Notes · SociologyUK · A-Levels

Theory and Methods (with Crime and Deviance)

This compulsory strand of Paper 3 draws together the theoretical and methodological foundations of the discipline: the consensus, conflict and action perspectives and the concepts of modernity and postmodernity, the debate over whether sociology can be a science, the question of objectivity and value freedom, and the relationship between sociology and social policy. It is examined through the 10-mark 'outline and explain' question and a 20-mark theory-and-methods essay.

5 sections~21 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Standard 2 · Advanced 3

T·151515 / 15

Exam profile

AO1 · Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the perspectives, the science debate, values and social policyAO2 · Apply this material to the Item and to research and policy examplesAO3 · Analyse and evaluate whether sociology is a science, whether it can be value-free, and its relationship to policy, reaching a judgement

Operators:outline and explainapplying material from the Item, analyseevaluateassessdiscuss

basic level

AS-Level expects the main perspectives and the basic positivism/interpretivism distinction on methods.

higher level

The full A-Level requires sustained evaluation of the scientific status of sociology, the value-freedom debate and the relationship between sociology and social policy.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

Theory and Methods (with Crime and Deviance)

Perspectives applied: consensus, conflict and action theories#

StandardAQA 7192/3 Theory and MethodsDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Consensus, conflict and action perspectives

Fig. 1The three families of perspective differ in their assumptions and, applied to crime, produce strain, conflict and labelling accounts.

The theory-and-methods strand requires the perspectives to be understood not only in themselves but as competing answers to the discipline's foundational questions, and to be applied to substantive material such as crime. Consensus theory (functionalism) sees society as an integrated whole held together by shared values, and explains institutions - including law and punishment - by their contribution to order; applied to crime, it yields Durkheim's account of crime as functional and Merton's strain theory. Conflict theory (Marxism and feminism) sees society as structured by domination and struggle, and explains law and crime through class or gender power; applied to crime, it yields the analysis of criminogenic capitalism and selective law enforcement.

Social action (interpretivist) theory reverses the structural emphasis, building sociology from the meaningful actions of individuals and treating society as continually constructed in interaction; applied to crime, it yields labelling theory and the social construction of the criminal. These three families - consensus, conflict and action - differ not only in their conclusions but in their basic assumptions about the nature of society and the individual, which is why they favour different methods and produce different accounts of the same phenomenon. Understanding a topic such as crime as a site where the perspectives compete is central to the higher-level theory questions.

The structure-action debate underlies these differences. Structural (macro) theories - functionalism and Marxism - explain from society down, treating individuals as shaped by the social system; action (micro) theories explain from the individual up, treating society as the product of interaction. Attempts at synthesis, above all Giddens's structuration theory (structure and action as two sides of one process), try to transcend the opposition. This debate determines how a perspective explains crime: whether as a product of social structure (strain, criminogenic capitalism) or of the meanings and labels constructed in interaction (labelling).

Applying the perspectives evaluatively is the core skill. No single perspective explains crime, or any topic, completely: functionalism and strain capture structural pressures but neglect the construction of crime and the crimes of the powerful; Marxism captures class power but can be deterministic; interactionism captures the construction of crime but neglects its structural origins and its victims. The strongest answers use the perspectives as a set of complementary and competing lenses, showing how each illuminates and each misses something, and reach a judgement - typically that an adequate account of a topic such as crime must combine structural and action insights. This meta-level command of the perspectives is what the theory-and-methods questions reward.

Worked example

Applying the perspectives to crime

Explain how consensus, conflict and action perspectives each explain crime differently.

Consensus
Functionalism explains crime by the social system: Durkheim (crime as functional) and Merton (strain between goals and means) - a structural, consensus account.
Conflict
Marxism explains crime through class power: criminogenic capitalism, ruling-class law and selective enforcement - a structural, conflict account.
Action
Interactionism explains crime through construction: labelling, the master status and the negotiation of justice - a micro, meaning-based account.
Evaluate
Each illuminates something (structural pressure, class power, construction) and misses something (the powerful, agency, structural origins), so a full account combines them.

Result: The three perspectives explain crime as structural strain, as class power, and as social construction respectively; because each captures part of the picture and misses part, an adequate account must combine structural and action insights.

Typical mistakes

Describing the perspectives in the abstract without applying them to crime or another topic.
Presenting one perspective as simply correct rather than showing how each illuminates and misses something.

Active revision

Outline and explain two ways in which structural and social action theories differ in their approach to studying society. (10 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for sociology (Department for Education)

Modernity and postmodernity in theory#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Theory and MethodsDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Modernist theory versus postmodernism

Fig. 2Modernist perspectives seek general, rational explanation; postmodernism rejects metanarratives - late modernity occupies the middle.

The concepts of modernity and postmodernity frame contemporary theoretical debate about whether the classic perspectives can still explain society. Modernity refers to the type of society that emerged with industrialisation - characterised by the nation-state, capitalism, rationality, science, and a belief in progress - which the founding perspectives (functionalism, Marxism, Weberian sociology) were developed to analyse. These are 'modernist' theories in that they seek general, rational explanations of society and, in the case of Marxism, a programme for improving it.

Postmodernism argues that society has moved beyond modernity into a new, postmodern condition that the modernist theories can no longer grasp. Lyotard characterises it as an 'incredulity towards metanarratives' - a collapse of faith in the grand, all-explaining theories, including Marxism, that claimed to reveal the truth and direction of history. Baudrillard argues that a media-saturated society has become 'hyperreal', dominated by signs and images that no longer refer to any underlying reality. Society, on this view, is fragmented, diverse and unstable, and knowledge itself is relative, so no single theory or method can claim to describe it - a radical challenge to the whole sociological enterprise.

Theorists of late modernity offer an alternative that retains the modernist commitment to rational analysis. Giddens argues that we live in a period of intensified, 'high' or 'late' modernity marked by reflexivity (the continual monitoring and revision of action) and the disembedding of social relations by globalisation, but insists that society can still be analysed and even reshaped. Beck's 'risk society' argues that the central problems of late modernity are the manufactured risks (environmental, technological) that modernity itself has created. Unlike the postmodernists, Giddens and Beck refuse to abandon general explanation or the possibility of progress, offering a middle path between the classic theories and postmodernism.

Evaluating the modernity/postmodernity debate is a central theory question. Postmodernism is credited with capturing real features of contemporary life - media saturation, diversity, the decline of old certainties - but is criticised as self-refuting (its claim that no theory is true is itself a theory), as politically disabling (if all accounts are equally valid, critique of injustice loses its ground), and as empirically overstated (class and structure demonstrably still shape life chances). Late modernity is often judged the more balanced position. The strongest answers use this debate to assess whether the classic perspectives remain adequate, connecting it to the scientific-status and values debates that follow, and reaching a judgement about how far sociology must transform itself to grasp contemporary society.

Worked example

Evaluating postmodernism as theory

Assess the postmodernist claim that the traditional perspectives can no longer explain society.

State the claim
Postmodernists (Lyotard, Baudrillard) argue society is fragmented and hyperreal, so the modernist metanarratives (Marxism, functionalism) no longer explain it.
Credit the insight
Media saturation, diversity and the decline of old certainties are real features postmodernism captures.
Apply the critiques
The claim is self-refuting (it is itself a metanarrative); politically disabling (relativism undermines critique of injustice); and empirically overstated (class still shapes life chances).
Offer late modernity
Giddens and Beck retain rational analysis and the possibility of progress while acknowledging reflexivity and risk - a more balanced position.
Judgement
Conclude that postmodernism identifies real changes but overstates the redundancy of the classic perspectives; late modernity is the more defensible account.

Result: Postmodernism captures real cultural change but is self-refuting and empirically overstated; the traditional perspectives, refined by late-modern theory, remain able to explain a society still structured by class - so the claim of their redundancy is rejected.

Typical mistakes

Merging postmodernism and late modernity, which take opposed views on whether general explanation is still possible.
Accepting the postmodern relativism uncritically, ignoring the self-refutation and empirical critiques.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate the postmodernist view that the traditional perspectives can no longer explain society. (20 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7192) specification (AQA)

Is sociology a science?#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Theory and MethodsDfE GCE Sociology subject content

The debate over the scientific status of sociology

Fig. 3Whether sociology is a science depends on the model of science - positivist, Popperian, Kuhnian or realist.

The question of whether sociology can be a science depends first on what science is, and the philosophy of science offers competing answers that reshape the whole debate. Positivists take science to be the search for observable, measurable cause-and-effect laws through systematic, objective, quantitative methods, and argue that sociology can and should be scientific in this sense - Durkheim's study of suicide, using official statistics to establish social causes, is the model. On this view, social facts can be studied objectively, like natural phenomena, and sociology is (or can become) a science that discovers the laws governing society.

Interpretivists reject the application of the natural-science model to human beings. Because people, unlike objects, act on the basis of meanings, interpretivists argue that sociology must uncover those subjective meanings through verstehen, using qualitative methods, and cannot be reduced to the discovery of external causal laws. Human behaviour is not law-governed in the way natural events are, since people interpret, choose and can act unpredictably. For interpretivists, a sociology modelled on the natural sciences would miss precisely what makes social life social, so sociology should not aspire to be a science in the positivist sense.

The philosophy of science complicates the positivist picture of what science even is. Popper argued that the mark of science is not verification but falsifiability - a scientific statement is one that could in principle be proved false by evidence - and worried that some sociology (and some grand theory such as Marxism) is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific, though he held that sociology could be scientific if it framed falsifiable hypotheses. Kuhn argued that science is not the steady, open testing Popper described but the work of communities operating within 'paradigms' - shared frameworks of assumptions - punctuated by occasional 'revolutions'; on this view sociology, lacking a single dominant paradigm, is 'pre-paradigmatic' and so not yet a science in Kuhn's sense.

Realism offers an influential middle position that reframes the debate. Realists (such as Keat and Urry, and Sayer) argue that science studies underlying, often unobservable, structures and mechanisms that produce observable events, and that it operates in both 'closed systems' (where variables can be controlled, as in a laboratory) and 'open systems' (where they cannot, as in much of the natural world - meteorology - and all of social life). Because sociology, like some natural sciences, studies open systems, it can be scientific in the realist sense - identifying underlying social structures and mechanisms - without the ability to establish laboratory-style laws. Evaluating whether sociology is a science therefore means recognising that the answer depends on the model of science adopted: positivist, Popperian, Kuhnian or realist - and the strongest answers judge that sociology can be scientific on a realist model even if not a positivist one, reaching a reasoned conclusion rather than a flat yes or no.

Popper's model of science

Fig. 4Popper's model: science advances by proposing falsifiable conjectures and trying to refute them - the criterion he applies to sociology.

Worked example

Model essay plan: is sociology a science?

Plan a 20-mark answer evaluating the view that sociology can and should be scientific.

Set up the debate
The answer depends on what science is; positivists say yes, interpretivists no, and the philosophy of science complicates both. Signal a judgement. Hook to the Item.
The positivist case
Sociology can discover causal laws through objective, quantitative methods (Durkheim's suicide) - science in the natural-science sense.
The interpretivist objection
Human meaning cannot be captured by the natural-science model; verstehen and qualitative methods are needed, so sociology should not imitate science.
Philosophy of science
Popper: scientific only if falsifiable (some grand theory is not); Kuhn: sociology is pre-paradigmatic; realism: sociology studies open systems and can be scientific in that sense.
Judgement
Conclude that sociology can be scientific on a realist model - identifying underlying structures in open systems - even if it cannot achieve positivist laboratory laws, so the answer depends on the model of science.

Result: A top-band plan shows the answer turns on the definition of science, weighs positivism, interpretivism, Popper, Kuhn and realism, and judges that sociology can be scientific on a realist model even if not a positivist one - a reasoned conclusion, not a flat yes or no.

Typical mistakes

Answering 'is sociology a science?' without first establishing what 'science' means - the whole answer turns on the definition.
Confusing Popper (falsification) with Kuhn (paradigms) or omitting the realist middle position.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate the view that sociology can and should be scientific. (20 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for sociology (Department for Education)

Objectivity, values and value freedom#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Theory and MethodsDfE GCE Sociology subject content

The value-freedom debate

Fig. 5Positions on value freedom run from the positivist ideal, through Weber's middle path, to the view (Gouldner, Becker) that values are unavoidable and should be owned.

The debate over objectivity and values asks whether sociology can or should be 'value-free' - free of the researcher's own moral and political commitments. Early positivists believed sociology could and must be value-free, modelling itself on the objectivity of the natural sciences: the sociologist's values should not intrude on the discovery of social facts, and a properly scientific sociology would be neutral and objective. This ideal of value freedom underpinned the claim that sociology could produce authoritative, unbiased knowledge of society.

Weber offered a more nuanced position that remains influential. He argued that values are unavoidable at some stages of research but should be excluded at others. Values legitimately guide the choice of what to study (we research what we consider important) and the interpretation of the significance of findings; but once the research is under way, the sociologist must be objective in the collection and analysis of data, not distorting the evidence to fit their preferences, and must keep value judgements separate from factual statements. Weber thus defended a disciplined objectivity within research while accepting that values shape its framing.

Later sociologists challenged the very possibility, and desirability, of value freedom. Gouldner argued that there is no such thing as a value-free sociology: the claim to value freedom is itself an ideological pose that allows sociologists to serve powerful interests (such as those who fund research) while pretending to neutrality, and he called on sociologists to acknowledge and own their values. Becker, from an interactionist standpoint, argued that sociologists inevitably take sides and should consciously take the side of the underdog - the powerless whose perspective is usually ignored. These positions hold that values are not only unavoidable but that pretending otherwise is dishonest or complicit.

Further considerations sharpen the debate. The influence of funding bodies, career pressures and the sociologist's own social position all shape research, making pure neutrality difficult; and different perspectives openly embrace values - Marxism and feminism are explicitly committed to emancipation, rejecting value freedom as neither possible nor desirable. Postmodernists add that all knowledge is relative to a standpoint, undermining any claim to objective, value-free truth. Evaluating the debate means weighing the positivist ideal of objectivity, Weber's disciplined middle position, and the argument that values are unavoidable and should be owned, and reaching a judgement - typically that complete value freedom is unattainable, that the honest response is to make one's values explicit and to be rigorous and transparent so that others can assess the work, rather than to claim a neutrality that cannot be delivered.

Worked example

Model essay plan: can sociology be value-free?

Plan a 20-mark answer evaluating the view that sociology can and should be value-free.

Set up the debate
Positivists say sociology can and must be value-free; critics say it cannot and should not be. Signal a judgement. Hook to the Item.
The value-free ideal
Positivists model sociology on natural-science objectivity; value freedom guarantees authoritative, unbiased knowledge.
Weber's middle position
Values guide the choice of topic and the interpretation of significance, but analysis must be objective and value judgements kept separate from facts.
The critiques
Gouldner: value freedom is an ideological pose serving the powerful. Becker: sociologists take sides and should side with the underdog. Funding and standpoint shape research; Marxism and feminism embrace values.
Judgement
Conclude that complete value freedom is unattainable; the honest response is to make values explicit and be rigorous and transparent, so others can assess the work - not to claim a neutrality that cannot be delivered.

Result: A top-band plan weighs the positivist ideal, Weber's middle path and the Gouldner/Becker critiques, and judges that complete value freedom is unattainable so that owning and being transparent about values is the honest, rigorous response - a reasoned conclusion.

Typical mistakes

Presenting value freedom as simply achievable or simply impossible rather than weighing the positions and the stages of research.
Attributing Weber's nuanced position (values at some stages, objectivity at others) to a crude 'sociology is/ is not value-free'.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate the view that sociology can and should be value-free. (20 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7192) specification (AQA)

Sociology and social policy#

StandardAQA 7192/3 Theory and MethodsDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Perspectives on sociology and social policy

Fig. 6The perspectives disagree over sociology's proper role in policy - from evidence-based reform to critique of the interests policy serves.

The final strand examines the relationship between sociological research and social policy - the actions and programmes of governments and other agencies to address social problems - and asks whether, and how, sociology should influence policy. Several factors shape how far sociological research affects policy: the political and ideological climate (governments adopt research that fits their outlook), the funding of research (which may come with expectations), the practicality and cost of proposed solutions, and the standing of the researcher and the perceived objectivity of the work. Research does not translate automatically into policy; it competes with other influences and interests.

The perspectives take sharply different views of the proper relationship. The positivist and social-democratic view holds that sociology should be a science that informs rational, evidence-based social reform: by discovering the causes of social problems, sociology can guide policies that solve them, and researchers should engage with policymakers to improve society. This 'social engineering' or reformist model sees sociology as a practical, problem-solving discipline in the service of a better society, and underlies much applied and government-commissioned research.

Conflict and critical perspectives are more sceptical. Marxists argue that social policy in a capitalist society serves to maintain the system - relieving problems just enough to preserve order and legitimacy while leaving the underlying inequality intact - so that sociology that merely informs such policy props up capitalism; genuine change requires transforming the structure, not reforming its symptoms. Feminists similarly assess policy by whether it challenges or reinforces patriarchy. The New Right, by contrast, uses sociological arguments (such as the underclass thesis) to argue for reducing state welfare, showing that research can be enlisted on very different political sides.

Postmodernists question the whole enterprise, arguing that because knowledge is relative and there are no metanarratives, sociology cannot claim the authority to direct policy, and that the sociologist is better seen as one voice among many. Evaluating the relationship between sociology and social policy therefore means recognising the competing views of sociology's purpose - value-free science informing reform, critical analysis exposing the interests behind policy, or a modest contributor to public debate - and connecting them to the values and science debates. The strongest answers link a perspective's view of policy to its underlying theory (positivist reformism, Marxist critique, New Right, feminist, postmodern) and reach a judgement about what role sociology can and should play - typically that sociology can and does inform policy but that its influence is shaped by power and values, so it cannot be the neutral, decisive guide the positivist model imagines.

Worked example

Model essay plan: should sociology influence policy?

Plan a 20-mark answer evaluating the view that sociology should aim to influence social policy.

Set up the debate
Reformists say sociology should inform policy; critical and postmodern views disagree. Signal a judgement. Hook to the Item.
The reformist case
Positivist/social-democratic: sociology as a science that discovers causes and guides evidence-based reform to solve social problems.
The critical view
Marxists: policy in capitalism maintains the system and relieves symptoms; informing it props up inequality. Feminists assess policy against patriarchy.
Other positions
The New Right enlists sociology (underclass thesis) to cut welfare; postmodernists deny sociology the authority to direct policy - research is shaped by power and values.
Judgement
Conclude that sociology can and does inform policy but its influence is filtered by power, funding and ideology, so it cannot be the neutral, decisive guide the reformist model imagines - though it has a legitimate critical role.

Result: A top-band plan weighs the reformist, Marxist, New Right, feminist and postmodern views, links each to its theory and to the values debate, and judges that sociology can inform policy but is shaped by power and values - so its role is real but neither neutral nor decisive.

Typical mistakes

Assuming sociological research translates straightforwardly into policy, ignoring the political, funding and ideological filters.
Describing the perspectives' views of policy without linking them to their underlying theory and the values debate.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate the view that sociology should aim to influence social policy. (20 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for sociology (Department for Education)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for sociology

AQA

AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7192) specification

Theory and Methods (with Crime and Deviance)

5 sections~21 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Standard 2 · Advanced 3

Theory and Methods (with Crime and Deviance)

Key points

Applying the perspectives to crime

Key points

Evaluating postmodernism as theory

Key points

Model essay plan: is sociology a science?

Key points

Model essay plan: can sociology be value-free?

Key points

Model essay plan: should sociology influence policy?

Sources

Theory and Methods (with Crime and Deviance)

Key points

Applying the perspectives to crime

Key points

Evaluating postmodernism as theory

Key points

Model essay plan: is sociology a science?

Key points

Model essay plan: can sociology be value-free?

Key points

Model essay plan: should sociology influence policy?

Sources