Sociology 448
Seminar: Social Change
Fall 2003
Dr Scott SchafferMidterm Examination Prep Sheet
Rules of the Game: The midterm examination will take place on W Oct 1/2003 from 3pm to 415pm. There will be no makeup exams given, as per the course syllabus; anyone who cannot attend the midterm examination needs to contact me no later than T Sep 30/2003 at 3pm to make arrangements for an alternate assignment.
For this exam, you will need the following:
At least three blue examination booklets;
Two blue or black pens – no exam written in pencil will be graded, and you will receive a zero (0);
One (1) 8 1/2in by 11in sheet of notes – you may write whatever you like on this sheet, as small as you like, and you may utilize both sides for notes.
At the end of the exam, you will submit the blue books, the exam sheet, and your sheet of notes. No credit will be given for anything not written in the blue books, but at least I’ll be able to see where you were heading in the event you run out of time.
On the notes for the exam: As mentioned above, you may write whatever you like on the sheet of notes, going so far as to write the entire set of essays below in 2pt font and using a magnifying glass during the exam. The one thing that you must have on the notes is page citations for the material you use to support your responses to the questions below. Any exam that does not include adequate page citations for evidence that is utilized in the essays will automatically lose one full letter grade from each of the essays in which this problem appears.
The Details: The midterm exam will ask you to write three essay responses. Below you will find six essay questions, matched into pairs. One question from each of the pairs will appear on the exam; everyone must answer these questions clearly and directly. Each essay will constitute one-third of your midterm grade.
You need to have adequate textual support for your responses, so think of these as short “Schaffer papers.” Each question will ask you utilize a certain number of texts and/or authors in developing your response; essays that are short texts/authors will lose one-third letter grade per text/author it is short. You need to utilize this format when citing the texts: (Author Year: Page). Be sure that you put the year of the text; for some questions, it will be the only thing distinguishing between different texts.
As mentioned above, these questions are designed to elicit shorter “Schaffer papers” from you. Do not give short shrift to your responses. Your job in this is to fully and completely respond to the questions presented to you. These are not two-paragraph essays you’re being asked to write.
You should allow yourself about 20-25min for each essay during the exam period. I will announce the time remaining at 30min, 15min, and 5min left in the exam.
Good luck, and happy preparing…
The Exam Questions: Three of these will appear on the exam, one from each pair. The directions on the exam will appear in the same format they do here. The crucial question to be answered is highlighted in boldface.
One question from this pair will appear on the exam. For these questions, you need to utilize at least two (2) articles from each of two (2) theorists.
1. After developing the analytic frameworks of two theorists, use those frameworks to discuss how each theorist would examine the changes in civil rights brought about by the Patriot Act. Which analytic framework best highlights the causes of these changes (as well as you know them), and for what reasons is this framework better than the other?
2. After developing the analytic frameworks of two theorists, use those frameworks to discuss how each theorist would examine a student movement that develops on campus. Which analytic framework best highlights the causes of these changes (as well as you know them), and for what reasons is this framework better than the other?
One question from this pair will appear on the exam. For these questions, you need to utilize at least two (2) articles on the different research methods discussed to date in the course.
3. After highlighting the key elements of two research methods, discuss how you might use these research methods to study some form of social change occurring at the macro/structural level. (Be sure to include elements such as possible research questions, research sites, units of analysis, etc.) Which of these two methods would best give you access to the key elements of this kind of social change, and for what reasons is this method better than the other?
4. After highlighting the key elements of two research methods, discuss how you might use these research methods to study some form of social change occurring at the meso/interactional or group level. (Be sure to include elements such as possible research questions, research sites, units of analysis, etc.) Which of these two methods would best give you access to the key elements of this kind of social change, and for what reasons is this method better than the other?
One question from this pair will appear on the exam. For these questions, you need to utilize at least two (2) articles from one theorist and at least one (1) article on one of the research methods.
5. You are studying a hypothetical form of social change emanating from the competition between different departments within the federal government. Develop a research framework, including the analytic framework, research question, and research methods you would use, that would show how it is you would collect evidence/data about this form of social change and the framework through which you would analyze it. Why do you think this research plan would be successful, and what kinds of insights would you gain through using it?
6. You are studying a hypothetical form of social movement that is attempting to convince a state bureaucracy to negotiate fairly with one of its unions. Develop a research framework, including the analytic framework, research question, and research methods you would use, that would show how it is you would collect evidence/data about this form of social change and the framework through which you would analyze it. Why do you think this research plan would be successful, and what kinds of insights would you gain through using it?
Research framework = Research Question + Theory/Analytic Framework + Research Method
Evaluation Criteria:
In addition to the general criteria used to evaluate papers in this course (as listed in the syllabus and the “How to Write a Schaffer Paper” handout) and the usual provisos about “showing your steps,” the following specific criteria will apply to each of the questions:
Q1 & Q2: Clarity of the analytic framework; fit between the analytic framework and the purported reasons for the changes discussed; comparison of the two frameworks and demonstration of compelling reasons for one’s quality over the other.
Q3 & Q4: Discussion of the key elements of each research method; demonstration of how each research method would look at level of analysis specified; comparison of the two methods and demonstration of compelling reasons for one’s quality over the other.
Q5 & Q6: Specification of research question, analytic framework, and key elements of research method; demonstration of appropriateness for level of analysis; direct responses to the “big question”.
Basic Grading Rubric:
These general principles are what will guide the application of letter grades to the essays submitted. Other deductions as specified in this assignment or in the course syllabus will affect these grades, and +/- modifiers will be applied.
A – Clearly formulated and demonstrated response to the “big question”; addressing all specified parts of the question, and demonstration of logic behind those responses; presentation of evidence from required texts and demonstration of how that evidence supports the statement made.
B – Well formulated response to the “big question,” though without full demonstration of the logic; addressing all/most of the specified parts of the question and/or not fully demonstrating the logic behind those responses; presentation of evidence from required texts, but no demonstration of how that evidence supports the statement made.
C – No clear thesis in response to the “big question”; addressing some/most of the specified parts of the question, but without development of the logic behind those responses; intimation of evidence from the required texts, but no discussion of that evidence or how it supports the statement made.
D – Cursory attempt at answering the “big question”; addressing some of the specified parts of the question, but no discussion of logic behind those responses; no presentation of evidence from required texts.
F – No attempt to answer the question assigned; cursory discussion of specified parts of the question; no use of evidence from the required texts.