1. ‘The functionalist theory of socialization is too deterministic.’ Explain and assess this view.

A few basic comments about socialisation in general might be worth 3 or 4 marks. Some attempt to define the
functionalist concept of socialisation, or to identify characteristics of the interactionist view of socialisation,
albeit in a very simple and partial way, would trigger the top of the band. Answers that are confined to a
descriptive account of the cases of so-called feral children can go no higher than the top of this band.
Beberapa komentar dasar tentang sosialisasi secara umum mungkin bernilai 3 atau 4 nilai. Beberapa upaya untuk
mendefinisikan konsep sosialisasi fungsionalis, atau untuk mengidentifikasi karakteristik pandangan interaksionis
sosialisasi, meskipun dengan cara yang sangat sederhana dan parsial, akan memicu puncak band. Jawaban-
jawaban yang terbatas pada penjelasan deskriptif tentang kasus-kasus yang disebut anak-anak liar tidak bisa lebih
tinggi dari puncak kelompok ini.

7–12
A basic account of the functionalist concept of socialisation, with no further development, would fit the lower
part of the band. An answer that is confined to discussing functionalism, but which also includes an
acceptable explanation of why the functionalist concept of socialisation might be seen as too deterministic, would
merit the top part of the band. A basic descriptive account of the functionalist and interactionist perspectives
on socialisation, which perhaps fails directly to address the analytical issues raised by the question, could also
reach the top of the band. At this level, there may be little or no attempt to assess the view that the
functionalist concept is too deterministic and interactionists provide a better understanding of the process of
socialisation.
7–12
Penjelasan dasar tentang konsep sosialisasi fungsionalis, tanpa pengembangan lebih lanjut, akan sesuai dengan
bagian bawah band. Sebuah jawaban yang terbatas pada pembahasan fungsionalisme, tetapi juga mencakup
penjelasan yang dapat diterima tentang mengapa konsep sosialisasi fungsionalis dapat dilihat sebagai terlalu
deterministik, akan pantas menjadi bagian teratas dari kelompok ini. Sebuah akun deskriptif dasar dari perspektif
fungsionalis dan interaksionis
pada sosialisasi, yang mungkin gagal secara langsung untuk mengatasi masalah analitis yang diangkat oleh
pertanyaan itu, juga bisa mencapai puncak band. Pada tingkat ini, mungkin ada sedikit atau tidak ada upaya untuk
menilai pandangan bahwa konsep fungsionalis terlalu deterministik dan interaksionis memberikan pemahaman
yang lebih baik tentang proses sosialisasi.

13–18
Lower in the band, the answer may be confined mainly to an accurate descriptive account of the
functionalist and interactionist perspectives on socialisation. However, there will also be at least a rudimentary
attempt to address the issue of determinism and to explain why the interactionists possibly provide a better
understanding of the process of socialisation. Higher in the band, the assessment will be more developed, though
key analytical points might emerge implicitly i.e. through juxtaposition of views, as opposed to being stated
directly. Though it is not essential, we might expect that higher in the band answers will include references to
specific theorists and the contributions each has made to the development of the functionalist and/or
interactionist understanding of the process of socialisation.
Lebih rendah di band, jawabannya mungkin terbatas terutama pada akun deskriptif yang akurat dari perspektif
fungsionalis dan interaksionis pada sosialisasi. Namun, setidaknya akan ada upaya yang belum sempurna untuk
mengatasi masalah determinisme dan untuk menjelaskan mengapa para interaksionis mungkin memberikan
pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang proses sosialisasi. Lebih tinggi di band, penilaian akan lebih berkembang,
meskipun poin analitis kunci mungkin muncul secara implisit yaitu melalui penjajaran pandangan, yang
bertentangan dengan yang dinyatakan secara langsung. Meskipun tidak penting, kita mungkin berharap bahwa
jawaban yang lebih tinggi dalam kelompok akan mencakup referensi ke ahli teori tertentu dan kontribusi masing-
masing telah dibuat untuk pengembangan pemahaman fungsionalis dan/atau interaksionis dari proses sosialisasi.

19–25
Answers at this level will demonstrate a clear and accurate understanding of the differences between the
functionalist and interactionist perspectives on socialisation. The issue of determinism will be addressed
directly and coherent points will be made about why the functionalist theory of socialisation might be seen as too
deterministic. Lower in the band, the discussion of the interactionist perspective may lack some detail and might
be confined mainly to exposing the limitations of the functionalist concept of socialisation. Higher in the band,
a fuller picture will emerge of the contribution that interactionists have made to understanding the
process of socialisation. This might include, for example, detailed references to the ideas of thinkers such as
James, Mead, Cooley, Becker and Goffman. To trigger this band, there must also be a concerted attempt
to support or challenge the view that interactionism provides a better understanding of the process of
socialisation. Higher in the band, the assessment will be marked by some element of sophistication, such as the
ability to recognise limitations in the interactionist perspective or the use of examples from studies to
highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the different view of socialisation.

19–25
Jawaban pada tingkat ini akan menunjukkan pemahaman yang jelas dan akurat tentang perbedaan antara
perspektif fungsionalis dan interaksionis dalam sosialisasi. Isu determinisme akan dibahas secara langsung dan
poin-poin yang koheren akan dibuat tentang mengapa teori sosialisasi fungsionalis mungkin dipandang terlalu
deterministik. Lebih rendah di band, diskusi tentang perspektif interaksionis mungkin kurang detail dan mungkin
terbatas terutama untuk mengekspos keterbatasan konsep sosialisasi fungsionalis. Lebih tinggi di band, gambaran
yang lebih lengkap akan muncul dari kontribusi yang telah dibuat interaksionis untuk memahami proses sosialisasi.
Ini mungkin termasuk, misalnya, referensi rinci untuk ide-ide para pemikir seperti James, Mead, Cooley, Becker dan
Goffman. Untuk memicu kelompok ini, juga harus ada upaya bersama untuk mendukung atau menantang
pandangan bahwa interaksionisme memberikan pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang proses sosialisasi. Lebih
tinggi di band, penilaian akan ditandai oleh beberapa elemen kecanggihan, seperti kemampuan untuk mengenali
keterbatasan dalam perspektif interaksionis atau penggunaan contoh dari studi untuk menyoroti kekuatan dan
kelemahan dari pandangan sosialisasi yang berbeda .

2. Assess arguments for the use of quantitative methods in sociological research.

Higher in the band (3–4 marks), one relevant developed or two undeveloped points. There may be an attempt to
describe quantitative methods in sociological research, but with few or no direct links to the set question

5–8
Answers at this level show some sociological knowledge and understanding of the question.
Lower in the band (5–6 marks), a basic description highlighting two relevant points with some development. For
example, a list-like account supporting the use of quantitative methods that is not particularly well applied to the
question could also be worth five or six marks. There is likely to be a lack of development in the response
.
Higher in the band (7–8 marks), there will be a sound attempt to explain the idea that quantitative methods in
sociology are useful. A range of methods may be discussed to illustrate this but these do not need to be
exhaustive. A one-sided answer that is done very well, could also gain up to 8 marks.

A descriptive answer cannot gain more than 8 marks.

9–11
Answers at this level will demonstrate good sociological knowledge and understanding applied to the question.
There will also be an assessment of the influence of the arguments for the use of quantitative methods in
sociological research.

Lower in the band (9–10 marks), the assessment may be limited in range or depth. This is likely to be achieved by
reference to the links between quantitative methods, positivism and the scientific approach to sociological
enquiry. However, the assessment may not be fully developed or somewhat juxtaposed.

At the top of the level (11 marks), the assessment will have more range or depth. There is likely to be some
attempt at assessing relevant theoretical (positivism and interpretivism) and conceptual issues in relation to
quantitative and qualitative research methods.

In support:
Knowledge of positivism and the scientific approach:
• Produce numerical data enabling identification of patterns/ trends/
comparisons.
• Reliability – easily replicated.
• Objective and value-free.
• Large scale and representative samples.
• Generalisable.
• Practical advantages, e.g. computers can be used to analyse data Methods used: surveys/questionnaire,
structured interviews, content analysis, official statistics.

In evaluation:
Knowledge of the interpretivist objections to quantitative methods:
• Methods unsuitable for study of human behaviour.
• Methods not objective/value free.
• Humans have free will and cannot be measured.
• Resulting data lacks validity.
• Variables in the social world cannot be controlled.
Explain and assess the view that the nuclear family is the ideal family type.

0–6
Answers at this level are likely to be assertive and focus on a few common sense observations with little or no
sociological support or reference to the question.

Lower in the level (1–3 marks), one or two simple points based on assertion or common sense (e.g. nuclear families
are ideal as they raise ‘good’ children) others may describe families rather than consider the ‘best’ type of
family.

Lebih rendah di level (1–3 tanda), satu atau dua poin sederhana berdasarkan pernyataan atau akal sehat (misalnya
keluarga inti ideal karena mereka meningkatkan 'baik' anak-anak) orang lain mungkin menggambarkan keluarga
daripada mempertimbangkan jenis 'terbaik' keluarga.

Higher in the level (4–6 marks), a wider range of simple points based on assertion or common sense or a point that
hints at a sociological understanding of the question (e.g. an assertion that a family with two parents is better able
to socialise children into their gender roles). Answers at this level are likely to show only limited appreciation of the
issues raised in the question.

Lebih tinggi di level (4–6 tanda), rentang poin sederhana yang lebih luas berdasarkan pernyataan atau akal sehat
atau titik yang mengisyaratkan sosiologis pemahaman pertanyaan (misalnya pernyataan bahwa sebuah keluarga
dengan dua orang tua lebih mampu mensosialisasikan anak ke dalam peran gendernya). Jawaban pada tingkat ini
cenderung hanya menunjukkan apresiasi yang terbatas terhadap isu-isu yang diangkat dalam pertanyaan.

Other top of the level answers may argue that other family types are positive with little or no reference to the
question.

Jawaban tingkat atas lainnya mungkin berpendapat bahwa tipe keluarga lain adalah positif dengan sedikit atau
tanpa referensi ke pertanyaan.

Answers which offer weak

7–12
Answers at this level will show some sociological knowledge and understanding of the question and there will be
some attempt to directly answer the question by displaying an understanding of the view that the nuclear family is
the best type. At this level, answers are likely to be one sided, but may reference both sides of a debate albeit with
little use of sociological theories, studies or concepts. However, in this level there is likely to be some consideration
of either society or family members.

Jawaban pada tingkat ini akan menunjukkan beberapa pengetahuan dan pemahaman sosiologis tentang
pertanyaan dan akan ada beberapa upaya untuk menjawab pertanyaan secara langsung dengan menampilkan
pemahaman tentang pandangan bahwa keluarga inti adalah tipe terbaik. Pada tingkat ini, jawaban cenderung satu
sisi, tetapi dapat merujuk kedua sisi perdebatan meskipun dengan sedikit menggunakan teori, studi, atau konsep
sosiologis. Namun, pada tingkat ini kemungkinan ada beberapa pertimbangan baik dari masyarakat atau anggota
keluarga.
Lower in the level (7–9 marks), a narrow range of underdeveloped points, possibly with some inaccuracies (e.g.
outlining some aspects of the work of Murray. Other answers may outline the work of postmodernists about a
variety of family types).
Higher in the level (10–12 marks), a narrow range of developed points or a wider range of underdeveloped points.

Lebih rendah di tingkat (7-9 tanda), kisaran sempit poin terbelakang, mungkin dengan beberapa ketidakakuratan
(misalnya menguraikan beberapa aspek dari karya Murray. Jawaban lain mungkin menguraikan karya
postmodernis tentang sebuah berbagai jenis keluarga).

Lebih tinggi di level (10–12 tanda), rentang poin yang dikembangkan sempit atau rentang poin terbelakang yang
lebih luas.
13–18
Answers at this level will show good sociological knowledge and understanding. The material used will be
interpreted accurately and applied well to answering the question. There is no requirement for assessment at
this level although it may be present. Answers should include some accurate use of sociological theory, studies or
concepts. In this level there could be an identification of the views of the New Right in relation to family
members/society.
Lower in the level (13–15 marks), a range of relevant knowledge, with appropriate use of concepts and/or theory,
but the points covered may lack development or specific focus on the question in places.

Higher in the level (16–18 marks), answers will use a wide range of relevant knowledge, including concepts and/or
theory, and include some well-developed points.

Relevant knowledge could include an outline of the social problems caused to society and to individuals compared
to the functions of the nuclear family. Postmodernist optimism may be an alternative. Other answers may contrast
the views of the New Right to those of the feminists and the damage caused to women.

Pengetahuan yang relevan dapat mencakup garis besar masalah sosial yang ditimbulkan pada masyarakat dan
individu dibandingkan dengan fungsi keluarga inti. Optimisme postmodernis mungkin bisa menjadi alternatif.
Jawaban lain mungkin kontraspandangan Hak Baru bagi kaum feminis dan kerusakan yang ditimbulkan pada
perempuan.

At the top of the level, answers will contain a wide range of knowledge with some well-developed points and
accurate use of theory, studies and concepts.

19–25
Answers at this level must achieve three things:
 First, there will be good sociological knowledge and understanding.
 Second, the material used will be interpreted accurately and applied effectively to answering the
question.
 Third, there must also be some evidence of assessment.

Answers in this level are likely to provide an excellent account and assessment New Right and/or functionalist
views that the nuclear family is the ideal family type.

There will be clear assessment of the view in the question (for example a comparison of the views of the New Right
and other theories such as postmodernist/neo-functionalist). Answers may well highlight problems faced by some
nuclear families).
Lower in the level (19–21 marks), the assessment may be largely delivered through juxtaposition of contrasting
arguments and theories. Alternatively, the assessment may be limited to just one or two evaluative points that are
explicitly stated.

Higher in the level (22–25 marks), there will be sustained assessment and the points offered will be explicit and
well-directed towards the question. Some answers may question the notion of ‘ideal type’ raising the question of
ideal for whom?

There likely to be a well formulated conclusion.

Points that can be included:

• New Right views on the problems of family types other than the nuclear family.
• Functionalist and neo-functionalist views on the nuclear family.
• Marxist views of role of family to produce ideological conditioning.
• Feminist views that functionalism overlooks patriarchy.
• Postmodernist critiques of these structuralist views.
• Images of the nuclear family both advertised and promoted
• Any other relevant point

Concepts which may be referred to: socialisation, functions, ideological conditioning, patriarchy, diversity, social
problems, culture of dependency, dependency cycle, underclass, deviant, functional ‘fit’.