociology that you should be aware of and avoid at all cost. As previously defined, sociology is the study of the interaction between individuals and larger social forces. Different traditions within sociology tend to favor one side of the equation over the other, with some focusing on the agency of individual actors and others on structural factors. The danger is that you may go too far in either of these directions and thus lose the complexity of sociological thinking. Although this mistake can manifest itself in any number of ways, three types of flawed arguments are particularly common: 

• The “ individual argument ” generally takes this form: “The individual is free to make choices, and any outcomes can be explained exclusively through the study of their ideas and decisions.” While it is of course true that we all make our own choices, we must also keep in mind that, to paraphrase Marx, we make these choices under circumstances given to us by the structures of society. Therefore, it is important to investigate what conditions made these choices possible in the first place, as well as what allows some individuals to successfully act on their choices while others cannot.
• The “ human nature argument ” seeks to explain social behavior through a quasi-biological argument about humans, and often takes a form such as: “Humans are by nature X, therefore it is not surprising that Y.” While sociologists disagree over whether a universal human nature even exists, they all agree that it is not an acceptable basis of explanation. Instead, sociology demands that you question why we call some behavior natural, and to look into the social factors which have constructed this “natural” state.
• The “ society argument ” often arises in response to critiques of the above styles of argumentation, and tends to appear in a form such as: “Society made me do it.” Students often think that this is a good sociological argument, since it uses society as the basis for explanation. However, the problem is that the use of the broad concept “society” masks the real workings of the situation, making it next to impossible to build a strong case. This is an example of reification, which is when we turn processes into things. Society is really a process, made up of ongoing interactions at multiple levels of size and complexity, and to turn it into a monolithic thing is to lose all that complexity. People make decisions and choices. Some groups and individuals benefit, while others do not. Identifying these intermediate levels is the basis of sociological analysis.

Although each of these three arguments seems quite different, they all share one common feature: they assume exactly what they need to be explaining. They are excellent starting points, but lousy conclusions.

Once you have developed a working argument, you will next need to find evidence to support your claim. What counts as evidence in a sociology paper? First and foremost, sociology is an empirical discipline. Empiricism in sociology means basing your conclusions on evidence that is documented and collected with as much rigor as possible. This evidence usually draws upon observed patterns and information from collected cases and experiences, not just from isolated, anecdotal reports. Just because your second cousin was able to climb the ladder from poverty to the executive boardroom does not prove that the American class system is open. You will need more systematic evidence to make your claim convincing. Above all else, remember that your opinion alone is not sufficient support for a sociological argument. Even if you are making a theoretical argument, you must be able to point to documented instances of social phenomena that fit your argument. Logic is necessary for making the argument, but is not sufficient support by itself.

Sociological evidence falls into two main groups: 

• Quantitative data are based on surveys, censuses, and statistics. These provide large numbers of data points, which is particularly useful for studying large-scale social processes, such as income inequality, population changes, changes in social attitudes, etc.
• Qualitative data, on the other hand, comes from participant observation, in-depth interviews, data and texts, as well as from the researcher’s own impressions and reactions. Qualitative research gives insight into the way people actively construct and find meaning in their world.

Quantitative data produces a measurement of subjects’ characteristics and behavior, while qualitative research generates information on their meanings and practices. Thus, the methods you choose will reflect the type of evidence most appropriate to the questions you ask. If you wanted to look at the importance of race in an organization, a quantitative study might use information on the percentage of different races in the organization, what positions they hold, as well as survey results on people’s attitudes on race. This would measure the distribution of race and racial beliefs in the organization. A qualitative study would go about this differently, perhaps hanging around the office studying people’s interactions, or doing in-depth interviews with some of the subjects. The qualitative researcher would see how people act out their beliefs, and how these beliefs interact with the beliefs of others as well as the constraints of the organization.

Some sociologists favor qualitative over quantitative data, or vice versa, and it is perfectly reasonable to rely on only one method in your own work. However, since each method has its own strengths and weaknesses, combining methods can be a particularly effective way to bolster your argument. But these distinctions are not just important if you have to collect your own data for your paper. You also need to be aware of them even when you are relying on secondary sources for your research. In order to critically evaluate the research and data you are reading, you should have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods.

Units of analysis

Given that social life is so complex, you need to have a point of entry into studying this world. In sociological jargon, you need a unit of analysis. The unit of analysis is exactly that: it is the unit that you have chosen to analyze in your study. Again, this is only a question of emphasis and focus, and not of precedence and importance. You will find a variety of units of analysis in sociological writing, ranging from the individual up to groups or organizations. You should choose yours based on the interests and theoretical assumptions driving your research. The unit of analysis will determine much of what will qualify as relevant evidence in your work. Thus you must not only clearly identify that unit, but also consistently use it throughout your paper.

Let’s look at an example to see just how changing the units of analysis will change the face of research. What if you wanted to study globalization? That’s a big topic, so you will need to focus your attention. Where would you start?

You might focus on individual human actors, studying the way that people are affected by the globalizing world. This approach could possibly include a study of Asian sweatshop workers’ experiences, or perhaps how consumers’ decisions shape the overall system.

Or you might choose to focus on social structures or organizations. This approach might involve looking at the decisions being made at the national or international level, such as the free-trade agreements that change the relationships between governments and corporations. Or you might look into the organizational structures of corporations and measure how they are changing under globalization. Another structural approach would be to focus on the social networks linking subjects together. That could lead you to look at how migrants rely on social contacts to make their way to other countries, as well as to help them find work upon their arrival.

Finally, you might want to focus on cultural objects or social artifacts as your unit of analysis. One fine example would be to look at the production of those tennis shoes the kids seem to like so much. You could look at either the material production of the shoe (tracing it from its sweatshop origins to its arrival on the showroom floor of malls across America) or its cultural production (attempting to understand how advertising and celebrities have turned such shoes into necessities and cultural icons).

Whichever unit of analysis you choose, be careful not to commit the dreaded ecological fallacy. An ecological fallacy is when you assume that something that you learned about the group level of analysis also applies to the individuals that make up that group. So, to continue the globalization example, if you were to compare its effects on the poorest 20% and the richest 20% of countries, you would need to be careful not to apply your results to the poorest and richest individuals.

These are just general examples of how sociological study of a single topic can vary. Because you can approach a subject from several different perspectives, it is important to decide early how you plan to focus your analysis and then stick with that perspective throughout your paper. Avoid mixing units of analysis without strong justification. Different units of analysis generally demand different kinds of evidence for building your argument. You can reconcile the varying levels of analysis, but doing so may require a complex, sophisticated theory, no small feat within the confines of a short paper. Check with your instructor if you are concerned about this happening in your paper.

Typical writing assignments in sociology

So how does all of this apply to an actual writing assignment? Undergraduate writing assignments in sociology may take a number of forms, but they typically involve reviewing sociological literature on a subject; applying or testing a particular concept, theory, or perspective; or producing a small-scale research report, which usually involves a synthesis of both the literature review and application.

The critical review

The review involves investigating the research that has been done on a particular topic and then summarizing and evaluating what you have found. The important task in this kind of assignment is to organize your material clearly and synthesize it for your reader. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but looks for patterns and connections in the literature and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of what others have written on your topic. You want to help your reader see how the information you have gathered fits together, what information can be most trusted (and why), what implications you can derive from it, and what further research may need to be done to fill in gaps. Doing so requires considerable thought and organization on your part, as well as thinking of yourself as an expert on the topic. You need to assume that, even though you are new to the material, you can judge the merits of the arguments you have read and offer an informed opinion of which evidence is strongest and why.

Application or testing of a theory or concept

The application assignment asks you to apply a concept or theoretical perspective to a specific example. In other words, it tests your practical understanding of theories and ideas by asking you to explain how well they apply to actual social phenomena. In order to successfully apply a theory to a new case, you must include the following steps:

• First you need to have a very clear understanding of the theory itself: not only what the theorist argues, but also why they argue that point, and how they justify it. That is, you have to understand how the world works according to this theory and how one thing leads to another.
• Next you should choose an appropriate case study. This is a crucial step, one that can make or break your paper. If you choose a case that is too similar to the one used in constructing the theory in the first place, then your paper will be uninteresting as an application, since it will not give you the opportunity to show off your theoretical brilliance. On the other hand, do not choose a case that is so far out in left field that the applicability is only superficial and trivial. In some ways theory application is like making an analogy. The last thing you want is a weak analogy, or one that is so obvious that it does not give any added insight. Instead, you will want to choose a happy medium, one that is not obvious but that allows you to give a developed analysis of the case using the theory you chose.
• This leads to the last point, which is the analysis. A strong analysis will go beyond the surface and explore the processes at work, both in the theory and in the case you have chosen. Just like making an analogy, you are arguing that these two things (the theory and the example) are similar. Be specific and detailed in telling the reader how they are similar. In the course of looking for similarities, however, you are likely to find points at which the theory does not seem to be a good fit. Do not sweep this discovery under the rug, since the differences can be just as important as the similarities, supplying insight into both the applicability of the theory and the uniqueness of the case you are using.

You may also be asked to test a theory. Whereas the application paper assumes that the theory you are using is true, the testing paper does not makes this assumption, but rather asks you to try out the theory to determine whether it works. Here you need to think about what initial conditions inform the theory and what sort of hypothesis or prediction the theory would make based on those conditions. This is another way of saying that you need to determine which cases the theory could be applied to (see above) and what sort of evidence would be needed to either confirm or disconfirm the theory’s hypothesis. In many ways, this is similar to the application paper, with added emphasis on the veracity of the theory being used.

The research paper

Finally, we reach the mighty research paper. Although the thought of doing a research paper can be intimidating, it is actually little more than the combination of many of the parts of the papers we have already discussed. You will begin with a critical review of the literature and use this review as a basis for forming your research question. The question will often take the form of an application (“These ideas will help us to explain Z.”) or of hypothesis testing (“If these ideas are correct, we should find X when we investigate Y.”). The skills you have already used in writing the other types of papers will help you immensely as you write your research papers.

And so we reach the end of this all-too-brief glimpse into the world of sociological writing. Sociologists can be an idiosyncratic bunch, so paper guidelines and expectations will no doubt vary from class to class, from instructor to instructor. However, these basic guidelines will help you get started.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Cuba, Lee. 2002. A Short Guide to Writing About Social Science , 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Research Paper

Category: sociology research paper examples.

The sample research papers on sociology have been designed to serve as model papers for most sociology research paper topics . These papers were written by several well-known discipline figures and emerging younger scholars who provide authoritative overviews coupled with insightful discussion that will quickly familiarize researchers and students alike with fundamental and detailed information for each sociology topic.

Browse sociology research paper examples below.

How to Write Sociology Papers

Writing Sociology Papers

Writing is one of the most difficult and most rewarding of all scholarly activities. Few of us, students or professors, find it easy to do. The pain of writing comes largely as a result of bad writing habits. No one can write a good paper in one draft on the night before the paper is due. The following steps will not guarantee a good paper, but they will eliminate the most common problems encountered in bad papers.

1. Select a topic early. Start thinking about topics as soon as the paper is assigned and get approval of your topic choice from the professor before starting the research on the paper. When choosing a topic, think critically. Remember that writing a good sociology paper starts with asking a good sociological question.

2. Give yourself adequate time to do the research. You will need time to think through the things you read or to explore the data you analyze. Also, things will go wrong and you will need time to recover. The one book or article which will help make your paper the best one you've ever done will be unavailable in the library and you have to wait for it to be recalled or to be found through interlibrary loan. Or perhaps the computer will crash and destroy a whole afternoon's work. These things happen to all writers. Allow enough time to finish your paper even if such things happen.

3. Work from an outline. Making an outline breaks the task down into smaller bits which do not seem as daunting. This allows you to keep an image of the whole in mind even while you work on the parts. You can show the outline to your professor and get advice while you are writing a paper rather than after you turn it in for a final grade.

4. Stick to the point. Each paper should contain one key idea which you can state in a sentence or paragraph. The paper will provide the argument and evidence to support that point. Papers should be compact with a strong thesis and a clear line of argument. Avoid digressions and padding.

5. Make more than one draft. First drafts are plagued with confusion, bad writing, omissions, and other errors. So are second drafts, but not to the same extent. Get someone else to read it. Even your roommate who has never had a sociology course may be able to point out unclear parts or mistakes you have missed. The best papers have been rewritten, in part or in whole, several times. Few first draft papers will receive high grades.

6. Proofread the final copy, correcting any typographical errors. A sloppily written, uncorrected paper sends a message that the writer does not care about his or her work. If the writer does not care about the paper, why should the reader?

Such rules may seem demanding and constricting, but they provide the liberation of self discipline. By choosing a topic, doing the research, and writing the paper you take control over a vital part of your own education. What you learn in the process, if you do it conscientiously, is far greater that what shows up in the paper or what is reflected in the grade.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH PAPERS

Some papers have an empirical content that needs to be handled differently than a library research paper. Empirical papers report some original research. It may be based on participant observation, on secondary analysis of social surveys, or some other source. The outline below presents a general form that most articles published in sociology journals follow. You should get specific instructions from professors who assign empirical research papers.

1. Introduction and statement of the research question.

2. Review of previous research and theory.

3. Description of data collection including sample characteristics and the reliability and validity of techniques employed.

4. Presentation of the results of data analysis including explicit reference to the implications the data have for the research question.

5. Conclusion which ties the loose ends of the analysis back to the research question.

6. End notes (if any).

7. References cited in the paper.

Tables and displays of quantitative information should follow the rules set down by Tufte in the work listed below.

Tufte, Edward. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information . Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. (lib QA 90 T93 1983)

How To Write A Sociology Research Paper Outline

Sociology can be both a very interesting topic, as well as a very confusing one. For those who are tasked with writing a sociology paper, there is a starting point that you must begin with:  Sociology research paper outline. Without this, you’re going to find it challenging to keep yourself (as well as your paper) on track. With that in mind, you can learn how to take the first step of writing a sociology paper.

What is a Sociology Research Paper?

Of course, if you want to write sociological papers, you’re going to need to look at both the writing aspect as well as the more in-depth understanding of the topic that you’ll be covering. If you find yourself worried and keep searching the internet for “ buy research paper online ,” relax. It’s simple. To make it easy to understand, we’ll look at the two parts.

The first ingredient, for a sociology research paper, is, of course, sociology. If you’re writing about it, it’s likely you know what the topic is already. However, we’ll go ahead and give it a concise definition:  Sociology is the study of human society. It covers how we developed it, the structure, and its crucial functions. That’s a very broad definition, but it’s all you need to know to get ready to write your sociology term paper.

The second part of this project is going to be the paper part. You’re likely as familiar with the definition of papers as you are with the meaning of sociology. In this instance, a concrete example of what you’ll need to provide is difficult. Most have the same basic makeup such as arguments along with supporting facts as well as the main thesis.

Sociology Paper Format

When writing in sociology class, whether it’s for a term paper or just a general essay, sociology paper will follow the same basic format:  An introduction, several body paragraphs, and a conclusion. For those wondering how to write a research summary , this is a secure place to start.

The introduction is where you’ll state to your reader the topic that you will be writing about. As well, you should give the purpose of the piece. Make the reason for the paper clear. It shouldn’t be dull; you need to keep it interesting, so they don’t zone out halfway through. It should also be informative. What good is a paper that doesn’t teach? If you’re worried about how to choose a topic for a research paper, it’s not as difficult as it seems. Simply searching for “research question sociology” can get you there. Even if it isn’t assigned, you can usually choose something involving.

The body paragraphs are what most would consider being “the paper.” This consists of multiple paragraphs and gives individual ideas along with the supporting evidence for them, which is what will make your sociology papers and their arguments strong. Each part should cover one topic and provide all of the information that the reader would need for it. Good investigations make it easy to understand what’s being written about, after all. There should be at least three, but not many more. You don’t want to lose their interest, after all!

The last part of your paper is going to be the conclusion. This is usually relatively brief but delivers the final consensus of your work. You should make it very plain focus readers’ attention on your findings, how your supporting evidence (found in the body paragraphs) led to it, and what it means. There should be no misunderstandings by the time the conclusion is finished.

Sociology Research Paper Outline Template

There are three types of sociology paper outline that you can use:  Traditional, conceptual, and post-draft. All of them are different and have their uses. Conceptual outlines are great for those who like to think outside of the box. Instead of just writing, you’re drawing! Here, a circle represents the source, a rectangle – the central theme, and a triangle – the conclusion. They are all interconnected with lines and arrows. A post-draft outline involves writing out what you want to cover on a piece of paper. Do this as the ideas come to you. Write how these are supported. You don’t have to worry about being orderly; just get everything down! Afterward, you can neatly arrange everything by bullet points. By far, the most widely used and best-known is what is called “the traditional outline.” Here, you break down the paper by the format you’ll be writing in. There is generally an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The body paragraphs contain both the main idea for the paragraph and the supporting information for it. Just like in your essay. Generally, it is presented as headings (such as Introduction, Body Paragraphs, and Conclusion shown below) with the numbered or lettered lists beneath them that contain the information needed. This is just a summary, so it should be condensed. You can be a bit lost with it as long as it makes sense to you. Since it’s the most widely used, that’s what we’ll focus on. You can see an example of one below.

Introduction

• What is the topic of your paper? What is the thesis statement or the main question? Make sure to include it here and to make it clear to the reader.
• What do you intend to do in this paper? Are you arguing for or against something? Or are you simply informing the reader? You should state your intended purpose.

Body Paragraphs

• This is where you will discuss your topic. Try to keep it clear and concise and not overly broad.
• Include any information that supports the topic.
• What is the summary of your paper? What, exactly, did you cover while writing it? Summarize it fairly, but briefly. You don’t need to restate the entire thing!
• What were your conclusions? Lay them out plainly, so that everyone can understand them. Make sure they were supported.

When it’s time to write your sociological paper outline, you need to put some thoughts and efforts into it. A good framework will keep your writing on track; keep your information organized and in one place. Make everything step-by-step through the writing process until you can back up your findings at the end. With the right amount of planning ahead as well as work, you can turn a daunting task into the one that can be easily managed.

Related posts:

• 6 Step Process for Essay Writing
• How to Write an Appendix for a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide
• How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay
• Footnotes 101: A Guide to Proper Formatting

Improve your writing with our guides

How to Write a Scholarship Essay

Definition Essay: The Complete Guide with Essay Topics and Examples

Critical Essay: The Complete Guide. Essay Topics, Examples and Outlines

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

2.1 Approaches to Sociological Research

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define and describe the scientific method.
• Explain how the scientific method is used in sociological research.
• Describe the function and importance of an interpretive framework.
• Describe the differences in accuracy, reliability and validity in a research study.

When sociologists apply the sociological perspective and begin to ask questions, no topic is off limits. Every aspect of human behavior is a source of possible investigation. Sociologists question the world that humans have created and live in. They notice patterns of behavior as people move through that world. Using sociological methods and systematic research within the framework of the scientific method and a scholarly interpretive perspective, sociologists have discovered social patterns in the workplace that have transformed industries, in families that have enlightened family members, and in education that have aided structural changes in classrooms.

Sociologists often begin the research process by asking a question about how or why things happen in this world. It might be a unique question about a new trend or an old question about a common aspect of life. Once the question is formed, the sociologist proceeds through an in-depth process to answer it. In deciding how to design that process, the researcher may adopt a scientific approach or an interpretive framework. The following sections describe these approaches to knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Sociologists make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, and field research. But humans and their social interactions are so diverse that these interactions can seem impossible to chart or explain. It might seem that science is about discoveries and chemical reactions or about proving ideas right or wrong rather than about exploring the nuances of human behavior.

However, this is exactly why scientific models work for studying human behavior. A scientific process of research establishes parameters that help make sure results are objective and accurate. Scientific methods provide limitations and boundaries that focus a study and organize its results.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the social world based on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It involves a series of six prescribed steps that have been established over centuries of scientific scholarship.

Sociological research does not reduce knowledge to right or wrong facts. Results of studies tend to provide people with insights they did not have before—explanations of human behaviors and social practices and access to knowledge of other cultures, rituals and beliefs, or trends and attitudes.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in outcomes or results. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists often look between the cracks to discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might also study environmental influences and patterns of behavior that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not all focused on negative behaviors or challenging situations, social researchers might study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighborhood organizations, higher education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Sociologists can use the scientific method not only to collect but also to interpret and analyze data. They deliberately apply scientific logic and objectivity. They are interested in—but not attached to—the results. They work outside of their own political or social agendas. This does not mean researchers do not have their own personalities, complete with preferences and opinions. But sociologists deliberately use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, focus, and consistency as possible in collecting and analyzing data in research studies.

With its systematic approach, the scientific method has proven useful in shaping sociological studies. The scientific method provides a systematic, organized series of steps that help ensure objectivity and consistency in exploring a social problem. They provide the means for accuracy, reliability, and validity. In the end, the scientific method provides a shared basis for discussion and analysis (Merton 1963). Typically, the scientific method has 6 steps which are described below.

Step 1: Ask a Question or Find a Research Topic

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, select a problem, and identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study within a geographic location and time frame. “Are societies capable of sustained happiness?” would be too vague. The question should also be broad enough to have universal merit. “What do personal hygiene habits reveal about the values of students at XYZ High School?” would be too narrow. Sociologists strive to frame questions that examine well-defined patterns and relationships.

In a hygiene study, for instance, hygiene could be defined as “personal habits to maintain physical appearance (as opposed to health),” and a researcher might ask, “How do differing personal hygiene habits reflect the cultural value placed on appearance?”

Step 2: Review the Literature/Research Existing Sources

The next step researchers undertake is to conduct background research through a literature review , which is a review of any existing similar or related studies. A visit to the library, a thorough online search, and a survey of academic journals will uncover existing research about the topic of study. This step helps researchers gain a broad understanding of work previously conducted, identify gaps in understanding of the topic, and position their own research to build on prior knowledge. Researchers—including student researchers—are responsible for correctly citing existing sources they use in a study or that inform their work. While it is fine to borrow previously published material (as long as it enhances a unique viewpoint), it must be referenced properly and never plagiarized.

To study crime, a researcher might also sort through existing data from the court system, police database, prison information, interviews with criminals, guards, wardens, etc. It’s important to examine this information in addition to existing research to determine how these resources might be used to fill holes in existing knowledge. Reviewing existing sources educates researchers and helps refine and improve a research study design.

Step 3: Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a conjecture about the relationship between the phenomenon and one or more causal factors. In sociology, the hypothesis will often predict how one form of human behavior influences another. For example, a hypothesis might be in the form of an “if, then statement.” Let’s relate this to our topic of crime: If unemployment increases, then the crime rate will increase.

In scientific research, we formulate hypotheses to include an independent variables (IV) , which are the cause of the change, and a dependent variable (DV) , which is the effect , or thing that is changed. In the example above, unemployment is the independent variable and the crime rate is the dependent variable.

In a sociological study, the researcher would establish one form of human behavior as the independent variable and observe the influence it has on a dependent variable. How does gender (the independent variable) affect rate of income (the dependent variable)? How does one’s religion (the independent variable) affect family size (the dependent variable)? How is social class (the dependent variable) affected by level of education (the independent variable)?

Taking an example from Table 12.1, a researcher might hypothesize that teaching children proper hygiene (the independent variable) will boost their sense of self-esteem (the dependent variable). Note, however, this hypothesis can also work the other way around. A sociologist might predict that increasing a child’s sense of self-esteem (the independent variable) will increase or improve habits of hygiene (now the dependent variable). Identifying the independent and dependent variables is very important. As the hygiene example shows, simply identifying related two topics or variables is not enough. Their prospective relationship must be part of the hypothesis.

Step 4: Design and Conduct a Study

Researchers design studies to maximize reliability , which refers to how likely research results are to be replicated if the study is reproduced. Reliability increases the likelihood that what happens to one person will happen to all people in a group or what will happen in one situation will happen in another. Cooking is a science. When you follow a recipe and measure ingredients with a cooking tool, such as a measuring cup, the same results is obtained as long as the cook follows the same recipe and uses the same type of tool. The measuring cup introduces accuracy into the process. If a person uses a less accurate tool, such as their hand, to measure ingredients rather than a cup, the same result may not be replicated. Accurate tools and methods increase reliability.

Researchers also strive for validity , which refers to how well the study measures what it was designed to measure. To produce reliable and valid results, sociologists develop an operational definition , that is, they define each concept, or variable, in terms of the physical or concrete steps it takes to objectively measure it. The operational definition identifies an observable condition of the concept. By operationalizing the concept, all researchers can collect data in a systematic or replicable manner. Moreover, researchers can determine whether the experiment or method validly represent the phenomenon they intended to study.

A study asking how tutoring improves grades, for instance, might define “tutoring” as “one-on-one assistance by an expert in the field, hired by an educational institution.” However, one researcher might define a “good” grade as a C or better, while another uses a B+ as a starting point for “good.” For the results to be replicated and gain acceptance within the broader scientific community, researchers would have to use a standard operational definition. These definitions set limits and establish cut-off points that ensure consistency and replicability in a study.

We will explore research methods in greater detail in the next section of this chapter.

Step 5: Draw Conclusions

After constructing the research design, sociologists collect, tabulate or categorize, and analyze data to formulate conclusions. If the analysis supports the hypothesis, researchers can discuss the implications of the results for the theory or policy solution that they were addressing. If the analysis does not support the hypothesis, researchers may consider repeating the experiment or think of ways to improve their procedure.

However, even when results contradict a sociologist’s prediction of a study’s outcome, these results still contribute to sociological understanding. Sociologists analyze general patterns in response to a study, but they are equally interested in exceptions to patterns. In a study of education, a researcher might predict that high school dropouts have a hard time finding rewarding careers. While many assume that the higher the education, the higher the salary and degree of career happiness, there are certainly exceptions. People with little education have had stunning careers, and people with advanced degrees have had trouble finding work. A sociologist prepares a hypothesis knowing that results may substantiate or contradict it.

Sociologists carefully keep in mind how operational definitions and research designs impact the results as they draw conclusions. Consider the concept of “increase of crime,” which might be defined as the percent increase in crime from last week to this week, as in the study of Swedish crime discussed above. Yet the data used to evaluate “increase of crime” might be limited by many factors: who commits the crime, where the crimes are committed, or what type of crime is committed. If the data is gathered for “crimes committed in Houston, Texas in zip code 77021,” then it may not be generalizable to crimes committed in rural areas outside of major cities like Houston. If data is collected about vandalism, it may not be generalizable to assault.

Step 6: Report Results

Researchers report their results at conferences and in academic journals. These results are then subjected to the scrutiny of other sociologists in the field. Before the conclusions of a study become widely accepted, the studies are often repeated in the same or different environments. In this way, sociological theories and knowledge develops as the relationships between social phenomenon are established in broader contexts and different circumstances.

Interpretive Framework

While many sociologists rely on empirical data and the scientific method as a research approach, others operate from an interpretive framework . While systematic, this approach doesn’t follow the hypothesis-testing model that seeks to find generalizable results. Instead, an interpretive framework, sometimes referred to as an interpretive perspective , seeks to understand social worlds from the point of view of participants, which leads to in-depth knowledge or understanding about the human experience.

Interpretive research is generally more descriptive or narrative in its findings. Rather than formulating a hypothesis and method for testing it, an interpretive researcher will develop approaches to explore the topic at hand that may involve a significant amount of direct observation or interaction with subjects including storytelling. This type of researcher learns through the process and sometimes adjusts the research methods or processes midway to optimize findings as they evolve.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociology focuses on deconstruction of existing sociological research and theory. Informed by the work of Karl Marx, scholars known collectively as the Frankfurt School proposed that social science, as much as any academic pursuit, is embedded in the system of power constituted by the set of class, caste, race, gender, and other relationships that exist in the society. Consequently, it cannot be treated as purely objective. Critical sociologists view theories, methods, and the conclusions as serving one of two purposes: they can either legitimate and rationalize systems of social power and oppression or liberate humans from inequality and restriction on human freedom. Deconstruction can involve data collection, but the analysis of this data is not empirical or positivist.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-1-approaches-to-sociological-research

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Quick links

• Directories
• Make a Gift

Writing Papers That Apply Sociological Theories or Perspectives

This document is intended as an additional resource for undergraduate students taking sociology courses at UW. It is not intended to replace instructions from your professors and TAs. In all cases follow course-specific assignment instructions, and consult your TA or professor if you have questions.

About These Assignments

Theory application assignments are a common type of analytical writing assigned in sociology classes.  Many instructors expect you to apply sociological theories (sometimes called "perspectives" or "arguments") to empirical phenomena. [1]   There are different ways to do this, depending upon your objectives, and of course, the specifics of each assignment. You can choose cases that confirm (support), disconfirm (contradict), [2]  or partially confirm any theory.   

How to Apply Theory to Empirical Phenomena

Theory application assignments generally require you to look at empirical phenomena through the lens of theory.  Ask yourself, what would the theory predict ("have to say") about a particular situation. According to the theory, if particular conditions are present or you see a change in a particular variable, what outcome should you expect? 

Generally, a first step in a theory application assignment is to make certain you understand the theory! You should be able to state the theory (the author's main argument) in a sentence or two.  Usually, this means specifying the causal relationship (X—>Y) or the causal model (which might involve multiple variables and relationships). 

For those taking sociological theory classes, in particular, you need to be aware that theories are constituted by more than causal relationships.  Depending upon the assignment, you may be asked to specify the following:

• Causal Mechanism: This is a detailed explanation about how X—>Y, often made at a lower level of analysis (i.e., using smaller units) than the causal relationship.
• Level of Analysis: Macro-level theories refer to society- or group-level causes and processes; micro-level theories address individual-level causes and processes.
• Scope Conditions: These are parameters or boundaries specified by the theorist that identify the types of empirical phenomena to which the theory applies.
• Assumptions: Most theories begin by assuming certain "facts." These often concern the bases of human behavior: for example, people are inherently aggressive or inherently kind, people act out of self-interest or based upon values, etc.

Theories vary in terms of whether they specify assumptions, scope conditions and causal mechanisms.  Sometimes they can only be inferred: when this is the case, be clear about that in your paper.

Clearly understanding all the parts of a theory helps you ensure that you are applying the theory correctly to your case. For example, you can ask whether your case fits the theory's assumptions and scope conditions.  Most importantly, however, you should single out the main argument or point (usually the causal relationship and mechanism) of the theory.  Does the theorist's key argument apply to your case? Students often go astray here by latching onto an inconsequential or less important part of the theory reading, showing the relationship to their case, and then assuming they have fully applied the theory.

Using Evidence to Make Your Argument

Theory application papers involve making a claim or argument based on theory, supported by empirical evidence. [3]   There are a few common problems that students encounter while writing these types of assignments: unsubstantiated claims/generalizations; "voice" issues or lack of attribution; excessive summarization/insufficient analysis.  Each class of problem is addressed below, followed by some pointers for choosing "cases," or deciding upon the empirical phenomenon to which you will apply the theoretical perspective or argument (including where to find data).

A common problem seen in theory application assignments is failing to substantiate claims, or making a statement that is not backed up with evidence or details ("proof").  When you make a statement or a claim, ask yourself, "How do I know this?"  What evidence can you marshal to support your claim? Put this evidence in your paper (and remember to cite your sources).  Similarly, be careful about making overly strong or broad claims based on insufficient evidence.  For example, you probably don't want to make a claim about how Americans feel about having a black president based on a poll of UW undergraduates.  You may also want to be careful about making authoritative (conclusive) claims about broad social phenomena based on a single case study.

In addition to un- or under-substantiated claims, another problem that students often encounter when writing these types of papers is lack of clarity regarding "voice," or whose ideas they are presenting.  The reader is left wondering whether a given statement represents the view of the theorist, the student, or an author who wrote about the case.  Be careful to identify whose views and ideas you are presenting. For example, you could write, "Marx views class conflict as the engine of history;" or, "I argue that American politics can best be understood through the lens of class conflict;" [4]  or, "According to Ehrenreich, Walmart employees cannot afford to purchase Walmart goods."

Another common problem that students encounter is the trap of excessive summarization.  They spend the majority of their papers simply summarizing (regurgitating the details) of a case—much like a book report.  One way to avoid this is to remember that theory indicates which details (or variables) of a case are most relevant, and to focus your discussion on those aspects.  A second strategy is to make sure that you relate the details of the case in an analytical fashion. You might do this by stating an assumption of Marxist theory, such as "man's ideas come from his material conditions," and then summarizing evidence from your case on that point.  You could organize the details of the case into paragraphs and start each paragraph with an analytical sentence about how the theory relates to different aspects of the case. 

Some theory application papers require that you choose your own case (an empirical phenomenon, trend, situation, etc.), whereas others specify the case for you (e.g., ask you to apply conflict theory to explain some aspect of globalization described in an article). Many students find choosing their own case rather challenging.  Some questions to guide your choice are:

• Can I obtain sufficient data with relative ease on my case?
• Is my case specific enough?  If your subject matter is too broad or abstract, it becomes both difficult to gather data and challenging to apply the theory.
• Is the case an interesting one? Professors often prefer that you avoid examples used by the theorist themselves, those used in lectures and sections, and those that are extremely obvious.

Where You Can Find Data

Data is collected by many organizations (e.g., commercial, governmental, nonprofit, academic) and can frequently be found in books, reports, articles, and online sources.  The UW libraries make your job easy: on the front page of the library website ( www.lib.washington.edu ), in the left hand corner you will see a list of options under the heading "Find It" that allows you to go directly to databases, specific online journals, newspapers, etc. For example, if you are choosing a historical case, you might want to access newspaper articles.  This has become increasingly easy to do, as many are now online through the UW library.  For example, you can search The New York Times and get full-text online for every single issue from 1851 through today!  If you are interested in interview or observational data, you might try to find books or articles that are case-studies on your topic of interest by conducting a simple keyword search of the UW library book holdings, or using an electronic database, such as JSTOR or Sociological Abstracts.  Scholarly articles are easy to search through, since they contain abstracts, or paragraphs that summarize the topic, relevant literature, data and methods, and major findings.  When using JSTOR, you may want to limit your search to sociology (which includes 70 journals) and perhaps political science; this database retrieves full-text articles. Sociological Abstracts will cast a wider net searching many more sociology journals, but the article may or may not be available online (find out by clicking "check for UW holdings").  A final word about using academic articles for data: remember that you need to cite your sources, and follow the instructions of your assignment.  This includes making your own argument about your case, not using an argument you find in a scholarly article.

In addition, there are many data sources online.  For example, you can get data from the US census, including for particular neighborhoods, from a number of cites. You can get some crime data online: the Seattle Police Department publishes several years' worth of crime rates.  There are numerous cites on public opinion, including gallup.com. There is an online encyclopedia on Washington state history, including that of individual Seattle neighborhoods ( www.historylink.org ). These are just a couple options: a simple google search will yield hundreds more.  Finally, remember that librarian reference desks are expert on data sources, and that you can call, email, or visit in person to ask about what data is available on your particular topic.  You can chat with a librarian 24 hours a day online, as well (see the "Ask Us!" link on the front page of UW libraries website for contact information).

[1] By empirical phenomena, we mean some sort of observed, real-world conditions. These include societal trends, events, or outcomes. They are sometimes referred to as "cases."   Return to Reading

[2] A cautionary note about critiquing theories: no social theory explains all cases, so avoid claiming that a single case "disproves" a theory, or that a single case "proves" a theory correct. Moreover, if you choose a case that disconfirms a theory, you should be careful that the case falls within the scope conditions (see above) of the given theory. For example, if a theorist specifies that her argument pertains to economic transactions, it would not be a fair critique to say the theory doesn't explain dynamics within a family. On the other hand, it is useful and interesting to apply theories to cases not foreseen by the original theorist (we see this in sociological theories that incorporate theories from evolutionary biology or economics).   Return to Reading

[3] By empirical evidence, we mean data on social phenomena, derived from scientific observation or experiment.  Empirical evidence may be quantitative (e.g., statistical data) or qualitative (e.g., descriptions derived from systematic observation or interviewing), or a mixture of both. Empirical evidence must be observable and derived from real-world conditions (present or historical) rather than hypothetical or "imagined".  For additional help, see the "Where You Can Find Data" section on the next page.   Return to Reading

[4] If your instructor does not want you to use the first-person, you could write, "This paper argues…"   Return to Reading

•   Instagram
•   LinkedIn
•   Twitter
•   Newsletter

Research Methods Essays – How to Write Them

Last Updated on April 17, 2017 by

Essay planning and writing for the AS and A Level sociology exams – hints and tips

The research methods section of the AS sociology 7191 (2) exam (research methods and topics in sociology) consists of one short answer question (out of 4 marks) and one essay question (out of 16 marks).

You should aim to spend approximately 20-25 minutes answering this essay question

This longer methods question will nearly always ask you to evaluate either the strengths or limitations of a particular method, for example ‘Evaluate the strengths of using social surveys in Social Research’.

This means that you will need to evaluate either the strengths or the limitations of the particular method as directed in the question.

Explain why Interpretivists like or dislike the method

Representativeness – explain how easy it is to get a large, representative sample

Say what kind of topics this method is useful for researching and why

It is good practice to use examples of actual examples of research studies that have used the method under examination, preferably woven into the body of the essay.

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like to purchase more of the same…

Methods in Context Essay Template

Share this:

One thought on “research methods essays – how to write them”, leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Sociological Theory Research Paper

This sample sociology research paper on sociological theory features: 12600 words (approx. 42 pages) and a bibliography with 127 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our custom writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Theoretical sociology has differentiated into ever more schools of thought over the last 40 years, a trend that is facilitated by the lack of “grand theories” that seek to integrate more specialized theoretical programs. Differentiation is furthered by a lack of consensus over the very nature of theorizing in sociology, with the major fault lines of debate revolving around whether or not sociology can be a natural science. Without a commitment to a common epistemology or a core canon of early theoretical works, an increasing number of theoretical perspectives has emerged from a small early base of theories and philosophies— functionalism, conflict theory, utilitarianism, pragmatism, and phenomenology. And as theories continue to proliferate, the hope of ever reaching a consensus over the key properties of the social universe and the best epistemology for studying these properties has begun to fade. Moreover, there are now many highly specialized theories emerging out of research traditions that are only loosely affiliated with theories built from the ideas of the founding generation.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

It is not a simple task, therefore, to survey theoretical sociology at the beginning of the current century. The best that can be done is to focus on the more general theoretical schemes that built on the early legacy provided by the founding generations of sociologists. These are the theories that dominate theoretical sociology.

The Rise and Fall of Functional Theory

Sociology’s first theoretical approach was decidedly functional, examining social structures and processes for how they meet postulated needs and requisites necessary for societal survival. Both Auguste Comte (1896 [1830–1842]) and Herbert Spencer (1898 [1874–1896]) drew an organismic analogy calling attention to the systemic qualities of the social universe and to the functions of parts for maintenance of social systems. For Spencer, there were four basic problems that all systems, including organismic and societal, had to resolve: production, reproduction, regulation, and distribution. Later, Émile Durkheim ([1893] 1947) postulated only one master functional requisite: the need for sociocultural integration.

Functional theorizing might have died with Durkheim and the abandonment of Spencer’s evolutionism were it not for anthropologists, particularly A. R. Radcliffe-Brown (1952) and Bronislaw Malinowski ([1944] 1964), who carried functionalism to the midpoint of the twentieth century. Since preliterate societies had no written history that could be used to explain the origins of cultural features of these societies, assessing the function of a particular cultural pattern for the survival of the society became another way to “explain” why a particular cultural pattern existed (Turner and Maryanski 1979). Radcliffe-Brown (1952) followed Durkheim’s lead and analyzed cultural patterns, such as kinship, for how they resolve integrative problems in preliterate societies, whereas Malinowski adopted Spencer’s more analytical strategy, emphasizing that social reality exists at different system levels (biological organism, social structure, and culture) and that each level of reality has certain functional requisites that must be met if that system level is to be viable in its environment.

It is this latter form of analytical functionalism that came to dominate sociological theory in the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s, primarily through the work of Talcott Parsons (1951) and colleagues (Parsons, Bales, and Shils 1953; Parsons and Smelser 1956). For Parsons, social reality consists of four action systems (behavioral organism, personality, social, and cultural), and each system must meet four fundamental requisites: (1) adaptation (taking in resources, converting them into usable commodities, and distributing them); (2) goal attainment (establishing goals and mobilizing resources to meet these goals); (3) integration (coordination and control among system parts); and (4) latency (reproducing system units and resolving tensions within them). Each action system was analyzed by Parsons in terms of how it meets these requisites; later, Parsons began to explore the inputoutput relations among the action systems. Near the end of analytical functionalism’s brief dominance of sociological theorizing, particularly in the United States, Parsons (1966) posited a cybernetic hierarchy of control among the action systems, with those high in information (culture) providing guidance for those action systems lower in the hierarchy. Energy was seen as rising up the hierarchy from the behavioral organism through personality and social system to culture, while information from culture guided the organization of status roles in social systems, the motivated actions of the personality system, and the mobilization of energy in the organismic system. At the very end of Parsons’s (1978) reign as the leading theorist in the world⎯indeed, not long before his death⎯he posited a view of the entire universe as four systems meeting the four functional requisites (a strategy that harkened back to Spencer’s Synthetic Philosophy, where physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics could be analyzed in terms of the same elementary principles of evolution).

Functionalism came under increasing attack from many quarters by the early 1960s. From philosophy, the idea that system parts should be analyzed in terms of their functions will produce illegitimate teleologies (outcomes cause the very events that lead to these outcomes) or tautologies (circular arguments in which parts meet needs and needs cause parts to emerge). On a more substantive level, the rise of conflict theories (or their resurrection) in the 1960s led critics to argue that functionalism produced a theory supporting the status quo because, in essence, it argued that existing structures must exist to meet needs for survival (Dahrendorf 1958)⎯a line of argument that biases inquiry against searches for alternative structures.

Functionalism did not completely die, however, because there are many scholars, especially in Europe (e.g., Münch 1987, 2001), who continue to use Parsonsian categories to perform functional analysis, while others retain the emphasis on systems without the same elaborate taxonomy revolving around multiple-system requisites (e.g., Luhmann 1982). In the United States, a brief neofunctionalist movement occurred in which theorists (e.g., Alexander 1985; Alexander and Colomy 1985) abandoned the notion of functional requisites and, instead, focused on the strong points of functionalism: the emphasis on structural differentiation and the integrative effects of culture. Neofunctionalism was not functional, for all its other merits, because what makes functionalism distinctive is the view that social structures and systems of cultural symbols exist because they meet fundamental needs or requisites for survival (Turner and Maryanski 1988).

Another effort to save what is important in functional theory revolves around viewing functional requisites as forces that generate selection pressures for social systems. For example, Jonathan Turner (1995) argues that human social systems are driven by forces⎯much like the forces such as gravity in physics and natural selection in biology⎯that push populations to organize in certain ways or suffer the disintegrative consequences. Many of these forces overlap with what hard-core functionalists have seen as survival requisites. Thus, for Turner, regulation, reproduction, distribution, production, and population drive the formation of macro-level institutional systems; differentiation and integrative forces drive meso-level formations of corporate units like organizations and categoric units such as social and ethnic classes (Turner and Boyns 2001); and another set of forces direct the flow of microlevel interpersonal behavior in encounters (Turner 2002). Such an approach is no longer functional because needs or requisites are not posited, but the approach still retains the appeal of functionalism: analysis of how the universal forces apply selection pressures on populations. Other theorists working from different theoretical traditions have also begun to pursue this selectionist line of theorizing (e.g., Runciman 1989; Sanderson 1995).

The Persistence of Ecological Theorizing

In the works of both Spencer and Durkheim can be found the essence of an ecological theory. Both argued that as populations grow, competition for resources increases, setting into motion selection pressures. Spencer’s famous phrase “survival of the fittest” (uttered some nine years before Darwin’s theory was presented) captures some of this view; those individuals and social structures revealing properties that allow them to secure resources in their environment will survive, while those that do not will be selected out. Durkheim took a more benign view of selection, arguing that if individuals and collective actors cannot secure resources in one resource niche, they will seek resources elsewhere, thus increasing the level of specialization (or social speciation) or differentiation in a society. Thus, from the very beginnings of sociological theorizing, social differentiation has been seen as an outcome of niche density and competition for resources.

The arguments of Spencer and Durkheim were downsized between the 1920s and 1940s by the Chicago School in the United States (e.g., Hoyt 1939; Park 1936). While the members of the department of sociology at Chicago pursued many diverse lines of research, one persistent theme was to view urban areas as a kind of ecosystem, with competition among diverse actors (individuals with varying incomes and ethnic backgrounds as well as varying business and governmental actors) for urban space. Their competition is institutionalized by real estate markets; fueled by these markets, the patterns of control of urban space, the movement of individuals and corporate actors in and out of urban space, and the overall distribution of actors across urban areas can be analyzed with ecological principles. Today, this tradition still operates under the label of urban or human ecology (e.g., Frisbie and Kasarda 1988); it has consistently proven a useful theoretical orientation in understanding processes of urbanization and differentiation within urban areas.

In the 1970s, a new type of ecological analysis, one that focused on the ecology of organizations (Hannan and Freeman 1977), emerged. All organizations can be viewed as existing in a niche, where they seek resources (customers, clients, students, memberships, or any other resource needed to sustain an organization). Once an organization sustains itself in a resource niche, other organizations enter this niche and, in so doing, increase the density of organizations. Thus, the number of organizations in a niche will initially increase, but eventually, niche density becomes so great that selection pressures lead to the “death” of those organizations unable to secure resources or, alternatively, to their migration to a new niche where they can sustain themselves. More than urban ecology, organizational ecology borrowed self-consciously from bioecology, transferring many concepts from ecological analysis in biology to sociology. And perhaps more than urban ecology, organizational ecology remains one of the dominant approaches to understanding the structure and distribution of organizational systems in societies (Carroll 1988).

As urban and organizational ecology flourished, one of the carriers of this tradition from the Chicago School, Amos Hawley (1986), began to move the ecological analysis from the meso level (urban areas and organizations) back to macro-level societal dynamics. In essence, Hawley completed a conceptual odyssey to Spencer’s and Durkheim’s macro-level ecological theorizing, adding new refinements. For Hawley, technology as it affects productivity, modes of transportation, communication systems, and markets will lower mobility costs (for moving people, information, and resources) across space; and as mobility costs decrease, differentiation among corporate units (organizations revealing a division of labor) increases. Differentiation is also influenced by the capacity of the state to control territories, manage capital investments in the economy, regulate markets, and encourage technological development. When centers of power can effectively accomplish these goals, mobility costs are lowered and sociocultural differentiation increases. With increased differentiation, new integrative problems inevitably arise, often posing threats to centers of power that, in turn, lower the capacity of the state to control territories and otherwise act in ways that make markets more dynamic, that increase productivity, that expand transportation, and that extend communication. Thus, the ebb and flow of differentiation in a society is mediated by the operation of centers of power as these centers raise or lower mobility costs. Thus, the legacy of Spencer and Durkheim is very much alive in modern macro-level ecological theorizing. Others (e.g., Turner 1994, 1995) have also followed Hawley’s lead in carrying forward Spencer’s and Durkheim’s macro-level ecological theory.

The Challenge of Biosocial Theorizing

The persistence of Darwinian ideas in ecological theorizing has been supplemented in recent decades by another type of Darwinian theory: sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Both of these approaches emphasize that humans are animals whose phenotypes (physiology as well as behavioral capacities and propensities) are influenced by their genotypes (genetic makeup) as this genotype has been honed by the forces of biological evolution (natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, and mutation). This approach has been highly threatening to many sociologists because it is often interpreted as a new form of biological determinism that reduces understanding of culture and social structures to genetically driven behavioral propensities. Some of this skepticism was appropriate because early sociobiologists often made rather extreme statements (e.g., Wilson 1975). The basic argument of sociobiology is that behavioral propensities, culture, and social structure are, in essence, “survivor machines” that keep genes responsible for these propensities in the gene pool (Dawkins 1976). If particular behavioral proclivities and the sociocultural arrangements arising from these proclivities enable individuals to reproduce, they operate to maintain the genes of these individuals in the gene pool. Thus, behavioral strategies, social structures, and culture are survival machines, driven by “blind” natural selection to preserve those genes that enhance reproductive fitness (Williams 1966).

Evolutionary psychology (Cosmides 1989; Cosmides and Tooby 1989) adds to this line of argument the notion that there are “modules” in the brain that direct behaviors. These modules have been created by the forces of evolution as they have worked on the neurology of phenotypes (and the underlying genotype) to install behavioral propensities that enhance fitness. For evolutionary psychology, then, universal behaviors are driven by brain modules, as these have been honed by the forces of evolution (Savage and Kanazawa 2004).

These biosocial approaches represent a new way to address a topic that was often part of classical sociological theory: human instincts. Most early theorists had some vision of human instincts, but these views were often vague and disconnected to evolutionary biology. Bio-sociology offers a more sophisticated way to examine what is “natural” to humans as evolved apes, although the number of scholars pursuing this line of theorizing is comparatively small (but growing slowly). What this type of theorizing offers is a chance to reconnect sociology and biology in ways somewhat reminiscent of Comte’s and Spencer’s advocacy. (For sociological efforts to develop bio-sociology, see Horne 2004; Lopreato 2001; Lopreato and Crippen 1999; Machalek and Martin 2004; van den Berghe 1981.)

The Revival of Stage Models of Evolution

Comte, Spencer, Marx, and, to a lesser extent, Durkheim all presented stage models that saw the history of human society as passing through discrete stages of development. These models were, in a sense, descriptive because they reviewed the features of societal types, from simple hunting and gathering through horticulture and variants of horticulture like herding and fishing to agriculture and on to industrialism (post-industrialism was added later as a stage by contemporary sociologists, as was a postmodern stage by other sociologists). Yet these descriptions of societal evolution were always seen as driven by some fundamental forces, converting descriptions of stages into theories about the forces driving movement from one stage to another. For Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim, the driving force was population growth as it unleashed the ecological dynamics summarized above. Moreover, Spencer in particular saw war as an evolutionary force because those societies that won wars were generally better organized (economically, politically, and culturally) than those that were conquered, with the result that winners of wars constantly ratcheted up the complexity of human societies through the evolutionary stages that Spencer described in great detail. For Marx, the driving force of history revolved around changes in technologies and modes of production as these worked to generate “contradictions” that led to class conflict. For two thirds of the twentieth century, stage model evolutionary theory remained recessive. But in the 1960s, it was revived not only by Parsons (1966) in his later works but more significantly by Gerhard Lenski (1966) in his analysis of stratification systems. And later, neo-Marxian approaches like world-systems theorizing (see below) often imply a stage of societal evolution (Sanderson 1999; Wallerstein 1974).

These more recent models of societal evolution avoid the problems of early models, such as seeing each stage of evolution as inevitable and as marching toward an end state personified by Western European countries. Instead, more generic forces such as environment, demographic features (population size, characteristics, and rate of growth), technologies (economic and military), dynamism of markets, levels of production of material goods and services, properties and dynamics of stratification systems, and nature of institutional systems are all seen as interacting in complex ways to drive the structure and culture of societies. Few theories would posit one master force as driving evolution; instead, sets of forces are highlighted in various theories.

Lenski (1966), often in collaboration with others (e.g., Nolan and Lenski 2004), emphasizes the effects of technology (knowledge as it is used to increase production), but these effects are influenced by other forces, particularly the biosocial environment, nature of cultural symbols (values and ideologies), population size and rate of growth, institutional systems (kinship, religion, education, and polity), and patterns of war. Larger populations in stable and resource-rich environments, revealing liberal ideologies encouraging technological innovation, and institutional systems that do not discourage innovations or divert resources away from the economy and that limit warfare will become more complex and able to adapt to their environments. Stephen K. Sanderson (1995) blends ideas from biosociology and Marxian analysis, stressing that natural selection still works on individuals (rather than on society as a whole), but like Lenski, he stresses that societies are driven by demographic, ecological, technological, economic, and political forces. And like all Marxists, Sanderson emphasizes the material conditions of life⎯production and distribution⎯as the base that drives the development of cultural ideologies, political systems, interactions with the ecosystem, and relations with other societies.

While all present-day evolutionary theories stress that it is possible for de-evolution to occur (as Spencer had also argued), they tend to see a direction to evolution toward greater complexity, higher rates of innovation, and increased interdependence among societies connected by global markets. And most theorists would argue implicitly that if human evolution were to be restarted, it would pass through the same evolutionary stages from hunting and gathering to post-industrialism. The virtue of theorizing on stages of evolution is the time perspective gained, with contemporary social formations seen as the outcome of a long evolutionary history driven by a few fundamental forces.

The Revival of Conflict Theorizing

Both Karl Marx (Marx and Engels [1847] 1970) and Max Weber [1922] (1968) posited a conflict view of the social world. Each argued that inequalities generate tensions that, under specifiable conditions, increase the probability (for Marx, a certainty) that subordinates in the system of inequality will become mobilized to engage in conflict with superordinates in an effort to redistribute resources. Marx and Weber presented a similar list of conditions: High levels of inequality, large discontinuities between classes, and low rates of social mobility across classes all set the stage for the emergence of leaders who would articulate a revolutionary ideology. Each added refinements to this general model, but they both saw inequality as potentially unleashing forces that lead subordinates to pursue conflict.

Conflict theorizing remained prominent for most of the twentieth century in Europe, but in the United States, it was recessive until the 1960s. Partly embolded by the European critique of functionalism and by the demise of McCarthyism in the United States as well as by protests against the Vietnam War, conflict theory supplanted functionalism as the dominant theoretical orientation by the 1970s, although today the conflict approach is so integrated into mainstream sociological theorizing that it no longer stands out as a distinctive approach. The essence of conflict theories is the recognition that social reality is organized around inequalities in the distribution of valued resources such as material wealth, power, and prestige and that these inequalities systematically generate tensions, which under specifiable conditions generate various forms of conflict between those who have and those who do not have these valued resources. At first, the conflict theory revival was used as a foil against the perceived conservative bias of functionalism, but over the decades as conflict theory prospered, it developed a number of distinctive variants.

Abstracted Marxism

The first variant of conflict theory sought to make the theory more abstract, drawing from Marx’s analysis of class conflict and extending it to all social systems where inequalities of authority exist (Dahrendorf 1959). This approach took what was useful from Marx, modified the Marxian model with ideas from Weber and Georg Simmel, and generated an abstract theory of conflict in all social systems. In the several versions of this abstracted Marxism (Dahrendorf 1959; Turner 1975), the conditions generating awareness among subordinates of their interests in changing the system inequality are delineated, and these follow from Marx but add the important proviso that the more organized are subordinates, the less likely they are to engage in violent conflict (instead, they will negotiate and compromise). Indeed, in contrast to Marx, these approaches argue that incipient organization, emerging ideologies, and early leadership will lead to open and often violent conflict, whereas high levels of political organization, clearly articulated ideologies, and established leaders lead to negotiation and compromise, a line of theoretical argument that goes against Marx but takes into account Weber’s [1922] (1968) and Simmel’s [1907] (1990) critiques of Marx.

Analytical Marxism

Another variant of Marxism is what Erik Olin Wright (1997) has termed analytical Marxism, an approach that incorporates many of the key ideas of Marxian theory on the dynamics of capitalism while trying to explain with an expanded set of concepts the problems in Marx’s approach, particularly (1) the failure of industrial societies to polarize, (2) the lack of revolutionary conflict in industrial societies, (3) the rise of the state as a source of employment (thus making problematic whether government workers are proletarians or state managers), (4) the expansion of the middle classes in industrial and postindustrial societies, (5) the contradictory class locations of individuals in industrial and post-industrial societies (as both workers and managers), (6) the multiple-class locations of many families (where one person is a manager or owner, while another is a wage worker), and (7) the blurring of class distinctions as some skilled blue-collar workers become high wage earners or even owners of highly profitable small businesses, while many white-collar workers become lower-wage proletarians in service industries.

These and other events that have gone against Marx’s predictions have troubled present-day Marxists (for a review, see Burawoy and Wright 2001), and so they have set about revitalizing Marxian theory to explain contemporary conditions. In Wright’s (1997) version of analytical Marxism, for example, a distinction between economic power (control of others and the ability to extract their economic surplus) and economic welfare (ratio of toil in work to leisure time), coupled with people’s “lived experiences” and contradictory class location, dramatically changes the nature of exploitation and, hence, individuals’ awareness of their interests and willingness to engage in collective organization. Moreover, the notion of “ownership” and “control” is broadened to include four basic types of assets: labor-power assets, capital assets (to invest in economic activity and extract surplus value), organizational assets (to manage and control others and thereby extract surplus), and skill or credential assets (to extract resources beyond the labor necessary to acquire skills and credentials). Depending on the nature and level of any of these assets for individuals and families, the rate of exploitation will vary, being highest among those who have only labor assets and lowest among those who have the other types of assets. Additionally, Wright has sought to account for the fact that the state employs a significant proportion of the workforce yet cannot be seen as part of the bourgeoisie. Here, Wright emphasizes a “state mode of production” made possible by the resources that come from taxes, tariffs, and fees; and from this mode of production comes conflicts between managers, who ally themselves with capitalists and political decision makers, on the one side, and government workers, who provide the actual services, on the other. These two classes of workers in government reveal conflicting class interests and, hence, increased potential for class conflict. In the end, Wright and other analytical Marxists work hard to retain the basic concern with emancipation of subordinates in Marx’s thinking while adjusting Marxian concepts to fit the reality of postindustrial societies.

World-Systems Theory

This approach retains many ideas from Marx on the dynamics of capitalism but shifts the unit of analysis from nation-state to systems of societies and globalization (Chase-Dunn 2001). Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) codified this mode of analysis, building on earlier work by dependency theorists (e.g., Frank 1969), into a conceptualization of world systems. One type of global system is a world empire revolving around conquest and extraction of resources from the conquered, which are then spent on elite privilege, control, and further conquest. Such systems eventually face fiscal crises, leading to showdown wars with other expanding empires. Of more interest to worldsystems theorists like Wallerstein is a world economy driven not only by war but also by the flow of capital and technology through world markets. Such world economies are composed of (1) “core states,” which have power, capital, and technology; (b) “peripheral states,” which have inexpensive labor, natural resources, and insufficient power to stop their conquest, colonization, and exploitation; and (c) “semiperipheral states,” having some economic development and military power, which, over time, can allow them to become part of the core. Thus, for world-systems theorists, the core is seen to exploit the periphery, frequently aided by the semiperiphery, with analysis emphasizing the economic cycles of varying duration (Juglar, Kuznet, and Kondratief cycles) and the flow of resources from periphery to core. From such exploitation, conflict within and between societies can emerge. There are many variants of world-systems theory, which adopt the broad strokes of Wallerstein’s approach but emphasize somewhat different dynamics. For example, Christopher Chase-Dunn (1998) introduces new variables, such as population growth, intensification of production and environmental degradation, and immigration and emigration processes, to world-system dynamics leading to conflict within and between nations (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997). Thus, Marxian ideas have been given new life by the shift to globalization.

Abstracted Weberianism

Just as Marx’s ideas have been abstracted and extended, so Weber’s analysis of conflict has been converted to more general and abstract theories of conflict. Randall Collins (1975, 1986), for example, has blended Weber’s analysis of domination with ideas from other theoretical traditions. Collins (1981) argues that macro-level social structures like organizations and stratification systems are built from micro-level interaction rituals that sustain class cultures, authority systems in organizations, and inequalities in resources. People carry varying levels of cultural capital, emotional energy, material wealth, prestige, and power; and they use these resources in face-to-face interaction, with those high in these resources generally able to dominate others and augment their shares of resources. True to his Weberian roots, Collins then analyzes the varying cultures of social classes, the power of the state, the ideologies used to legitimate state power, the economy, and even the geopolitics between nations in terms of the relative resources of actors. Those who receive deference because of their resources will have different cultures and orientations than those who must give deference; the nature of control in organizational systems will varying depending on the relative reliance on coercion, material resources, or symbolic resources; the scale of the state depends on a surplus of economic resources, the degree of consensus over symbols, and the ability to use resources to expand the administrative and coercive bases of power; and geopolitics will reflect the technological, productive, geographical, and military advantages of states. Thus, like Marx, Weber’s ideas stand at the core of new forms of conflict theorizing.

Historical-Comparative Analysis

The ideas of Marx and Weber are often combined in historical-comparative analysis of conflict processes. These analyses tend to focus on several classes of historical events, particularly the rise of democracies, revolutionary conflict, and empire formation and collapse. All of these theories focus on the state and the mobilization of masses (and often factions of elites) for conflict against the state. There are two lines of argument in these theories. One lists the conditions that lead masses and elites to mobilize for conflict against the state, while the other specifies the forces weakening the state’s power and its capacity to repress dissent and conflict (Li and Turner 1998). The first line of argument owes more inspiration to Marx, and to a lesser extent to Weber, while the second is more indebted to Weber than to Marx. Some adopt Marx’s ideas and extend them to nonindustrial societies, as is the case with Jeffrey Paige’s (1975) analysis of agrarian revolutions in which cultivators (agricultural workers) and noncultivators (owners of land and their allies in government) evidence a clear conflict of interest, with revolution most likely when cultivators can communicate, develop ideologies, and mobilize for collective action and when noncultivators do not enjoy large resource advantages over cultivators. Barrington Moore’s (1966) analysis of the rise of democracy employs an argument very similar to that developed by abstracted Marxian theories, emphasizing that subordinates can effectively engage in conflict when they live in propinquity, communicate, avoid competition with each other, and perceive that they are being exploited by elites who no longer honor traditional forms of relations with subordinates (primarily because of the effects of markets in breaking down traditional patterns of social relations). Charles Tilly (1978, 1993) similarly develops a model of resource mobilization that draws from Marx and Weber, emphasizing that when subordinates have been kept out of the political arena, when segments of elites have similarly been disenfranchised, and when the state has been weakened (due to fiscal crises, inefficient tax collection, and poor administration), mobilization for conflict is likely. Theda Skocpol’s (1979) analysis of revolution draws from Weber the effects of losing prestige in the world system, which comes with defeat in war, coupled with fiscal crises, which give subordinates opportunities to mobilize for conflict. Jack Goldstone (1991) introduces a demographic variable into these theories of revolutionary conflict, arguing that population growth will over the course of a century cause price inflation, displacement of peasants from the land, urban migrations, disaffection of some elites, and fiscal crises for the state. In turn, these lagged outcomes of population growth weaken the power of the state to repress mobilizations by peasants, migrations of restive peasants to urban areas, and disaffection of some elites. Finally, Randall Collins (1986) develops a Weber-inspired model of empire formation, arguing that expansion of empires increases when a society has a marchland advantage (natural barriers protecting its backside and flanks) and when, compared with its neighbors, it has a larger population, greater wealth, higher levels of productivity, more advanced technologies, and betterorganized armies. But, as the empire expands, it will eventually lose its marchland and military advantages (as enemies copy its technology) while increasing its logistical loads to sustain the empire. Eventually, an empire will have a showdown war with another empire, causing it to collapse and implode back to its original home base. As is evident, then, Marx and Weber’s theoretical legacy lives on in yet another theoretical venue, historical-comparative analysis of state and empire formation, revolutionary conflict, and war.

Critical Theorizing

From sociology’s very beginnings, thinkers have often argued that sociology could be used to reconstruct society. Comte, for example, viewed positivism as a means for creating a better society, but his approach as well as that of his followers, such as Spencer and Durkheim, was not sufficiently critical of the condition of early industrial societies. Instead, it was Marx’s critique of the evils of capitalism that pushed for a critical edge to theorizing, but as critical theorists in the early twentieth century sought to retain the emancipatory thrust of Marx’s ideas, they had to take into account Weber’s prediction that the state would increasingly dominate social relations through rational legal authority.

At the University of Frankfurt, early critical theorists like Max Horkheimer ([1947] 1972, [1947] 1974) and Theodor Adorno [1966] (1973) emphasized that critical theory must describe the social forces that work against human freedom and expose the ideological justifications of these forces. Theorists must confront each other, debating ideas, and from these debates “truth” will emerge, but this truth is not that of science but a practical knowledge that comes from human struggles against the forces of oppression. Others in the Frankfurt School, as it became known, took a more idealist turn. György Lukács [1922] (1968), for example, borrowed from Marx the idea of the “fetishism of commodities” and converted it into a notion of “reification” in which all objects, including people, become commodities to be marketed, whose worth is determined by their “exchange value,” another concept taken from Marx and Adam Smith ([1776] 1976). Lukács saw this process of reification to be an evolutionary trend, coming to a similar conclusion as Weber’s “steel cage” argument, but he proposed a way out: There are limits to how far human consciousness will tolerate reification, and so it is necessary to unlock this innate source of resistance to reification⎯a theoretical position that pushes critical theory into subjectivism.

Outside the Frankfurt School proper, critical theory also took a cultural turn. For example, in Italy, Antonio Gramsci [1928] (1971) returned to the early Marx, where the importance of ideology was emphasized in the critique of the Young Hegelians. For Gramsci, the power of the state is used to manipulate workers and others through the propagation of ideologies about civic culture that are seemingly inoffensive but that nonetheless become the dominant views of even those who are oppressed. Thus, workers come to believe in the appropriateness of markets, the commodification of objects and symbols, the buying and selling of labor as a commodity, the rule of law to enforce contracts unfavorable to workers, the encouragement of private charities (rather than structural reform) to eliminate suffering, the curriculum in schools, the state’s definition of a “good citizen,” and many other taken-forgranted beliefs of the oppressed population. Thus, the state controls a population not so much by a “steel cage” of repression and rational-legal domination as by a “soft” world of symbols that the oppressed accept as “natural and appropriate”⎯a more sophisticated version of Marx’s arguments about “false consciousness.” In France, Louis Althusser (1965) adopted a structuralist metaphor, seeing the individual as trapped in a “deeper” structural order dominated by the state, capitalist economic relations, and capitalist ideologies; and because people see this order as the way things must be, they do not perceive that they can escape from this structure. By failing to see the state and ideology as crude tools of power and by seeing self as subordinate to deep structures directing all social life, individuals come to believe that resistance to these oppressive structures is futile.

The tradition of the Frankfurt School has been carried forth by a number of scholars, the most notable being Jurgen Habermas (1981/1984), who begins by seeing science as one form of domination as the state propagates an ideology revolving around “technocratic consciousness.” Habermas develops a broad evolutionary view of human history, incorporating theoretical elements from many contemporary theoretical traditions, but the basic argument is that the “lifeworld” (an idea borrowed from phenomenology) is being “colonized” by the state and economy; as this process proceeds, people’s capacity for “communicative action” is reduced. For Habermas, communicative action is the process whereby meanings are formed, creating the lifeworld that is the principal means of integration for societies. As the lifeworld is colonized, the reproduction of the lifeworld is interrupted; and societal integration is maintained only by “delinguistified media” such as money and power. Habermas develops a larger philosophical scheme, but his arguments carry forth the legacy of the Frankfurt School.

Within the United States, the issues raised by the old and new Frankfurt School, and those outside Germany working with its legacy, have been less influential than the rise of a wide variety of more specific critical approaches. These critical approaches often borrow from Marx and philosophy, but they owe more inspiration to prominent social movements, particularly the civil rights and women’s movements. These theories are generally philosophical, often anti-science, and critical of the social relations and ideologies that oppress specific subpopulations, such as members of ethnic minorities, women, and workers. Over the last two decades, this line of theorizing, if it can be called theory proper, has gained a strong foothold not only in sociology but also in many other disciplines such as English. Just how successful these ideologically loaded “theories” will be in the next decades is an open question, although they are now well established throughout academia and thus have a resource base that can sustain them. The result is that the debate of earlier generations of sociologists over the prospects for scientific theorizing has taken on a new polemical intensity, exceeding by far the comparatively muted debates among the founding generation of sociologists over the prospects for scientific sociology.

Postmodern Theorizing

One of the most prominent new lines of theorizing in sociology is postmodernism, which, like critical theories, tends to be hostile to science (Lyotard 1979; Rorty 1979) and often takes a cultural turn from its Marxist origins. Economic postmodernism draws ideas not only from Marx but also from early theorists who were concerned about the “pathologies” of modernization, whereas cultural postmodernism emphasizes the increasing dominance of culture at the same time that symbols have become fragmented, commodified, and at times trivialized in ways that make individuals overly reflexive and unable to sustain a stable identity. Both economic and cultural postmodernists emphasize the dramatic transformations that come with global markets driven by capitalism; indeed, these transformations are so fundamental as to mark a new stage of human evolution: the postmodern.

Economic postmodernists stress particular dimensions of the transformation that come with globalization (Harvey 1989; Jameson 1984; Lash and Urry 1987). One point of emphasis is the effect of high volume, velocity, and global markets fueled by advertising. The result has been the commodification of objects, people, and, most important, cultural symbols that are ripped from their indigenous locations, commodified, and marketed across the globe. Marxist-oriented postmodernists, who often overlap with world-systems theorists, emphasize the rapid movement of capital over the world and its deconcentration from historical centers of capital. Advances in transportation and communication technology have also compressed time and space in ways that facilitate the flow not only of capital but also of goods, people, and symbols around the globe. Finally, economic postmodernists tend to emphasize the growing dominance of imaging technologies of reproduction over those for production.

Cultural postmodernists focus on the consequences of the transformations described by economic postmodernists (Baudrillard 1981/1994; Gergen 1991; Kellner 1995). The first significant consequence is the increasing dominance of culture and symbols over material structures. People increasingly live in a world of fragmented symbols, which has more impact on their identities and behaviors than material conditions. The increase in the power of culture is made possible by media technologies and markets that detach culture from local groups, local time, and local space and that send commodified cultural elements via media technologies or via markets around the global system. Indeed, humans live in a simulated world of symbolizations of symbols, viewed through the eyeglass of the media (Baudrillard 1981/1994). As a result of its detachment from its material base and free-floating signifiers, culture loses its capacity to provide stable meanings for individuals. As an outcome of this inability of culture to provide meanings and anchorage of individuals in local groups, self becomes more salient than group, leading to increased reflexivity about self in an endless loop of searching for meanings and for a true sense of self. Thus, at the very time that self is ascendant, it reveals less stability, coherence, and viability.

These themes in contemporary postmodern theory can all be found in the founding generations of sociologists. For example, Durkheim’s concern over anomie and egoism; Marx’s views on alienation; Simmel’s analysis of the marginal and fractured self; Smith’s, Comte’s, Spencer’s, and Durkheim’s concerns about the differentiation and fragmentation of society; Weber’s portrayal of rationalization and emphasis on efficiency over other types of action; Marx’s and the later critical theorists’view of the power of ideology; and many other “pathologies” of modern societies that early theorists emphasized have all been recast in postmodern theory. In a very real sense, then, postmodern theorizing represents an extension of the concerns of early theorists about the effects of modernization on society and humans. Yet much postmodern theory consists of conjectures that have not been seriously tested, although many postmodernists, particularly the cultural postmodernists, would consider empirical tests in the mode of science to impose a “failed epistemology” on their modes of inquiry. Moreover, a great deal of postmodern theory overlaps with critical theorizing because few consider the “postmodern condition” to be a good thing; thus, postmodernism is heavily ideological in critiquing the contemporary world, often assuming implicitly that human nature has somehow been violated.

Like critical theorizing, postmodern theory is part of a much larger intellectual and cultural movement that extends across disciplines as diverse as architecture, social sciences, and the humanities. Within sociology, it has enjoyed a strong following for the last two decades, although there are signs that cultural postmodernists are losing ground, with the economic postmodernists moving more squarely into Marxian-inspired world-systems analysis.

Interactionist Theorizing

Contemporary interactionist theorizing reveals a number of variants, each of which draws from a different theoretical tradition. Symbolic interactionism carries forth the pragmatist tradition synthesized by George Herbert Mead (1934); dramaturgical theory draws primarily from Durkheim’s ([1912] 1947) analysis of rituals; interaction ritual theory also draws from Durkheim and dramaturgy while introducing elements from other modern theories; ethnomethodology represents the modern application of phenomenology (Husserl [1913] 1969; Schütz [1932] 1967), coupled with elements from other traditions; and there are several efforts to develop syntheses among all these strands of theorizing about face-to-face interaction.

Symbolic Interactionism

The ideas of Mead have been applied to a wide variety of topics, from roles (Turner 1968) and identity processes (McCall and Simmons 1978; Stryker 1980, 2001) through the sociology of emotions (Burke 1991; Heise 1979; Scheff 1988) to theories of collective behavior (Snow and Benford 1988; Turner and Killian 1987). The basic argument is that social reality is ultimately constructed from face-to-face interactions among individuals who communicate symbolically, develop definitions of situations, draw on cultural resources, play roles, and seek to verify self and identity (Blumer 1969). Identity theories are perhaps the most prominent theoretical wing of interactionist theory today (for recent statements by various theorists, see Burke 2006; Burke et al. 2003). Here, theorists view more global self-conceptions and situational role identities as a cybernetic control system, with individuals presenting gestures so as to get others to verify their self and identity. These theories also overlap with theories of emotions, since verification of self arouses positive emotions, whereas failure to verify self generates negative emotional arousal and leads to adjustments in behaviors or identities that bring identity, behavior, and responses of others into line. Some versions of symbolic interactionism extend these Gestalt dynamics not only to person but also to others, the identity of others, and the situation, with individuals seen as motivated to keep sentiments about these aspects of interaction consistent with each other (Heise 1979; Smith-Lovin and Heise 1988). As noted earlier, another set of symbolic interactionist theories incorporates Freudian dynamics to explain the activation of defense mechanisms when self and identity are not confirmed or when individuals fail to realize expectations or experience negative sanctions (Scheff 1988; J. Turner 2002). Role theory has also been influenced by symbolic interactionism, with each individual reading the gestures of others to determine the latter’s role and with individuals also seeking to have others verify their roles and the self and identity presented in these roles (R. Turner 2001). Theories of collective behavior and social movements also adopt symbolic interactionists ideas, emphasizing the collective contagion and emotional arousal of crowd behaviors and the processes by which members of social movements frame situations in ways that direct collective actions (Snow and Benford 1988).

Dramaturgical Theories

Erving Goffman (1959, 1967) was the first to downsize Durkheim’s ([1912] 1947) analysis of rituals and emotions as the basis of social solidarity in the most elemental social unit, the encounter, or episode of interaction. While Goffman was often seen as a symbolic interactionist, he was a Durkheimian who emphasized the importance of the cultural script, the dramatic presentations of self to an audience, and the strategic behaviors that individuals employ in presenting self on a stage in which props, sets, space and ecology, and interpersonal demography are employed to make a dramatic presentation and to realize strategic goals. In contrast to most symbolic interactionists, dramaturgy views self as purely situational and as something that individuals “put on” in presenting a “line” or in strategic acts of “impression management.” Thus, in addition to the use of the front stage to manage a line, forms of talk, use of rituals, presentations of roles, and keying of frames (of what is to be included and excluded from the interaction) are all synchronized to present self in a particular light and to achieve strategic ends.

Interaction Ritual Theorizing

Randall Collins (2004) has extended Durkheim’s and Goffman’s analysis to a more general theory of ritual. For Collins, the elements of what Goffman termed the “encounter” constitute a more inclusive ritual where individuals reveal a focus of attention, common mood, rhythmic synchronization of bodies and talk, symbolization of the positive emotional energy from rhythmic synchronization, and enhanced solidarity. When these elements of the ritual do not unfold, however, negative emotional energy is aroused, and solidarity becomes more problematic. Unlike most interactionists, Collins does not see self as a critical motivational force in these rituals. Moreover, he tries to develop a more general theory of meso and macro structures using interaction rituals as the “micro foundation” of all social structures (Collins 1981). More recent theories (Summer-Effler 2002, 2004a, 2004b) in this tradition have blended more symbolic interactionist elements into interaction ritual theory by expanding the analysis of emotions and introducing self and identity as key forces.

Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology emphasizes the methods or interpersonal techniques, especially in talk and conversation, that individuals employ to construct, maintain, or change their presumptions about what they share. This basic idea is adopted from phenomenology, a philosophical tradition (e.g., Husserl [1913] 1969) given a sociological character by Alfred Schütz ([1932] 1967). For Schütz, much interaction involves signaling to others not to question the presumption that parties to an interaction share a common view of reality. For ethnomethodologists, the gestures and signals that individuals exchange are “indexical” in that they have meaning only in particular contexts; and these signs are used to construct a sense of common meaning among individuals. Most ethnomethodological research examines finely coded transcripts of conversations to determine the ethno or folk methods that individuals employ to create or sustain a sense of reality. For example, turn-taking in conversations, gestures searching for a normal conversational form, ignoring gestures that may disconfirm reciprocity of perspectives, patterns of overlaps in conversations, allowing ambiguities in meanings to pass, or repairing in subsequent turns minor misunderstandings are all techniques that individuals employ to create and sustain the sense that they share a common intersubjective world (Garfinkel 1967; Sacks 1992; Schegloff 2001). The data presented by ethnomethodologists have been adopted by other theories, but unfortunately, the theoretical arguments of ethnomethodology appear to have taken a backseat to empirical analyses of conversations, often moving ethnomethodology into some version of linguistics.

Integrative Approaches

All of the above theoretical approaches involved some integration of both classic and contemporary theories. But some contemporary theorists have sought to develop more general and robust theories of interpersonal processes by integrating concepts and propositions from a variety of interactionist theories. Jonathan Turner (2002), for example, has blended elements from symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, interaction ritual theory, the sociology of emotions, role theory, expectation states theory, and ethnomethodology into a view of encounters as driven fundamental forces: emotions, transactional needs, symbols, status, roles, demography, and ecology. Yet relatively few theories are as integrative as Turner’s efforts; most microsociology tends to remain narrow in focus, producing a delimited set of generalizations and data sets designed to test these generalizations.

Exchange Theorizing

Exchange theory draws from both the behaviorist tradition of Edward Thorndike, Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson (1913), and B. F. Skinner (1938) and the utilitarian tradition of the Scottish moralists. The basic argument is that individuals seek to gain profits in exchanges of resources with others, with profit being a function of the resources received, less the costs and investments spent in seeking these resources. All exchanges are also mediated by norms of fair exchange and justice, with the most prevalent norm of justice emphasizing equity or the distribution of rewards in proportion to relative costs and investments among actors. However, all exchange theories introduce the notion of power, in which one actor has the capacity to receive more rewards than others. Power is typically defined as the dependence of other actors on a powerful actor for valued resources, and the greater is the dependence of actors, the greater is the power of resource-holders over them.

Over the last four decades, exchange analysis has ventured into other areas of theorizing. Initially, exchange theory and network analysis were combined to understand the dynamics of networks in terms of the exchange dynamics that arise from power dependence (Cook and Rice 2001). The general finding is that power-advantaged actors use their advantage to exploit dependent actors by demanding additional resources. Under these conditions, dependent actors will seek other exchange partners, leave the exchange, learn to do without resources, or introduce new resources into the exchange that are highly valued by the previously advantaged actor (thus creating mutual dependence). Other findings emphasize that actors will develop commitments to exchanges, or engage in suboptimal exchanges, in return for certainty of exchange payoffs.

Another area where exchange theory has more recently penetrated is the sociology of emotions, in which powerdependence processes and network structures are analyzed in terms of the emotions that are aroused during the process of exchange (Lawler 2001). From theory and research, several generalizations emerge (Turner and Stets 2005). When payoffs are profitable and meted out in accordance with the norms of justice, positive emotions are aroused, whereas when payoffs are unprofitable, below expectations, and violate the norms of justice, negative emotions are aroused. If individuals are over-rewarded or their over-reward leads to unfair under-reward for others, they will experience guilt. Positive rewards in negotiated and reciprocal exchanges reveal a proximal bias in attributions (leading to feelings of pride), while negative rewards or under-rewards in such exchanges evidence a distal bias (arousing anger toward others, the situation, or group). High-power individuals are more likely to make selfattributions for success in profitable exchanges and external attributions for under-rewards than are low-power actors. The more profits are received in dense networks engaged in coordinated actions, the more likely are positive exchange outcomes to cause actors to make external attributions to the group, and the more they will become attached to the group. These and other generalizations document that exchange theories are becoming integrative, crossing over into other areas of theory and research in sociology.

Structuralist Theory

All sociologists study social structures, but structuralist theorizing in sociology has special connotations. There are, in essence, two branches of structuralist theorizing, both of which derive considerable inspiration from Durkheimian sociology. One branch emphasizes material conditions as influencing the nature of social relations among individuals and collective actors. Marx, Georg Simmel, and especially the early Durkheim all agreed that structure is a set of connections among parts, with the goal of theorizing being to discover the cause of these connections and their dynamic properties. The other branch of structuralism seeks to discover the “deep structures” or “generative rules” guiding the formation of culture systems and social structural arrangements. What is observable empirically is seen as a surface manifestation of a deeper underlying system of generative rules and, in some theorists’ minds (e.g., Lévi-Strauss [1958] 1963, 1979), rules directed by the neurology of the human brain.

The materialist version of structural analysis can be found in any theory that tries to explain the properties of social relations. One of the more prominent approaches in this tradition is network analysis, which views structures as nodes connected by relationships involving the flow of resources. In network theory, the form of the relationship is critical because different forms will reveal varying dynamic properties (for a review, see Turner 2002). The structuralism that also comes from Durkheim, via structural linguistics (de Saussure [1915] 1966; Jakobson 1962–1971) and structural anthropology, has inspired a revival of cultural sociology, even though some theories oftentimes see structure as being generated by the biology of the brain. But structuralism inspired a new concern with cultural codes and the practices that carry these codes to situations and that change or reinforce them. The structuralism movement enjoyed a certain cache during the 1970s and 1980s, but by the turn into the twenty-first century, the interests of structuralists had been incorporated into the “cultural turn” of sociological theorizing. The more materialist versions of structural analysis continue, as they always have, in a wide variety of theoretical perspectives, although network analysis⎯the most formal of these materialist approaches⎯has become ever more concerned with computer algorithms for describing rather than explaining network structures.

The Cultural Turn in Sociological Theory

Over the last decades of the twentieth century, sociological theory has taken a cultural turn. There were, of course, classical antecedents to this turn, but all of them tended to see culture as a dependent variable, as something that is shaped by social structural arrangements. For Marx, culture is a “superstructure” driven by the material “substructure”; for Durkheim, the collective conscience is related to the nature, number, and relationships among system parts, although his work did inspire cultural structuralism; and for the modern functionalists, culture is conceptualized in highly analytical terms as a system composed of abstract elements such as value orientations. Only Weber ([1905] 1958) appeared to emphasize culture as a causal force, as illustrated by his analysis of the Protestant Ethnic and the rise of capitalism (although his analysis in terms of ideal types tended to reduce the culture of Protestantism and capitalism to a few analytical elements). As we saw, the critical theories of the Frankfurt School and others in this tradition like Gramsci often migrated to the analysis of ideologies, but again, culture was always connected to material and political interests. And during the 1960s, as Marxism and conflict sociology reemerged in the United States, culture was once again seen as an ideology reflecting the material interests of contending groups.

Jeffrey Alexander and Philip Smith (2001) have termed most sociological analyses of culture a “weak program” because culture is not explored as an autonomous system but, instead, as a dependent variable or superstructure to material conditions. They even criticize work that focuses explicitly on culture, including the Birmingham School’s analysis of symbols in terms of Marxian structural categories, the efforts of Pierre Bourdieu (1977) to understand “habitus” and its connection to material conditions, and the works of poststructuralists like Michel Foucault (1972), whose “archeology” of knowledge ultimately uncovers the effects of power on culture. Similar cultural programs, such as Wuthnow’s (1987) analysis of the moral order, are seen to emphasize the connection between the moral order and the material resource bases generated by wealth, leadership communication networks, political authority, and other structural properties. Likewise, Michèle Lamont’s (1999) analysis of culture as marking group boundaries is viewed as explaining culture by its attachment to stratification and economic systems.

In contrast to these “weak programs,” Alexander and Smith (2001) propose a “strong program” where culture is treated initially as an autonomous sphere with deep textual analysis of its symbols in their specific context. Both the weak and strong programs emphasize cultural codes, discursive practices by which these codes are used, rituals directed at the code, and the objects denoted by codes, discourse, and rituals, but the strong program avoids connecting cultural analysis to material conditions, as least until the full exploration of the cultural codes has been completed. For example, Alexander’s (2004) strong program of “cultural pragmatics” emphasizes that there are deep background “representations” that generate “scripts” and “texts” that actors decode and interpret; and these need to be analyzed before they are connected to individuals’ actions in front of audiences. Although power and productive relations influence how actors extend culture to audiences through ritual performances, the elements of culture need to be analytically separated from their structural contexts, and their scripts and texts need to be thickly described. Only then can they be reattached to ritual, social structure, and audience to explain ritual practices and audience reactions. And as actors extend culture to audiences, they experience cathexis, which, in turn, influences the nature of the texts, discourse, and rituals.

Whatever the merits of these kinds of arguments, it is clear that cultural sociology has made an enormous comeback over the last decade of the twentieth century, and indeed, theorizing about culture is becoming as prominent in the first decade of this century as conceptualizations of material conditions were at the height of conflict theory in the 1960s and 1970s. Yet, for all the emphasis on thick description of texts, most analyses eventually become highly analytical, abstracting from these texts particular sets of codes that, in turn, are attached to material conditions.

Problems and Prospects for Sociological Theory in the 21st Century

The decline of grand theory when it is most needed.

At the very time when sociological theory has differentiated into a variety of approaches, general and integrative theorizing has declined. All of the early theorists, especially Spencer, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, were generalists who sought to explain a wide range of phenomena across long reaches of history. Functional theory in the modern era, particularly that practiced by Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann, was also grand, but with the demise of these versions of grand theory, such theorizing fell out of favor and has been replaced by narrower theories confined to one level of analysis and held in check by scope conditions. Relatively few theories today seek to explain all phenomena at the micro, meso, and macro levels. There are some exceptions, however. For example, Anthony Giddens’s (1984) structuration theory is grand in the sense that it attempts to explain all levels of reality, although his scheme is more of a conceptual framework for describing a wide range of empirical cases. Jonathan Turner’s (1995, 2002) efforts of theorizing approximate a grand approach because he consciously seeks to integrate existing theories at all levels of social reality. Randall Collins’s (1975, 2004) interaction ritual theory is another approach that seeks to explain reality at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Still, most theorists shy away from this kind of integrative effort, at the very time that sociological theory is fragmenting into diverse and often hostile camps. In the future, it will be necessary for more integrative and, indeed, grand approaches to make a comeback if sociological theory is to reveal any coherence in the twenty-first century.

The Continuing Debate over Science

From the beginning, sociologists have debated the prospects for scientific sociology resembling that in the natural sciences. The founders were split, with Comte, Spencer, Simmel, and Durkheim pushing for scientific sociology, while Marx and Weber had doubts about the prospects for universal laws that could explain reality at all times and in all places. This split over the prospects for scientific sociology continued through the whole of the twentieth century and divides sociological theory (Turner and Turner 1990).

There are those who wish to perform rigorous analytical work but who view a sociology that apes the natural sciences as impossible; there are those who see the epistemology of the natural sciences as not only impossible but as a tool of repression; there are still others who see science as proposing grand narratives when the world does not reveal such an obdurate character; there are many who seek sociology as an art form or as a clinical field in which investigators use their intuiting to solve problems; and there are many who argue that sociology should be explicitly ideological, seeking to change the world. There is, then, a rather large collection of anti-scientists within sociology, especially sociological theory.

The end result is that scientific sociology is not accepted by many sociologists. Yet an enormous amount of theoretical growth and accumulation of knowledge has occurred over the last four decades, at the very time when many were having doubts about the appropriateness or possibility of a natural science of society. Thus, much of the new scientific understanding about the dynamics of the social world is ignored or viewed with hostility by those who have other agendas. Indeed, should sociology ever have its Einstein, only a few would take notice.

Chauvinism and Intolerance

Even among those who are committed to the epistemology of science, there is both chauvinism and intolerance. Some proclaim that certain processes occurring at a particular level of reality are the key properties and processes of the social universe, while being dismissive of those who think otherwise. And among those who do not believe that science is possible or even desirable, there is a smug condescension that is equally dismissive. For the former, theory becomes narrow and focused, building up barriers to other theoretical approaches, while for the latter group, theory becomes anything and everything⎯ideology, practice, philosophizing, textual analysis, moral crusading, critique, and virtually any activity. In being anything and everything, it becomes nothing in the sense of accumulating knowledge about the social world. Social theory, when not disciplined by the epistemology of science, becomes driven by intellectual fads and foibles, constantly changing with new social, cultural, and intellectual movements but never establishing a base of knowledge.

Conclusions

This summary cannot really do justice to the diversity of activity that occurs under the rubrics of “social” and, more narrowly, “sociological” theory. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall, split into so many pieces that even grand theorists may never be able to put him back together again. In one sense, the proliferation of theories is a sign of vitality, especially among those narrow theories that seek to develop cumulative knowledge. But it is also an indicator of weakness because at some point, sociological theory will need to develop a more integrated set of principles and models about social reality. This effort is hindered by those who simply do not accept the epistemology of science. As a result, efforts to integrate theories will often be sidetracked by debate and acrimony as factions become intolerant of each other. As a consequence, at a time when enormous progress has been made in denoting the basic properties of the social universe, in developing abstract models and principles on the operative dynamics of these properties, and in assessing these theories with systematically collected data, it is not clear how many sociologists are listening. Fifty years ago, it seemed that sociology was ready to take its place at the table of science; today, this prospect seems more remote, despite the fact that sociology is far more sophisticated theoretically than five decades ago. Thus, as we move toward the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, it is not clear just what the prospects for sociological theory will be. Will the scientists prevail? Will the anti-science factions win out? Or will the fight continue for another 100 years? Realistically speaking, this last prognosis is the most likely scenario.

Bibliography:

• Adorno, Theodor. [1966] 1973. Negative Dialectics. New York: Seabury.
• Alexander, Jeffrey C., ed. 1985. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2004. “Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance between Ritual and Strategy.” Sociological Theory 22:527–73.
• Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Paul Colomy. 1985. “Toward Neofunctionalism.” Sociological Theory 3:11–23.
• Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Philip Smith. 2001. “The Strong Program in Cultural Theory.” Pp. 135–50 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Althusser, Louis. 1965. For Marx. New York: Pantheon.
• Baudrillard, Jean. 1981/1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Burawoy, Michael and Erik Olin Wright. 2001. “Sociological Marxism.” Pp. 459–86 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Burke, Peter J. 1991. “Identity and Social Stress.” American Sociological Review 56:836–49.
• Burke, Peter J., ed. 2006. Contemporary Social Psychological Theories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Burke, Peter J., Timothy J. Owens, Richard Sherpe, and Peggy A. Thoits, eds. 2003. Advances in Identity Theory and Research. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Carroll, Glenn R., ed. 1988. Ecological Models of Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
• Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1998. Global Formation: Structures of the World Economy. 2d ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 2001. “World Systems Theory.” Pp. 589–612 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Thomas D. Hall. 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World Systems. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• Collins, Randall. 1975. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic Press.
• Collins, Randall. 1981. “On the Micro-Foundations of MacroSociology.” American Journal of Sociology 86:984–1014.
• Collins, Randall. 1986. Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Comte, Auguste. [1830–1842] 1896. The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. Translated by H. Martineau. London, England: George Bell & Sons.
• Cook, Karen S. and Eric R. W. Rice. 2001. “Exchange and Power.” Pp. 699–721 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Cosmides, Leda. 1989. “The Logic of Social Exchange.” Cognition 31:187–276.
• Cosmides, Leda and John Tooby. 1989. “Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.” Ethology and Sociobiology 10:51–97.
• Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1958. “Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analyses.” American Journal of Sociology 64:120–28.
• Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford International.
• de Saussure, Ferdinand. [1915] 1966. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Durkheim, Émile. [1893] 1947. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
• Durkheim, Émile. [1912] 1947. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
• Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London, England: Tavistock.
• Frank, Andre Gunder. 1969. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Frisbie, Parker and John D. Kasarda. 1988. “Spatial Processes.” Pp. 86–98 in Handbook of Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Gergen, Kenneth J. 1991. The Saturated Self. New York: Basic Books.
• Giddens,Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
• Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
• Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-toFace Behaviors. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
• Goldstone, Jack. 1991. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Gramsci, Antonio. [1928] 1971. Selections from Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
• Habermas, Jurgen. 1981/1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. 2 vols. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman. 1977. “The Population Ecology of Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 89:929–64.
• Harvey, David. 1989. The Conditions of Postmodernity. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Hawley, Amos. 1986. Human Ecology: A Theoretical Essay. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
• Heise, David. 1979. Understanding Events: Affect and the Construction of Social Action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Horkheimer, Max. [1947] 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder.
• Horkheimer, Max. [1947] 1974. Eclipse of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Horne, Christine. 2004. “Values and Evolutionary Psychology.” Sociological Theory 22:477–503.
• Hoyt, Homer. 1939. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Washington, DC: Federal Housing Administration.
• Husserl, Edmund. [1913] 1969. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. London, England: CollierMacmillan.
• Jakobson, Roman. 1962–1971. Selected Writings 1, 2. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
• Jameson, 1984.        The        Postmodern     Condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Kellner, Douglas. 1995. Media Culture; Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between the Modern and Postmodern. London, England: Routledge.
• Lamont, Michèle. 1999. The Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Lash, Scott and John Urry. 1987. The End of Organized Capitalism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Lawler, Edward J. 2001. “An Affect Theory of Social Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 107:321–52.
• Lenski, Gerhard. 1966. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Lévi-Strauss, Claude. [1958] 1963. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
• Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1979. Myth and Meaning. New York: Schocken.
• Li, Rebecca S. K. and Jonathan H. Turner. 1998. “Conflict Theories in Historical-Comparative Perspective.” Pp. 194–213 in The Structure of Sociological Theory, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Lopreato, Joseph. 2001. “Sociobiological Theorizing.” Pp. 405–34 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Lopreato, Joseph and Timothy Crippen. 1999. Crisis in Sociology: The Need for Darwin. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
• Luhmann, Niklas. 1982. The Differentiation of Society. Translated by S. Holmes and C. Larmore. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Lukács, György. [1922] 1968. History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1979. The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Machalek, Richard and Michael W. Martin. 2004. “Sociology and the Second Darwinian Revolution.” Sociological Theory 22:455–76.
• Malinowski, Bronislaw. [1944] 1964. A Scientific Theory of Culture. London, England: Oxford University Press.
• Marx, Karl. [1867] 1967. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. 1. New York: International Publishers.
• Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. [1847] 1970. The Communist Manifesto. New York: International Publishers.
• McCall, George P. and J. L. Simons. 1978. Identities and Interactions. New York: Free Press.
• Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Münch, Richard. 1987. Theory of Action: Toward a New Synthesis Going beyond Parsons. London, England: Routledge.
• Münch, Richard. 2001. The Ethics of Modernity: Formation and Transformation in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Nolan, Patrick and Gerhard Lenski. 2004. Human Societies. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press.
• Paige, Jeffrey. 1975. Agrarian Revolution. New York: Free Press.
• Park, Robert E. 1936. “Human Ecology.” American Journal of Sociology 42:1–15.
• Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Parsons, Talcott. 1966. Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Parsons, Talcott. 1978. Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York: Free Press.
• Parsons, Talcott, Robert F. Bales, and Edward A. Shils. 1953. Working Papers in the Theory of Action. New York: Free Press. Parsons, Talcott and Neil J. Smelser. 1956. Economy and Society. New York: Free Press.
• Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. New York: Free Press.
• Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Runciman, W. G. 1989. A Treatise on Social Theory. 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Sanderson, Stephen K. 1995. Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Sanderson, Stephen K. 1999. Macrosociology: An Introduction to Human Societies. 4th ed. New York: Longman.
• Savage, Joanne and Satoshi Kanazawa. 2004. “Social Capital and the Human Psyche: Why Is Social Life Capital?” Sociological Theory 22:504–24.
• Scheff, Thomas. 1988. “Shame and Conformity: The DeferenceEmotion System.” American Sociological Review 53: 395–406.
• Schegloff, Emanuel. 2001. “Accounts of Conduct in Interaction.” Pp. 287–321 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Schütz, Alfred. [1932] 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Simmel, Georg. [1907] 1990. The Philosophy of Money. Translated by T. Bottomore and D. Frisby. Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Skinner, B. F. 1938. The Behavior of Organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, Adam. [1776] 1976. An Inquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
• Smith-Lovin, Lynn and David R. Heise. 1988. Analyzing Social Interaction. New York: Gordon & Breach.
• Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research 1:197–217.
• Spencer, Herbert. [1874–1896] 1898. The Principles of Sociology. 3 vols. New York: Appleton-Century.
• Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin-Cummings.
• Stryker, Sheldon. 2001. “The Road to Identity Theory.” Pp. 211–31 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by J. H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Summer-Effler, Erika. 2002. “The Micro Potential for Social Change.” Sociological Theory 20:41–60.
• Summer-Effler, Erika. 2004a. “Defensive Strategies.” Advances in Group Processes 21:309–25.
• Summer-Effler, Erika. 2004b. “A Theory of Self, Emotion, and Culture.” Advances in Group Processes 21:273–308.
• Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Tilly, Charles. 1993. European Revolutions, 1492–1992. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Turner, Jonathan H. 1975. “A Strategy for Reformulating the Dialectical and Functional Theories of Conflict.” Social Forces 53:433–44.
• Turner, Jonathan H. 1994. “The Ecology of Macrostructure.” Advances in Human Ecology 3:113–37.
• Turner, Jonathan H. 1995. Macrodynamics: Toward a Theory on the Organization of Human Populations. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Turner, Jonathan H. 2002. Face-to-Face: Toward a Sociological Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Turner, Jonathan H. and David E. Boyns. 2001. “The Return of Grand Theory.” Pp. 353–78 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Turner, Jonathan H. and Alexandra Maryanski. 1979. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin-Cummings.
• Turner, Jonathan H. and Alexandra Maryanski. 1988. “Is Neofunctionalism Really Functional?” Sociological Theory 6:110–21.
• Turner, Jonathan H. and Jan E. Stets. 2005. The Sociology of Emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Turner, Ralph H. 1968. “Social Roles: Sociological Aspects.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.
• Turner, Ralph H. 2001. “Role Theory.” Pp. 233–54 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Turner, Ralph H. and Lewis M. Killian. 1987. Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Turner, Stephen Park and Jonathan H. Turner. 1990. The Impossible Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• van den Berghe, Pierre. 1981. The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier.
• Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press.
• Watson, John B. 1913. “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It.” Psychological Review 20:158–77.
• Weber, Max. [1905] 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribners.
• Weber, Max. [1922] 1968. Economy and Society. Translated by G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York: Bedminister.
• Williams, George C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Wilson, Erik Olin. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wright, Erik Olin. 1997. Class Counts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analyses. Berkeley: University of California Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center
• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Social Theory Follow Following
• Political Sociology Follow Following
• Cultural Sociology Follow Following
• Sociological Theory Follow Following
• Sociology of Culture Follow Following
• Social Movements Follow Following
• Historical Sociology Follow Following
• Sociology of Knowledge Follow Following
• Critical Theory Follow Following
• Neoliberalism Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Basics for GSIs
• Advancing Your Skills

Sociology 190 Research Assignment

by Sarah Macdonald, Sociology

Context Assignment 1: Paper Proposal Assignment 2: Literature Review Assignment 3: Abstract and Outline Assignment 4: Research Presentation Assignment 5: Final Paper

Sociology 190 is a senior capstone course in which students engage in small seminar discussions of a particular topic. In my section of Soc 190, Transnational Adoption from a Sociological Perspective , I paired in-depth discussions on the topic of adoption with a semester-long research project — each student designed a research question, collected data, and wrote up a 15–20-page research paper on a topic of their choice. I knew that because the research paper seemed overwhelming to my students, they would need guidance and feedback throughout the process. In designing my syllabus and assignments I consulted with syllabi from others in my department that had previously taught similar courses. The resulting assignments are included in this section.

In the process of setting the assignments I learned that students needed very explicit instructions on the format of a formal research paper, the opportunity to discuss their progress frequently in class, and structured opportunities to learn about how to do sociological research. Throughout the semester we had discussions, both as a large group and in smaller groups, about the students’ progress on their projects, which allowed students a chance to receive feedback more often than I was able to give in writing. We also had several formal opportunities to learn about research, for example when I gave presentations to the students on research methods, or when we had a guest speaker talk about their research, or when students had a session with a subject-specific librarian to learn about how to locate secondary sources. Each assignment then served as a research milestone where students got formal feedback from me about their progress. Before each assignment we had in-depth discussions of how to formulate the different components of a research paper, so the assignments include detailed lists of the parts we had already discussed in class. We ended the semester with a mini research conference where students presented their arguments to their peers and received feedback. They then used this feedback and my feedback on the smaller assignments to produce their final research papers.

Assignment 1: Paper Proposal

Paper proposal.

In no more than 2 double-spaced pages (Times New Roman, size 12 font, one-inch margins) you will:

• Briefly describe and explain your research topic and its importance. You should describe why you think this topic is particularly relevant to our course and why it is an important area of study.
• Clearly present and explain your central research question.
• Identify your data source and method of analysis. How will you collect data and what will you do with the data?
• Explain why these sources of data are appropriate for your research question and how they will help you to answer your question.

Choosing a Research Topic and Question

Your research topic and question must relate to the topic of transnational adoption, but beyond this requirement there are no limitations on the topic that you choose. I recommend that you look through the topics in the syllabus to help you to begin to determine what you are most interested in studying. In addition, the reading entitled “International Adoption: A Sociological Account of the US Experience” (Engel et al., 2007) [1] , should help you to understand the various topics related to transnational adoption that are of particular concern to sociologists.

Choosing a Data Source

Once you have identified your research question, you must choose one of the research methods listed below that will be most appropriate for answering your question.

• In-depth Interviews : You must conduct 3 to 5 in-depth interviews (lasting at least 45 minutes each) with individuals.
• Textual Analysis : You can choose to analyze a set of written or visual texts (books, newspaper articles, news stories, images, films, court documents, government proceedings, etc.). You must choose at least three texts to analyze and may need to choose several texts depending on the types of texts you are analyzing.
• Participant Observation : Spend 5 to 10 hours observing social interaction at a relevant research site. If you decide to do this you must get advance permission from the organization and/or individuals before conducting your observation.
• Quantitative Analysis : You can complete a basic statistical analysis of a data set. You can either use an existing data set or design your own survey and distribute it to at least 30 people to create your own dataset.

[1] Engel, Madeline, Norma K. Phillips, and Frances A. Dellacava (2007). “International Adoption: A Sociological Account of the US Experience.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27: 257–270.

Assignment 2: Literature Review

For this assignment you will submit a review of current literature on your topic that will:

• Summarize and synthesize 5 to 10 sources (books or journal articles, not websites or news stories) that are not included in course readings. This means that you should not simply provide summaries of the sources, but should explain how they relate to each other (synthesize how they draw on similar theories, come to similar conclusions, etc.) and/or offer a critique of their content that is relevant to your own research. You may also choose to cite course readings; in fact, I encourage you to do so, but you must cite at least 5 additional sources.
• Explain how your research project is likely to challenge, confirm, complicate, or contribute to existing work on your topic. You must make an argument for what your research will add to literature that already exists on the topic.

The literature review should be 4 to 5 double-spaced pages, size 12 Times New Roman font, one-inch margins.

Additional tips for writing your literature review:

• Do not just choose the first 5 sources that you find; make sure that they are relevant to your research question and topic.
• Think about the literature review as a window into a conversation between researchers about your topic. You’ll want to explain what they have already found out about the topic and then you’ll want to make a strong case for how your research is adding to the conversation.
• Keep your summaries of the articles or books concise and relevant. You don’t need to summarize their entire argument, you just need to give us an idea of what parts are particularly pertinent to your own research.
• The format of your literature review should not just be a list of summaries. Instead you will want to identify some way in which the previous literature has fallen short and has not considered the question that you are interested in studying. This takes quite a bit of work in most cases and will mean that you will have to explain clearly how your research will challenge, confirm, complicate, or contribute to existing work on the topic.
• Edit, edit, edit. You should spend a fair amount of time putting this together and editing as much as possible. If you do a really good job on this portion, it’s likely you’ll be able to paste it into your final paper with minimal changes! Take it very seriously.
• You must use the American Sociological Association’s Style Guide to format your citations. If you use Zotero, it will do it for you automatically. Make sure your in-text citations are also properly formatted. The ASA Style Guide is posted on our course site.

Assignment 3: Abstract and Outline

Part one: abstract.

For this assignment you will write an abstract of no more than 500 words that details the argument you will make in your final paper. The abstract should have the following components:

• Research Question:  1 or 2 sentences describing your topic or research question; this doesn’t need to be in question form.
• Contribution: A statement that explains what empirical or theoretical contribution your research makes to existing literature.
• Methods and Data: An explanation of no more than 1 sentence that explains your methods, i.e., how you collected data to answer your research question.
• Findings: A few sentences that describe the main argument you will make in your paper and what you found as a result of doing your research. It is okay if you haven’t yet finished your research and these findings are only preliminary.
• Concluding Statement/Implications: You will want to include at least 1 sentence that connects back to the problem that you identified at the beginning and that explains any important implications of your research.

Note: The abstract should not include any citations.

Grading: Your grade will be based on the organization and coherence of your writing, the inclusion of all aspects detailed above, and especially on the clarity, feasibility, and appropriateness of the argument that you plan to make in your final paper.

Part Two: Paper Outline

For this assignment you will write an outline of your final paper that details each of the sections of the paper and the overall argument that you will make in each section. The outline can be as long as you would like, but cannot exceed 5 single-spaced pages, size 12 font, one-inch margins. I recommend that you include as much detail as possible as this will be your last formal opportunity to receive feedback from me.

Please label all sections. For each section you will include a brief paragraph (2–3 sentences) that outlines what you will argue/explain in that section. Then you will outline each paragraph or part of that section (please use the numerical outlining function in Word; you may also use bullet points where necessary). The outline should be as detailed as possible and should include quotations, examples from your research, data that supports your points, etc. You should include the following sections:

• Abstract: A revised abstract for the paper that is no longer than 250 words. This means you may have to substantially cut down the abstract that you handed in for the previous assignment.
• Introduction: This section should contain the argument you will make in the paper, your specific research question, any background necessary for the reader, and a short introductory explanation of why your topic is sociologically relevant and interesting and how it contributes to existing literature.
• Literature Review: This section should contain a summary and synthesis of existing research related to your topic and an explanation of how your topic contributes to existing research, either theoretically or empirically.
• Methods: This section will describe the research method(s) you used to answer your question and why the method(s) was (were) appropriate for helping you to answer your research question. You should include the specifics of what exactly you did, for example: How many people did you interview? How many surveys did you post? How many people responded? How did you contact the people that were included in your study? If you did textual analysis, how did you select the texts that you analyzed? Why? How did you go about analyzing them? Include as much detail as possible.
• Findings: This is the section where you will make the central argument of your paper. You will explain the answer to your research question. If you are making your argument in several parts or sections, make sure to include those sections in the outline. The outline for the findings section should show me, in a very detailed way, what the argument is that you are making and how you expect to make the argument. It should include support from your research (quotes, percentages, or whatever other type of data you will use to support your argument).
• Discussion and Conclusion: In this section you will summarize the argument that you make in the paper and you will reiterate how your findings confirmed or challenged (or both) the findings from the research that you outlined in the literature review. You will explain how your findings contribute to existing literature. You may also suggest questions that still need to be answered and suggestions for further research that should be done on your topic.

Assignment 4: Research Presentation

For this assignment you will prepare a very brief presentation of your research for the class. The purposes of this assignment are: a) to learn about the research that students have done as part of this class, b) to have the opportunity to give feedback and suggestions to other students, c) to discuss several topics related to transnational adoption using the foundational knowledge you have gained this semester.

Guidelines for your presentation:

• Your presentation should be about 5 minutes . Please practice ahead of time so that you can make sure that you can fit what you want to say in this time period.
• You should briefly explain your research question, your method, and your most interesting finding. In your presentation you should make some connection back to the topics and/or readings that we have discussed in this class — you can either connect your finding to course material or explain how your research contributes to the literature we have read together as part of this course.
• After your presentation the class will ask questions of you and your panel. Please come prepared to talk in depth about your research and to answer questions about the research process, your findings, how the findings relate to the course, what contribution you are making to the existing literature on your topic, etc.

Grading: You will be graded on your ability to clearly and concisely present your research, the connections that you make between your research and course material, and your engagement in a discussion about your topic with other students in the class during the Q&A period.

Assignment 5: Final Paper

For this assignment you will draw on the research proposal, literature review, abstract, paper outline, and the data you have collected through your research to write a polished research paper on your topic. The paper must be 15–20 pages, size 12 Times New Roman font, one-inch margins. Please note that your bibliography/works cited and any appendices you choose to include will not be counted in the 15-page minimum.

Required Components for the Final Paper:

Please make sure to label each section with either a section title (e.g., literature review) or a title that communicates the content of the section (e.g., previous research on culture keeping).

• Cover Page: The first page of your paper should be a cover sheet that includes a title that communicates the content of your paper, your name, date, title of the class, and any other information you feel is necessary.
• Abstract (∼250 words): A revised abstract for the paper that is no longer than 250 words. This means you may have to substantially cut down the abstract that you handed in for the previous assignment. It should be single-spaced and should be placed immediately preceding the introduction.
• Introduction (1 – 3 pages): This section should contain the argument you will make in the paper, your specific research question, any background necessary for the reader (e.g., historical context), and a short introductory explanation of why your topic is sociologically relevant and interesting, and how it contributes to existing literature.
• Literature Review (4–6 pages): This section should contain a summary and synthesis of existing research related to your topic and an explanation of how your topic contributes to existing research, either theoretically or empirically.
• Methods (1–2 pages): This section will describe the research method(s) you used to answer your question and why the method(s) was (were) appropriate for helping you to answer your research question. You should include the specifics of what exactly you did, for example: How many people did you interview? How many surveys did you post? How many people responded? How did you contact the people that were included in your study? If you did textual analysis, how did you select the texts that you analyzed? Why? How did you go about analyzing them? Include as much detail as possible. You should also explain why your sample is likely not representative of the general population you are studying and what biases are present as a result of your research design.
• Findings (7+ pages): This is the section where you will make the central argument of your paper. You will explain the answer to your research question. It should include support from your research (quotes, percentages, or whatever other type of data you will use to support your argument). You may choose to divide this section into sub-sections, but each sub-section should have a clear title. Make sure that you are making an argument and that each paragraph in this section connects back to your central argument.
• Discussion and Conclusion (2+ pages): In this section you will summarize the argument that you have made in the paper and you will reiterate how your findings confirmed or challenged (or both) the findings from the research that you outlined in the literature review. You will explain how your findings contribute to existing literature. You may also suggest questions that still need to be answered and suggestions for further research that should be done on your topic.
• Appendices: If you did interviews or a survey you must include an appendix with your questions. You should refer to the appendix in the methods section. You can also include appendices with additional information (e.g., coding, statistics) if you feel that it is necessary. The appendices do not count in the page count.
• Bibliography/Citations: Remember that you must cite at least ten sources in your paper. While many of these will likely be in the literature review, you should also cite where necessary in the other sections of the paper. At least 5 sources must come from readings that were not included in the course syllabus. All parenthetical citations and the works cited/bibliography page must be in ASA format. Formatting instructions are posted on our course website.

In writing this paper please make sure to look back over your previous assignments at my comments and to incorporate changes into your final paper. You are welcome to use any part of your previous assignments verbatim, but I urge you to edit carefully. This paper should be a polished, final paper and not a draft. This means that you will need to finish the paper in advance of the deadline to allow ample time for editing.

Abstract Writing for Sociology

DaniloAndjus / Getty Images

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology
• Ph.D., Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
• M.A., Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
• B.A., Sociology, Pomona College

If you are a student learning sociology , chances are you will be asked to write an abstract. Sometimes, your teacher or professor may ask you to write an abstract at the beginning of the research process to help you organize your ideas for the research. Other times, the organizers of a conference or editors of an academic journal or book will ask you to write one to serve as a summary of research you have completed and that you intend to share. Let's review exactly what an abstract is and the five steps you need to follow in order to write one.

Within sociology, as with other sciences, an abstract is a brief and concise description of a research project that is typically in the range of 200 to 300 words. Sometimes you may be asked to write an abstract at the beginning of a research project and other times, you will be asked to do so after the research is completed. In any case, the abstract serves, in effect, as a sales pitch for your research. Its goal is to pique the interest of the reader such that he or she continues to read the research report that follows the abstract or decides to attend a research presentation you will give about the research. For this reason, an abstract should be written in clear and descriptive language and should avoid the use of acronyms and jargon.

Depending on at what stage in the research process you write your abstract, it will fall into one of two categories: descriptive or informative. Those written before the research is completed will be descriptive in nature.

• Descriptive abstracts provide an overview of the purpose, goals, and proposed methods of your study , but do not include discussion of the results or conclusions you might draw from them.
• Informative abstracts are super-condensed versions of a research paper that provide an overview of the motivations for the research, problem(s) it addresses, approach and methods, the results of the research, and your conclusions and implications of the research.

Preparing to Write

Before you write an abstract there are a few important steps you should complete. First, if you are writing an informative abstract, you should write the full research report. It may be tempting to start by writing the abstract because it is short, but in reality, you can't write it until you the report is complete because the abstract should be a condensed version of it. If you've yet to write the report, you probably have not yet completed analyzing your data or thinking through the conclusions and implications. You can't write a research abstract until you've done these things.

Another important consideration is the length of the abstract. Whether you are submitting it for publication, to a conference, or to a teacher or professor for a class, you will have been given guidance on how many words the abstract can be. Know your word limit in advance and stick to it.

Finally, consider the audience for your abstract. In most cases, people you have never met will read your abstract. Some of them may not have the same expertise in sociology that you have, so it's important that you write your abstract in clear language and without jargon. Remember that your abstract is, in effect, a sales pitch for your research, and you want it to make people want to learn more.

Step-by-Step Guide

• Motivation . Begin your abstract by describing what motivated you to conduct the research. Ask yourself what made you pick this topic. Is there a particular social trend or phenomenon that sparked your interest in doing the project? Was there a gap in existing research that you sought to fill by conducting your own? Was there something, in particular, you set out to prove? Consider these questions and begin your abstract by briefly stating, in one or two sentences, the answers to them.
• Problem . Next, describe the problem or question to which your research seeks to provide an answer or better understanding. Be specific and explain if this is a general problem or a specific one affecting only certain regions or sections of the population. You should finish describing the problem by stating your hypothesis , or what you expect to find after conducting your research.
• Approach and methods . Following your description of the problem, you must next explain how your research approaches it, in terms of theoretical framing or general perspective, and which research methods you will use to do the research. Remember, this should be brief, jargon-free, and concise.
• Results . Next, describe in one or two sentences the results of your research. If you completed a complex research project that led to several results that you discuss in the report, highlight only the most significant or noteworthy in the abstract. You should state whether or not you were able to answer your research questions, and if surprising results were found too. If, as in some cases, your results did not adequately answer your question(s), you should report that as well.
• Conclusions . Finish your abstract by briefly stating what conclusions you draw from the results and what implications they might hold. Consider whether there are implications for the practices and policies of organizations and/or government bodies that are connected to your research, and whether your results suggest that further research should be done, and why. You should also point out whether the results of your research are generally and/or broadly applicable or whether they are descriptive in nature and focused on a particular case or limited population.

Let's take as an example the abstract that serves as the teaser for a journal article by sociologist Dr. David Pedulla. The article in question, published in American Sociological Review , is a report on how taking a job below one's skill level or doing part-time work can hurt a person's future career prospects in their chosen field or profession. The abstract is annotated with bolded numbers that show the steps in the process outlined above.

1. Millions of workers are employed in positions that deviate from the full-time, standard employment relationship or work in jobs that are mismatched with their skills, education, or experience.

2. Yet, little is known about how employers evaluate workers who have experienced these employment arrangements, limiting our knowledge about how part-time work, temporary agency employment, and skills underutilization affect workers' labor market opportunities.

3. Drawing on original field and survey experiment data, I examine three questions: (1) What are the consequences of having a nonstandard or mismatched employment history for workers' labor market opportunities? (2) Are the effects of nonstandard or mismatched employment histories different for men and women? and (3) What are the mechanisms linking nonstandard or mismatched employment histories to labor market outcomes?

4. The field experiment shows that skills underutilization is as scarring for workers as a year of unemployment, but that there are limited penalties for workers with histories of temporary agency employment. Additionally, although men are penalized for part-time employment histories, women face no penalty for part-time work. The survey experiment reveals that employers' perceptions of workers' competence and commitment mediate these effects.

5. These findings shed light on the consequences of changing employment relations for the distribution of labor market opportunities in the "new economy."

It's really that simple.

• How to Write an Abstract for a Scientific Paper
• How to Write an Abstract
• Why You Should Never Take a Job Below Your Skill Level
• What Is Proposal Writing?
• How to Write a Science Fair Project Report
• Writing Patent Application Abstracts
• Research in Essays and Reports
• Getting Research Experience Before Graduate School
• How to Write a Successful Personal Statement for Graduate School
• What Is a Research Paper?
• How to Write a Lab Report
• How to Write a News Article That's Effective
• Writing an Annotated Bibliography for a Paper
• The Five Steps of Writing an Essay
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• A Step-By-Step Guide to Writing a Ph.D. Dissertation

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

• A Research Guide
• Research Paper Examples

Free Sociology Paper Samples

Negative impacts of media.

The world is coming closer to a global village, strongly influenced by media. There are many forms of media. Mass media is a communication whether written, broadcast, or spoken that reaches a large audience, has a significant influence in modern culture all over the world, particularly in America. On the other hand in social media which can be defined as...

Words: 1973 | Pages: 9

Impact of Social Media on Body Image Research Paper

It is crucial to note some of the ways that social media influence the perception of body image considering the high rate of online presence of young adults, especially women and their dependency on social media. Media exposure on Cosmetic surgery, where the surgery features in advertising and reality TV shows, play an outsized role in influencing young adults particularly,...

Words: 1472 | Pages: 7

Gender and Genocide

Introduction Human engage in conflicts which are usually resolved by dialogue or otherwise escalate to unprecedented war levels. Prolonged wars and conflicts have negative effects on the people involved directly or indirectly (Bock, 2008). The mass killings and persecution of vulnerable persons constitutes to genocide. The 1948 Geneva convention after the second world war described genocide as mass killing of...

Words: 1247 | Pages: 6

Global Citizenship

During the past years, students have had interests in international studies and this concept has expanded from just a national focus to one of a global focus on civic education with students wanting to engage in responsibilities extended beyond their national boarder. The idea of global citizenship is not new and it bases its origin to ancient Greece although the...

Words: 2165 | Pages: 10

Cross-Cultural Communications: The Difference in Nonverbal Behaviors between Spaniards and Americans

Abstract Communication entails non-verbal cues in addition to exchange of words (Verbal). The main purpose of communication is to pass information from one person to another. However, people experience different barriers such as language and poor understanding of gestures. In this paper, the communication across different cultures will be studied. The cultures of interests are Spaniards and Americans. The common...

Words: 2491 | Pages: 11

Negative Impact of Media

The influence of media on the world is currently bringing it closer to becoming a global village. Media has many forms making it more influential in the world. Various types of media include broadcast, spoken or written as long as it can reach a broad audience making it have a significant influence in the world's modern culture. Social media involves...

Words: 718 | Pages: 3

Informative Speech about Friendship

The common task of the course of public speaking is to prepare the informative speech about friendship. But sometimes it seems that everything that could be said about friendship was already said by someone else. The definition of friendship, the comparison of love and friendship, the best friendship examples from personal experience… Just imagining that you are the last one in the class to...

Words: 1485 | Pages: 7

Research a Societal Advancement Started or Advanced by One Person

Several individuals have made significant efforts and decisions that helped them to accomplish various missions in the development of the society. Different societal advancements observed on the planet today emerged as a result of the human effort that aimed at influencing human development in different social settings. This essay will focus on Kailash Satyarthi as one of the individuals that...

Words: 1537 | Pages: 7

Emile Durkheim on Suicide

Introduction Emile Durkheim is one of the founding fathers of sociology that is widely used in the modern era. He is famous for one of his classical texts, suicide, which up to date focuses on the modern social pathologies that are seen to be indicated by the extraordinarily high rates of suicide whose causes are social. Durkheim drew various conclusions...

Words: 1758 | Pages: 8

The Impact of Social Media on Business Communication

Breed-specific legislation Breed-specific legislation refers to a type of laws and regulations that are passed by a legislative body and is concerned with a particular breed or breeds of domestic animals. This law restricts or bans certain breeds of mongrels depending on their physical appearance, generally because they are perceived to be dangerous types or breeds of dogs such as...

Words: 1232 | Pages: 6

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

Sociology Class Supplement: Formatting Your Paper

• Formatting Your Paper
• In-Text Citations
• Direct Quotations
• Reference Page
• MARRIAGE & FAMILY - SOCI 2010
• Social Problems Research
• Music Research Paper
• Critical Thinking Cheatsheet
• Writing Your Sociology Research Paper
• Cultural Anthropology

Word 2013: How to Format APA Style

Watch this video, pausing and restarting, to help you format your paper in APA format. You may also use the guide below.

Step 1: Format your Word features

You will need to first set up these features in your Word Document.

Font :  HOME tab > 12 point font size and Times New Roman. Other acceptable fonts are Calibri, Arial, and Georgia in 11 point size.

Margins: PAGE LAYOUT > Margins >Normal (Top 1”, Bottom 1”, Left 1”, Right  1”)

Spacing : Choose PAGE LAYOUT > Paragraph > tiny arrow in the far right bottom corner of that box. It should open the Paragraph Settings. Then, set the spacing to DOUBLE.

Step 2: Setting Up the Header and/or Page Numbers

The running head is not required in student papers, unless required by your professor or institution. However, manuscripts that are being submitted for publication do require a running head.

To add a running head to your paper, follow the steps below. 

1. INSERT > Header > Choose the first one (Blank)

2. The Header will pop up. Above it, the DESIGN tab will be in green. With the DESIGN tab open, choose the HOME tab. Choose Times New Roman font in size 12.

3. Hit the CAPS LOCK button on your keyboard. Type  TITLE OF YOUR PAPER .  Unlock the CAPS LOCK function.  NOTE: The title of your paper should not be longer than 50 characters; if it is a long title, you will need to shorten the title in the running head. (You may keep the title as long as you wish on the title category of the title page.)

4. Hit the TAB button until you move the cursor to the far right.

5.  Click on the INSERT > Page number > Current Position > Plain Number (first option).

6. Click, hold, and drag to highlight all the text in your header, including the page number. Choose the HOME tab, then change the font style to Times New Roman and change the font size to 12.

7. Double click outside of your header and into the main part of the page.

If you do not need to set up the running head, you still need to insert page numbers.

1. In the INSERT tab, choose Page Number.

2. Click Top of page, then choose Plain Number 3 to add a page number to the top right corner of your page.

3. Click, hold, and drag to highlight all the text in your header, including the page number. Choose the HOME tab, then change the font style to Times New Roman and change the font size to 12.

4. Double click outside of your header and into the main part of the page.

Step 3: Format your Title Page

1. Place your title in the upper half of the title page. To achieve this, hit ENTER 4-5 times.

2. Go to HOME > Paragraph > Center button to center your title.

3. Still in the HOME tab, choose  B  to make the font boldface.

4. Type in your title, using appropriate capitalization.  NOTE: Your title should not be longer than twelve words or contain abbreviations. It may be one or two lines.

5. Hit ENTER. In the HOME tab, choose B to make the font no longer boldface. Type in your name (first and last) using appropriate capitalization.

6. Hit ENTER. Type in the institution's name: Walters State Community College   NOTE : Do NOT abbreviate.

7. Click INSERT tab > Page Break to move to the second page of your essay. (You can also just hit enter until you get to the next page.)

Step 4: Format your Abstract Page

NOTE: Abstracts are required for most scholarly journals, but not always for student assignments. If in doubt, ask your instructor whether an abstract is required for your assignment.

1. Your abstract should be the second page of your essay.

2. In the HOME tab, choose CENTER alignment in the paragraph box. Then click  B  to make the font boldface.

3. Type the word Abstract  .  NOTE: Do not use quotation marks, make the font italicized, or make it larger.

4. Hit Enter once. Choose HOME > Paragraph > Align Left. Still in the HOME tab, choose B to make the font no longer boldface. (This is the button that puts the cursor back to the left side of the page.)  DO NOT INDENT. Type a brief, objective summary of your essay that should be no longer than 250 words.

Step 5: Format your First Page of Essay

To format the first page of your essay, follow these instructions.

1. INSERT> Page Break to get to the next page of your essay, or click enter until you get to the next page.

2. Go to Home > Paragraph >Align Center. Choose B  to make the font boldfaced. Type the full title, using appropriate capitalization, on the first line.

3. Hit enter. Read A & B below.       a. If you are using a heading for the first part of your paper (e.g. Review of Literature, Methodology, etc.), then you will need to type your heading using the following format: Bold, center-aligned, with appropriate capitalization. See 3.03 (page 62) in the APA Publication Manual if you have multiple levels of headings.

      b. If you are not using a heading, or you are ready to type your essay, got to HOME> Paragraph > Align left. Still in the HOME tab, click B to make the font no longer boldface. (This is the button that puts the cursor back to the left side of the page.) Then, indent and begin typing your essay.

Step 7: Format your Reference Page

To format your References page in Word, please follow these directions.

1. After you have finished your essay, click INSERT > Page Break.

2. Center your cursor. Choose B in the HOME tab to make the font boldface. Type Reference if your essay contains only one citation. Type References if your essay contains more than one distinct citation.

3. Hit ENTER. Choose HOME > Paragraph > Align Left. (This is the button that puts the cursor back to the left side of the page.)

4. Choose PAGE LAYOUT > Paragraph > tiny arrow in the far right bottom corner of that box. It should open the Paragraph Settings.

5. In the Paragraph Settings box, choose Indentation > Special > Drop down the box to HANGING. (Below is what you should see.)

6. In the HOME tab, choose  B to make the font no longer boldface.

7. Type in your reference list in alphabetical order by last name, following APA style rules. Make sure that you double space between each entry (Do NOT hit enter more than once at the end of each entry. You should not be spacing more than the double-space that the computer does for you.)

Sources Used

APA Publication Manual, 7th Edition (2019) was consulted in creating this guide.

Questions or Comments

*If you need further assistance formatting your essay, please see/call/email a librarian or visit the Writing Lab.

Library Reference Desk: 423-585-6946

Email: [email protected]

Please email found errors to [email protected].

Links to Helpful Formatting Sites

• Purdue OWL Formatting & Style Guide Information on general formatting in APA 7th edition from the Purdue OWL.
• Quick Answers-APA Formatting Created by the APA, this website gives in-depth instructions and clear visuals discussing everything from running heads, margins, tables, and quotes.
• Sample Papers Sample papers formatted using APA 7th edition.
• << Previous: American Psychological Association Style Basics
• Next: In-Text Citations >>
• Last Updated: May 8, 2024 12:15 PM
• URL: https://library.ws.edu/sociology

Sociology Research Guide

• Picking a topic
• Background research and finding books
• Advanced searching in databases and Google
• Finding statistics
• Evaluating sources

What Is APA Style?

Apa resources, citing sources in apa style, cite right in apa, microsoft word templates, apa publication manual in the library.

• Literature Reviews
• SOC1: Morales (Cultural Artifact)
• SOC4: Ie (Literature Review)

• Each academic discipline has its own rules for citing ideas and words borrowed from other writers and researchers.
• The Social Sciences use the   American Psychological Association  style rules.
• The  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association   contains comprehensive rules and examples for citing.
• APA 7 Guide
• APA Student Sample Paper
• Scaffolded APA Worksheet with Elements
• Excelsior OWL APA Style Guide
• How to Create a Hanging Indent in Word
• How to Create a Hanging Indent in Google Docs
• How to Cite the DSM-V and DSM-V Entries
• ZoteroBib Citation Generator

How does citing in APA work?

Step 1: Create a References page

• Include a reference list at the end of your paper. The list should contain a full citation for each source included among your in-text citations.
• The references list should begin on a new page at the end of your paper with the word "References" bold and centered at the top of the page.
• Organize citations alphabetically by the first word. Usually this will be the author's last name, but, if the source has no author, you'll use the title of the source.
• The information these full citations should include depends on the type of source you're citing - for example, whether it's a book, an encyclopedia entry, or an article in a periodical. You'll find the formulas for the most common source types in our APA 7 Quick Guide . If you're having difficulty identifying the type of source you're using, consult a librarian. 

Step 2: Use in-text citations throughout your paper

• Use an in-text citation to acknowledge that you are quoting or paraphrasing another author's words, ideas or data in the text of your research paper.
• Add in-text citations in parentheses at the end of the sentence but before the final punctuation (like this).
• the last name of the author(s)
• the year of publication
• the number of the page(s) where you found the information, preceded by the abbreviation p. for a single page or pp. for a range of pages
• example:  (Rivera, 2019, p. 28)
• Include the year of publication in parentheses after the author's name and the page number(s) in separate parentheses at the end of the sentence.
• example:   Rivera (2019) asserts that... (p. 28). 
• ​ Use the title of the source in place of the author's name. Titles of longer works such as books should be italicized. Titles of shorter works, such as a chapter from a book or an article from a magazine or journal should be placed in quotation marks. All titles should appear in standard title case (i.e. capitalize all major words). 
• example:   ("Using Citations," 2019, p. 28)
• Use the last names of both authors, separated by an ampersand (&)
• example:   (Rivera & Rodriguez, 2019, p. 28)
• ​ Use the last name of the first author followed by "et al." 
• example:   (Rivera et al., 2019, p. 28)
• Use the abbreviation n.d. (for "no date") in place of the year
• example:  (Rivera, n.d., p. 28).
• ​ Use the number of the paragraph the information came from preceded by the abbreviation para. in place of the page number
• example:   (Rivera, 2019, para. 4)

Step 3: Double-check your paper and citation formatting

• The APA Manual dictates the rules for formatting your in-text citations, References page, and your final research paper.
• Review the links in the " APA Resources " box on this page to see formatting examples.

• Take the Quiz: Cite Right in APA Complete this online quiz after watching the video above. A certificate of completion will be emailed to you.

Use APA templates in Word and Google Docs

• When creating a new Microsoft Word document (or Google Doc), search for "APA" to see APA-style research paper templates. 

• << Previous: Citation Help
• Next: ASA Style >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 9:47 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.elac.edu/Sociology

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

100 Sociology Research Topics You Can Use Right Now

Sociology is a study of society, relationships, and culture. It can include multiple topics—ranging from class and social mobility to the Internet and marriage traditions. Research in sociology is used to inform policy makers , educators , businesses , social workers , non-profits , etc.

Below are 100 sociology research topics you can use right now, divided by general topic headings. Feel free to adapt these according to your specific interest. You'll always conduct more thorough and informed research if it's a topic you're passionate about.

Art, Food, Music, and Culture

• Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?
• How has globalization changed local culture?
• What role does food play in cultural identity?
• Does technology use affect people's eating habits?
• How has fast food affected society?
• How can clean eating change a person's life for the better?
• Should high-sugar drinks be banned from school campuses?
• How can travel change a person for the better?
• How does music affect the thoughts and actions of teenagers?
• Should performance artists be held partially responsible if someone is inspired by their music to commit a crime?
• What are some examples of cultural misappropriation?
• What role does music play in cultural identity?

Social Solutions and Cultural Biases

• What (if any) are the limits of free speech in a civil society?
• What are some reasonable solutions to overpopulation?
• What are some ways in which different types of media content influence society's attitudes and behaviors?
• What is the solution to stop the rise of homegrown terrorism in the U.S.?
• Should prescription drug companies be allowed to advertise directly to consumers?
• Is the global warming movement a hoax? Why or why not?
• Should the drinking age be lowered?
• Should more gun control laws be enacted in the U.S.?
• What bias exists against people who are obese?
• Should polygamy be legal in the U.S.? Why or why not?
• Should there be a legal penalty for using racial slurs?
• Should the legal working age of young people be raised or lowered?
• Should the death penalty be used in all cases involving first-degree murder?
• Should prisons be privately owned? Why or why not?
• What is privilege? How is it defined and how can it be used to gain access to American politics and positions of power?
• How are women discriminated against in the workplace?
• What role does feminism play in current American politics?
• What makes a patriot?
• Compare/analyze the social views of Plato and Aristotle
• How has labor migration changed America?
• What important skills have been lost in an industrialized West?
• Is the #MeToo movement an important one? Why or why not?
• What conflict resolution skills would best serve us in the present times?
• How can violence against women be dealt with to lower incidence rates?
• Should students be allowed to take any subject they want in High School and avoid the ones they don't like?
• How should bullies be dealt with in our country's schools?
• Do standardized tests improve education or have the opposite effect?
• Should school children be forced to go through metal detectors?
• What is the best teacher/student ratio for enhanced learning in school?
• Do school uniforms decrease teasing and bullying? If so, how?
• Should teachers make more money?
• Should public education be handled through private enterprises (like charter schools)?
• Should religious education be given priority over academic knowledge?
• How can schools help impoverished students in ways that won't embarrass them?
• What are ethical values that should be considered in education?
• Is it the state's role or the parents' role to educate children? Or a combination of both?
• Should education be given more political priority than defense and war?
• What would a perfect educational setting look like? How would it operate and what subjects would be taught?

Marriage and Family

• How should a "family" be defined? Can it be multiple definitions?
• What is a traditional role taken on by women that would be better handled by a man (and vice versa)?
• How has marriage changed in the United States?
• What are the effects of divorce on children?
• Is there a negative effect on children who are adopted by a family whose ethnicity is different than their own?
• Can children receive all they need from a single parent?
• Does helicopter parenting negatively affect children?
• Is marriage outdated?
• Should teens have access to birth control without their parents' permission?
• Should children be forced to show physical affection (hugs, etc.) to family members they're uncomfortable around?
• What are the benefits (or negative impact) of maintaining traditional gender roles in a family?
• Are social networks safe for preteens and teens? Why or why not?
• Should the government have a say in who can get married?
• What (if any) are the benefits of arranged marriages?
• What are the benefits for (or negative impact on) children being adopted by LGBTQ couples?
• How long should two people date before they marry?
• Should children be forced to be involved in activities (such as sports, gymnastics, clubs, etc.), even when they'd rather sit at home and play video games all day?
• Should parents be required to take a parenting class before having children?
• What are potential benefits to being married but choosing not to have children?

Generational

• Should communities take better care of their elderly? How?
• What are some generational differences among Generations X, Y, and Z?
• What benefits do elderly people get from interaction with children?
• How has Generation Y changed the country so far?
• What are the differences in communication styles between Generation X and Generation Y (Millennials)?
• Why could we learn from our elders that could not be learned from books?
• Should the elderly live with their immediate family (children and grandchildren)? How would this resolve some of our country's current problems?
• What are some positive or negative consequences to intergenerational marriage?

Spiritualism, religion, and superstition

• Why do some people believe in magic?
• What is the difference between religion and spiritualism?
• Should a government be a theocracy? Why or why not?
• How has religion helped (or harmed) our country?
• Should religious leaders be able to support a particular candidate from their pulpit?
• How have religious cults shaped the nation?
• Should students at religious schools be forced to take state tests?
• How has our human connection with nature changed while being trapped in crowded cities?
• Which generation from the past 200 years made the biggest impact on culture with their religious practice and beliefs? Explain your answer.

Addiction and Mental Health

• How should our society deal with addicts?
• What are ethical values that should be considered in mental health treatment?
• Should mental health be required coverage on all insurance policies?
• Is mental health treatment becoming less stigmatized?
• How would better access to mental health change our country?
• What are some things we're addicted to as a society that are not seen as "addiction," per se?
• Should medicinal marijuana be made legal?
• What are some alternative treatments for mental health and wellness instead of antidepressants?
• Has social media helped or harmed our society?
• Are video games addictive for young people and what should be done to curb the addiction?
• Should all recreational drugs be made legal?
• How has mental health treatment changed in the past 20 years?
• Should recreational marijuana be made legal?
• How is family counseling a good option for families going through conflict?
• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Need an academic editor before submitting your work?

Get the Reddit app

A community for academic sociology and sociological discussions.

example research paper

Guys, I am looking for a "model" research paper, which is being used as example for "how to do research in sociology" after selecting a topic.

I am vague because I feel vague, struggling how to ask a question. What I want is to try to apply the research methodology to the some problems I have in mind. Reading books on research methodology making me more confused. I decided to "go by an example". There may be several styles or aspects, just pick one that is simple and easy (if that kind of exists at all) thank you

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab (the Purdue OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The On-Campus and Online versions of Purdue OWL assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue OWL serves the Purdue West Lafayette and Indianapolis campuses and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

Social Media

Facebook twitter.