Author: Karl Thompson

What is restorative justice and does it work?

Restorative Justice encompasses victim-offender mediation, family group conferences, and sentencing circles, emphasizing core values and ethical principles. It promotes lay encounters, narrative expression, and ritual dynamics, empowering communities and promoting emotional restoration. The approach aligns with principles of fairness, accountability, and empowerment and has shown promise in reducing reoffending rates.

Restorative Justice includes activities such as victim-offender mediation, family group conferences, restorative conferences, sentencing circles and community reparation boards. 

Defining restorative justice

Restorative justice has been defined as both a set of values and practices, but also as a set of processes and even outcomes. There is no agreement on how to define the concept. 

The goal of restorative justice for those focusing on values is to ‘cement a common set of core values and ethics’ (Shapland 2014). 

Others prefer to define restorative justice in more concrete terms, as a set of practices, as this makes it easier to research. 

Home Office researcher Tony Marshall defines restorative justice as a process whereby all parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future. 

In this definition restorative justice is both a practice, as people come together, and it includes a forward looking element. It is also a process involving dialogue, and an outcome, people agreeing on what should be done to repair the harm done by the offence. 

Including an outcome as part of a definition is a problem because this means the definition may not be inclusive enough. For example in some restorative practices the victims may not consent to the outcomes. 

restorative justice

A more useful definition may thus be provided by Daly (2016)…

“Restorative justice is a contemporary justice mechanism to address crime, disputes, and bounded community conflict. The mechanism is a meeting (or several meetings) of affected individuals, facilitated by one or more impartial people. Meetings can take place at all phases of the criminal process, pre-arrest, diversion from court, pre-sentence, and post-sentence, as well as for offending or conflicts not reported to the police. Specific practices will vary, depending on context, but are guided by rules and procedures that align with what is appropriate in the context of the crime, dispute, or bounded conflict.”

This definition is a practice and a process but not a value or an outcome. The core elements in this definition are 

  • Lay encounters
  • Expresses narratives
  • Ritual dynamics 

Lay encounters 

Restorative Justice practices empower lay people – victims, families, friends and community members – to actively participate in the process. 

This stands in contrast to traditional justice mechanisms in industrial societies, Usually the State takes control of justice through professional bureaucracies, denying communities any say in the process. 

It is a bottom-up encounter where lay people interact to address the specific impacts of a particular criminal offence or conflict. The main forms this encounter can take include victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing and circle sentencing. 

Victim-offender mediation, found in North America and Europe, involves an encounter between victim and offender, convened by a neutral third party facilitator. 

Family group conferencing, mainly found in New Zealand and Australia,  involves a larger circle: victims, offenders and direct stakeholders such as family, friends and respected community members. 

Circle sentencing, usually found in North America, Australia and New Zealand is normally embedded within communities. It is especially common among First Nations peoples and includes the offender, victims, community elders, justices and other criminal justice officials. 

While community members are involved, so are professionals such as facilitators, social workers, the police and probation officers. 

Narrative Expression 

Restorative Justice allows victims and offenders to tell their stories in their own words. It involves the development of a narrative that articulates the voices of lay people. Most encounters involve a carefully designed and managed script. As a bare minimum this process of narrative expression should involve: 

  1. The facilitator asks the offender to describe the events leading up to the offence and the details of it. 
  2. Then the victim and other participants speak about they have been affected 
  3. The facilitator asks the offender how they have been affected and what they have heard. 

The expression of emotion is central to the restorative justice process and two narratives emerge: harm and accountability. 

The narrative of harm emerges that allows victims to articulate the impact of the offence in their own words.

The narrative of accountability allows the offender to accept responsibility and express remorse

This is very different to the ‘hegemonic tales’ that dominate in courtroom interactions (Ewick and Silbey, 1995). 

Victims may be allowed to speak in court, often through a victim statement, but this isn’t the same as a narrative that is co-produced and negotiated. 

Offenders and other people are usually excluded from speaking.  When they do they are obliged to speak in the alien formal language of the court. 

Ritual Dynamics 

It is widely acknowledged by sociologists and anthropologists that rituals play an important role in social life. (Durkheim 1995, Douglas 1984). As Durkheim pointed out over a century ago, rituals are important as they help people to make sense of a society’s collective values and give structure to otherwise shapeless social events. Rituals also provide social solidarity and help sustain a belief in a moral order. 

Criminologists have noted that most criminal justice systems have developed increasingly sophisticated ‘degradation rituals’ to mark the guilt and punishment of an offender (Garfkinkel 1956). However, unlike other social institutions, criminal justice fails to provide corresponding ‘reintegrative rituals’. Restorative Justice allows for the performance of these reintegrative rituals. 

The aspects of restorative justice rituals that make them unique are staging, choreography, casting, scripting and symbols. 

  1. There are clear physical boundaries: participants usually sit in a circle with no hierarchy. There is a clear delineation between who is part of the circle and who is an outsider. This sets it apart from the adversarial settings of a court. 
  2. Facilitators make an effort to design a seating arrangement that supports vulnerable parties and maximises interaction. 
  3. Effort goes into encouraging a ‘community of care.’ 

The process usually encourages some kind of agreement that reflects the consensus reached. The steps the offenders are to make to right the harms they have done are usually written down and signed by all present.  

There will be variation in restorative justice processes. They will vary depending on the nature of the offence and who is involved. 

Restorative values, principles and standards

Braithwaite (2008) distinguished between procedural standards and outcome standards. 

Constraining standards

Constraining standards include empowerment, non-domination and accountability. These must be honoured as ‘fundamental procedural safeguards’. 

Maximising standards

Maximising standards include restoration of relationships, emotional restoration, and the prevention of future injustice, usually interpreted as a reduction in offending. Maximising standards are conditional on the desires and capabilities of the parties. 

Emergent standards

Emergent standards include remorse, apology, censure of act, forgiveness and mercy. These can only emerge organically, they can’t really be actively encouraged like maximising standards. For instance, a victim of crime should never be required to express forgiveness just an offender should never be compelled to show remorse, as this would violate the constraining standards of non-domination and empowerment. 

Visually, constraining standards would be at the basis of a pyramid, they form the basis on which any restorative justice encounter is built upon.. 

Restorative Justice mechanisms are ritual dynamics, lay encounters and expressive narratives. 

Depending on the dynamics in a session, maximising standards may be encouraged and emergent standards may emerge. 

Braithwaite (2022) has argued that both crime and justice can be experienced as forms of domination. He sets out a theory of justice that is based on freedom as foundational in the fight against domination. 

This concept of freedom here is located within a republican conception that is respectful, inclusive and intolerant to all forms of domination. 

Restorative Justice values also reflect a deeply relational way of doing justice. This reflects a long history of indigenous and feminist ways of seeing and knowing the world. This takes as a starting point that we live in relations with others, and transforming these, both on a micro and macro level is central. 

Explanatory theories of how restorative justice works

A number of criminological theories attempt to account for some of the claims made by restorative justice advocates. The three main theories are:

  • Shame theories
  • Procedural Justice Theory 
  • Ritual theories. 

Shame theories 

Shame is the central emotion around which restorative justice is built. Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory is the most well-known theoretical foundation for restorative justice. 

In his groundbreaking Crime, Shame and Reintegration (1989) Braithwaite makes the distinction between stigmatic and reintegrative shaming.  

Braithwaite demonstrates that most criminal justice processes shame both the act and the offender. This effectively ostracises the offender from the community making it difficult for them to reconnect. 

Reintegrative shaming however shames the act but allows the offender a chance to express remorse and be welcomed back into the community. 

Reintegrative shaming allows for a community to strengthen social bonds and allows remorse, apology, mercy and forgiveness to emerge. 

Scheff and Retzinger (1991) have suggested that shame is a repressed emotion in contemporary society. Thus we are often ashamed about feeling shame. If an offender is ashamed about committing a crime he will feel worse because of the shame about feeling ashamed. This can lead to further aggression, violence and general dysfunctional behaviour. 

Restorative Justice may work because it allows for both the offender and victims to express their shame, to openly feel it, and work through this, thus breaking the above negative cycle. 

Procedural justice theory 

Respect lies at the heart of procedural justice theory. If citizens feel that their treatment at the hands of authority figures is fair, inclusive and respectful, they are more likely to obey the law. 

Defiance can result in a rejection of the law and future offending when an offender views a sanction as illegitimate, has weak bonds to the sanctioning agent, or denies his or her shame in an offence. Deterrence, on the other hand, is more likely if the sanctions are regarded as legitimate, offenders express shame for their actions and they have strong bonds to mainstream society. 

The voluntary nature, deliberative structure and encouragement of stakeholder participation in restorative justice can lead to increased perceptions of fairness, legitimacy and social bonding (Tyler 2006). 

Ritual theories 

Ritual theories argue that one’s sense of morals, community bonds, and the self are a function of the rituals in which one partakes, both sacred and profane. 

The restorative justice ritual brings together victims and offenders, their emotions, and their stories to produce solidarity and other conciliatory emotions. (Rosner 2013). 

When bringing people together in a face-to-face encounter with clear barriers to outsiders and a shared focus of attention, a certain rhythm will build up between participants as they become more in sync with each other’s emotions and perspectives. This rhythm leads to entrainment – people are focused on and feel connected to each other akin to Durkheim’s notion of collective effervescence. Solidarity and shared emotion may then be demonstrated through expression of apology and forgiveness and symbolic integration through handshakes, eye contact and hugs.

This is a particularly striking type of ritual when one considers the asymmetrical degradation rituals of Court.

Bolitho (2017) draws on the concept of memory reconsolidation to explore how restorative justice can help victims. Through the ritualised act of telling one’s story within the supportive and structured confines of restorative justice circles a victim may rewrite a harmful emotional memory substituting it with the positive emotions experienced during the restorative encounters. 

Empirical research on restorative justice

Restorative justice has been subjected to an enormous amount of empirical research, perhaps more than any other criminal justice innovation in recent history. More recent studies draw on randomised control trials.

Participant experiences with restorative justice

Research suggests that respect, accountability, empowerment, non-domination, apology and forgiveness are experienced on average in greater quantities by participants in restorative justice conferences compared to those whose cases end up in traditional  courts.

Both offenders and victims perceive restorative justice as a more satisfying and legitimate process than that which is offered in the courtroom. Offenders who participate in restorative justice have a better understanding of what is happening, are more actively involved with their case and are more likely to report that they are treated with respect and fairness. Restorative justice conferences can also result in a higher frequency and amount of restitution paid to victims.

In a comprehensive study of restorative justice for British offenders Chaplin and colleagues (2007) reported that the large majority of victims and offenders found the process to be useful, felt a sense of closure and were more satisfied with their procedures and those who went to court. Notably those whose offences were more serious were significantly more likely to find their conferences useful compared to those who committed less serious offences.

Research from Australia examining the role of shame in restorative justice reports that offenders who participate in conferences experienced both reintegrative and stigmatic shame in higher quantities than offenders who go to court.

Healing victims

Victims who meet their offender and receive an apology are more forgiving, feel more sympathetic towards the offender and are less likely to desire physical revenge. Paulsons (2003) early review of restorative justice illustrates a range of positive psychological outcomes for victims.

Randomised trials in Great Britain provide strong evidence of increased well-being for victims who meet with their offender compared to victims who do not.

A minority of victims and offenders feel worse after a conference specifically when they reported not being involved or  disrespected.

A minority of participants that were unhappy with their conference pointed to instances where they felt they were not being taken seriously or where they felt uninformed or not Included. When victims are unhappy with their experience it is often when they feel little attention has been paid to the process and most of the focus is on developing suitable outcomes for the offender. 

Reoffending 

The best research on restorative Justice and reoffending shows a modest but consistent positive effect on recidivism reduction. However much research on restorative justice and recidivism has been hindered by the lack of an adequate comparison groupS, little statistical power or other methodological issues.

Early reviews of the evidence on restorative justice resulted in cautiously optimistic conclusions about its effectiveness (Braithwaite 2002).

All studies conclude that restorative justice, compared to court, results in a modest reduction in offending. There is also a secondary benefit of a reduction in the desire for revenge by victims, possibly resulting in a reduction in revenge crimes. 

Strang et al (2013) report on a systematic review of the most rigorous randomised control trials. This analysis indicated restorative justice  may be more effective for violent crime than for property crime and for adults rather than for young offenders. 

There is also evidence that Restorative Justice is cost effective compared to court. 

Not all RJ conferences are the same. It is more likely to be successful when…

  • offenders are remorseful.
  • an outcome was agreed by consensus.
  • when offenders report it has been useful in helping them realise the harm their offences had done. 
  • Also high intensity emotional conferences result in a greater reduction in reoffending. 

One needs to be careful about generalising from the findings on restorative justice and realise it only works when done well, however such settings are difficult to replicate!

The Future of Restorative Justice 

The United Kingdom government has committed to invest millions of pounds in restorative justice processes. However a 2020 review found that only 5.5% of victims were offered the opportunity to meet their offender. 

Lack of government investment aside, there is ground-up expansion, Braithwaite (2021) refers to restorative justice as a street level meta strategy, with initiatives springing up in many areas:

  • Sexual violence
  • Hate crime
  • Environmental harm
  • Declaration and the movement for racial justice.

Potential barriers to the evolution of restorative justice 

Restorative justice needs support, it’s been ‘about to take off’ since the 1980s. 

We need to keep evaluating it as it expands. It doesn’t work all the time. Hurdles need to be overcome for it to be successful. 

There is a tension between institutionalising community justice which may undermine its spirit!

This material is mainly relevant to the crime and deviance module.

Restorative Justice is most closely associated with Left Realism.

This post was written using the Oxford Criminology Handbook (2015) Liebling et al.

The global decline in fertility rates: causes and consequences

The global birth rate is declining due to various factors such as economic insecurity and high living costs, leading to concerns about an ageing population and economic strain on welfare systems. Attempts to boost birth rates through government policies have had limited success. Family-friendly policies and immigration are suggested solutions, but social trends are hard to reverse.

Birth rates are dropping almost everywhere. Two-thirds of the world’s population now lives in countries where the total fertility rate (TFR) – a measure of births per woman per lifetime – has dropped below 2.1, the number needed to keep the population constant. 

According the to World Bank Open Data, the global TFR reached 2.3 in 2021; it will soon drop below the 2.1 replacement rate if it hasn’t already. 

In the Europe and the UK the rate stands at 1.5 and 1.49 respectively. In East Asia, it is 1.2 and Latin America 1.9. 

As recently as 2017 the UN was predicting the world’s population would climb to 11.2 billion by 2100. The UN now predicts it will peak at 10.4 billion in 2080. After this point it will start declining. This is from 8 billion today. 

UN population predictions

This decline could, in fact, happen decades earlier. 

This will be the first such global-population decline since the Black Death in the Middle Ages. ‘The demographic winter is coming’ said Jesus Fernandez- Villarde of the University of Pennsylvania. 

Why is the birth rate dropping?

This could be due to problems such as increasing economic insecurity, and the high cost of living, especially housing and childcare. 

However fertility rates almost always come down when nations reach a certain level of economic and social development. This is known as ‘demographic transition’.

How do patterns vary globally?

Declining fertility used to be seen as a rich countries problem and to some extent it still is. The highest fertility rates in the world, of around five or six births, are in sub-Saharan countries such as Niger, Angola, and DRC. But now even poorer states have seen sharp falls in their fertility rates. In India, for example, the TFR fell to 2 in 2020!

graph showing declining fertility rates in different regions

Why are people worried?

There are two main concerns. 

People are having fewer children than they want. Polls suggest that UK women on average want between two and three children. 

Second is the consequences for the dependency ratio. The dependency ratio is the number of people of working age relative the number of people not of working age (children and retired people).

A shrinking population means that more jobs will go unfilled and economic dynamism will reduce. The most immediate fear is that welfare systems will be underfunded. They rely on working age people to fund them, after all. 

Today the G7 richest economies have roughly three people of working age for everyone one over 65, but by 2050 they will have fewer than two. 

In South Korea, the national pension fund is expected to run out of cash by 2055. South Korea has the lowest fertility rate in the world at 0.72.

Can birth rates be boosted?

Governments are trying but nothing has been very effective. 

Japan has experimented with childcare subsidies and stipends since the 1990s. Its fertility rate climbed from 1.26 in 2005 to 1.45 in 2015. But then sank to 1.2 again by 2023. 

South Korea has invested a staggering $270 billion in fertility initiatives since 2006 but its birth rates keep declining. 

In France Macron has offered better paid parental leave and fertility check ups. However this hasn’t changed anything.

Hungary has had some success. It spends 5% of GDP trying to prop up the birth rate. It provides three years of parental leave to mothers and lifelong exemption from income tax for women who have a child before aged 30. And loans of $36K which are written off for couples who have at least three children and a subsidised minivan.  And free IVF to women, but not single women or lesbians. Hungary’s birth rate has increased from 1.2 in 2011 to 1.5 today. 

Extreme right-wing policies boost birth rates

In Romania inn 1966 NC decree 770 removed contraception from sale and abortion was restricted, the fertility rate jumped from 1.9 to 3.7 within a year. 

Do family friendly policies help?

Some of the world’s lowest fertility rates are in nations where women play an important role in the workplace, but where traditional gender roles have endured, and where there has been little provision for maternity or paternity leave. 

For example, Japan, South Korea, Italy (1.2) and Taiwan (0.8) all have very low birth rates.

But eventhe most family friendly nations have low fertility rates such as Finland (1.32) Norway (1.4) and Sweden (1.45) 

It seems the social trends behind low fertility are hard to reverse. 

Other solutions to sort out the dependency ratio

Immigration is one possible solution to the ageing population. However the numbers would have to very large to solve the problems. We’d need net migration to be 500 000 a year in the UK for several years to maintain the current ratio of working age to dependent people.

A second solution is to plan for a smaller, older population. This must involve adopting technological solutions such as automating as many job roles as possible.

Signposting

This is relevant to the families and households module, usually taught in the first year of A-level sociology.

This post serves as an update to trends in the birth rate, in global perspective.

It is also relevant to the consequences of an ageing population.

Media Bias in the 2024 General Election

The day of general election offers us a great chance to see the explicit political bias of newspapers.

I took the opportunity to simply take some photos of today’s headlines… on the fourth of July 2024….

Some of them are obviously pro-Labour while others are biased towards the Tories. One dirty filth rag is even supporting Reform UK.

Pro-Labour Newspapers

Pro-Labour newspapers include The Mirror and The Guardian as you might expect. The Sun as switched to supporting Labour this election too.

The Sun

The Sun famously claimed ‘It’s The Sun Wot Won It‘ back in 1992 when it supported the Torys. However back then it may have had a claim as a hung parliament was predicted. The Sun has mostly supported the Tories, but switched in 1997 to support Blair, then back following Gordon Brown.

This time they are supporting Labour with a football twist. This just about sums up how seriously we take politics these days!

The Sun newspaper election day headline 2024

The Mirror

A long term left-wing paper. No surprise here, just a clear positive statement to vote Labour.

The Mirror newspaper election day headline 2024

The Guardian

More subtle Labour support than with The Mirror. A picture of Starmer with supporters, mention of ‘new age of hope’. O.K. maybe it’s not that subtle lefty bias?

Neutral headlines

Headlines in the Times and Independent are more neutral. However if you read the articles, you might find bias

The Times

The Independent

Pro-Tory Newspapers

The Telegraph and the Express are the only two newspapers which are overtly Tory this election….

The Telegraph

Note nothing positive about the Tories, fearmongering about Labour.

The Express

Nothing specific in here, either…

The Daily Mail

The Daily Hate warns you off voting Reform, no doubt the message inside will be to vote Tory (maybe Lib Dem).

The daily mail filthy hate paper.

Of course true to its negative hate-spewing form the Mail doesn’t give you positive reasons why you should vote Tory. Instead it focusses on spreading unfounded gossip attempting to badmouth Labour.

What a disgusting piece of filth. The best you can say about the Mail is it’s a good model for how NOT to end up like!

The Daily Star

Not really sure who these guys support, anything but Tory by the looks of it!

Newspapers and Election Coverage 2024 Conclusions…..

I enjoy doing my four yearly photo session of these papers, but newspaper circulation is so very low these days. So this is such an indulgence. More influential will be social media output.

However, the above news sources do feed into our social media feeds, so these biases will still have an influence!

Signposting

This material is most relevant to Media Studies, an option within second year A-level sociology.

Representations of class, gender, ethnicity and sexuality in The Outlaws

The BBC television Sitcom, The Outlaws, has some stereotype busting representations of minority groups. In contrast it represents middle class, middle aged white men in generally negative ways. 

The Outlaws is a comedy currently in its third series scripted by Stephen Merchant. The main characters are seven individuals from diverse backgrounds sentenced to community service. 

Series one follows one of them ‘accidentally’ stealing several hundred thousand pounds worth of drug money. Three of the other characters find the money and spend it. The original thief then gets death threats from the drug dealer he stole from. 

The rest of season one and into season three are about how the Outlaws get out of the mess they are in. As the plot develops they get dragged deeper and deeper into the underworld of drugs. The series also features three main law enforcement officers who are always one step behind. 

The series also follows the characters through their own personal trials, mainly to do with family and relationship issues. 

It’s a very enjoyable watch and a great example of representations of minority groups which bust stereotypes. 

Rani 

Rani is an Asian teenager with a scholarship to Oxford. However she enjoys the buzz of shoplifting, which is why she ends up with community service. 

She also gets a buzz out of the risks surrounding drug dealing and trying to pull scams on criminals. She is the main ring leader of the group. 

She’s also pro-sex and resists what her parents want her to do (go to Oxford) and is high-adrenaline. 

Ben 

The black teenager who steals the money from the original head of the drug gang. He gets sent to a rival drug-house to threaten them. However, he only does this because the drug gang is threatening to recruit his younger sister. The deal is if he does this, they leave his sister alone. He steals the money in a panic when things don’t go to plan. It transpires that he’s been around gangs on the estate he grew up on all his life. But he resisted this for the most part, and has a regular job. He’s basically a nice kid who just wants out of the estate he grew up on and to get away from gangs. He does this by setting up his own food business. He also ends up in a relationship with Rani, she dumps him because he’s too boring. 

Ben is contrasted to GG the head of drug gang. However even with this guy we are constantly reminded that he’s doing this to feed his family. He ends up getting out of the drug game too at the end of episode two. 

Rani and Ben

Myrna 

Myrna is a 50 year old social justice activist. She’s been quite an extremist all her life, campaigning for minority rights and having set up the Bristol Justice Collective. She’s wracked with guilt during the whole show because of a police officer who died when she petrol bombed a police station many years ago. 

She’s generally represented in a positive light, in terms of her morality, very much a ‘do the right thing’ type character. But she suffers for her belief and is lonely. 

John 

John is a white, middle aged, middle class man who runs a factory which his father set up. He is very much out for himself and his family. He is right wing and politically the opposite of Myrna (but of course they end up becoming friends!). 

His Dad sacks him leaving him jobless and he’s having a midlife crisis for much of the three series. He has some anger management issues. 

One of the more negative portrayals, both him and especially his dad.

 

Myrna and John

Lady Gabriella Penrose-Howe

A 25 year old white lesbian social media influencer. She is from an aristocracy, her Dad cuts her off. 

She is a psychological mess, having been sectioned by her dad in the past. She has anger management and drug addiction issues. She is very self-centred, and spends money like water.  

It transpires, however, that most of her problems are down to her dad. Her dad is an old white male that was a crap father and was never there for her. 

Greg the Lawyer 

Played by Stephen Merchant Gregg is kind of a mixed bag in terms of representations. He’s a hopeless lawyer, a weedy, pathetic character who is quite boring. His work colleague, another white male, keeps making fun of him and he just takes it without fighting back. He ends up getting sacked. 

He is divorced, lives alone, hopeless with women, and solicits prostitutes. 

He is mainly friends with Gabby, and becomes her lawyer. They end up living together when her dad boots her out. 

However, on a positive note, his heart is in the right place and like Myrna he appears to have one of the strongest moral compasses. 

Greg, played by Stephen Merchant.

Frank 

Only in seasons one and two, Frank is the oldest character. He is an ex-con who walked out on his daughter when she was young. He ends up doing the same again. 

The Dean

The ultimate evil character is the Dean. He is your classic evil villain, prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain his drug empire. 

Representations of characters in The OutLaws

It really is middle aged white men, especially fathers, who are represented as the cause of all the problems. 

The Dean, and two of the fathers are all just horrible. Meanwhile John and Gregg both have the most negative aspects to them.

Rani is also quite a selfish character, but this is a nice counter to the ‘good Asian girl’ stereotype. 

The two main black characters are represented in most positive lights in my opinion. 

Class is also an interesting one here… There is a suggestion that the aristocracy are a bit useless. Meanwhile the middle classes (in the form of John, Gregg and the Dean) aren’t represented positively.

Overall it’s an entertaining watch and does a good job of giving us some diverse representations!

Signposting

This material is mainly relevant to the Media option within A-level sociology.

How are Criminals Punished in England and Wales?

In England and Wales, sentencing for criminal offenses takes place in magistrates or crown courts, considering factors like the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s plea, character, and criminal record. Punishments range from discharges for minor offenses (2%) to fines (80%), community sentences (7%), and custodial sentences for the most serious crimes (11%). Judgments may also include disposal orders and ancillary orders.

Courts decide how criminals should be punished in England and Wales. 80% of offenders receive a fine as punishment. Only 11% of offenders receive some kind of prison sentence.

Sentencing in England and Wales

Sentencing in England and Wales takes place in either a magistrates or crown court. 

Magistrates courts deal with less serious offences. These are resided over by a magistrate. Magistrates are just ordinary citizens who take on the role voluntarily. The maximum prison term you can receive from a magistrates court is 6 months.

Crown courts deal with more serious offences. These are resided over by professional judges who have more extensive powers to pass longer jail sentences than magistrates.

When sentencing the court will take into account the following factors: 

  • How serious it the offence is 
  • Whether the defendant pleaded guilty or not guilty.. 
  • The defendant’s character, personal circumstance and any criminal record. 

Punishments for criminal offences in England and Wales

In England and Wales, there are four main types of sentences for those found guilty of crimes, in order of seriousness….

  • Discharges for the least serious offences. 2% of offenders receive a discharge.
  • Fines. 80% of offenders receive a fine as a punishment.
  • Community sentences. These require an offender to do something. This may be unpaid work, getting treatment for an addition, adhering to a restraining order or avoiding going to a particular place. Only 7% of offenders receive a community sentence.
  • Custodial sentences (aka prison). These are only for the most serious offences. 11% of offenders get a custodial sentence.
pie chart showing what percentage of criminals get fined community sentences, discharged or sent to jail.

Discharges 

Judges award discharges for the most minor offences. With a discharge the offender is still found guilty and still gets a criminal record.

An offender can receive either an absolute or conditional discharge.

With an absolute discharge the offender is effectively free to go with no further punishment or conditions. 

A conditional discharge means if the offender commits another crime they can be sentenced for their first offence along with that one. 

Alongside a discharge an offender may also get a disqualification orders, compensation orders, and/ or court costs. 

In 2022 only 2% of offenders received a discharge. In fact, with an absolute discharge, going to court is the only real punishment.

Fines

Fines are the most common form of punishment in England and Wales. Judges hand out fines for 80% of offences.

How large a fine will depend on how serious the crime is and the offender’s capacity to pay. 

Technically the courts can set unlimited fines, but guidelines for amounts vary for different crimes. 

Fines are the most common form of punishment. In 2022 79% of offenders received a fine as a punishment. That’s 831 000 fines in 2022!

Community Sentences

Community sentences involve punishments carried out within the community and require the offender to actively do something. 

Examples of community service includes:

  • Doing up to 300 hours of unpaid work. 
  • Taking part in programmes to change behaviour. 
  • Getting treatment for mental health issues or undertaking rehabilitation for drugs or alcohol. 
  • Offenders may have to refrain from doing certain things. This may include curfews, avoiding certain places, not travelling abroad.

There are generally three aims for community service: to punish, to change behaviour and to pay back the community. 

In 2022 7% of offenders (69 000) received some type of community service as punishment.

Custodial Sentences

Custodial sentences are given for the most serious crimes, such as violent crimes, weapons offences and drug trafficking. 

There are different maximum sentences depending on the crime, and some crimes carry minimum custodial terms. For example if you threaten someone with a weapon there is a minimum six month sentence. 

Some offences also have a ‘three strike’ rule. For example after your third domestic burglary, the minimum sentence is three years. 

There are four types of custodial sentence:

  • Suspended sentences. A judge may decide to suspend sentences up to two years. If the offender complies with all conditions set and doesn’t offend again for the term of the sentence they won’t go to jail. If they commit a further offence during their suspended sentence, they will most likely serve the original custodial term. 
  • Determinate sentences. Here the judge specifies the maximum number of years an offender could spend in jail. For less serious offences of up to four years the offender will typically spend half the term in jail, then be released on license. For offences over four years, offenders will serve two thirds of the time before release on license. 
  • Extended sentences. These are for more serious offences. Here offenders may apply for parole after they have served two-thirds of their sentence. 
  • Life sentences. These are for the most serious offences such as murder and terrorism. Here the judge sets a minimum term which depends on the offence. The offender then serves that term and then may apply for parole. They remain ‘on license’ for the rest of their lives and can be recalled to jail at any time. In the most serious cases judges may pass whole life sentences. There are currently 65 people in jail for the rest of their lives. 

In 2022 4% of offenders received a suspended sentence, and 6% received a determinate sentence. Only 1% received an extended sentence. 

Disposal Orders 

For people with limited mental capacity the court may make a disposal order. This is where they are put in a hospital for treatment or under guardianship. 

Ancillary Orders 

In addition to any of the above punishments, the court may also impose ancillary orders. These are further conditions offenders need to meet. 

They include such things as restraining orders, criminal behaviour orders and driving bans.

Signposting

This material is mainly relevant to the A-level sociology Crime and Deviance module.

It should enable students to evaluate sociological perspectives on punishment.

Two reasons Green Crime might be difficult to control

Two reasons green crime might be difficult to control are:

  • green crime is socially constructed, thus there is no agreed definition of what counts as green crime.
  • Green crimes are often committed by the powerful, thus there is no political will to prosecute.

This is a possible 10 mark question for the AQA’s A-level sociology paper 3 (7192/3).

A very similar question came up in June 2022 as a short answer, 4 mark question.

Question: analyse two reasons green crime may be difficult to control (10)

ITEM B. 

One of the problems with controlling green crime is that there is no single agreed definition of what kind of acts constitute green crime. Another reason is that Green Crimes are global in nature and often perpetuated by the powerful. 

Using material from Item A and elsewhere analyse two reasons why green crime is difficult to control (10).

Analyse two reasons why green crimes are difficult to control: answer

Point 1: Green crimes are socially constructed

The first reason green crime is difficult to control is because there is no internationally agreed definition about what counts as green crime.  What counts as green crime is socially constructed and definitions of what environmental harms are allowed (and are NOT criminal) vary from country to country. People within countries also disagree.

For example Kenya may be dumping toxic waste in a river which flows into Tanzania and damages Tanzania’s ecosystems and makes its people sick, even though dumping toxic waste is illegal in Tanzania. 

However it might be difficult for Tanzania to control the green crimes being committed in Kenya because Kenya might not have any laws banning the dumping of toxic waste in rivers, thus the act isn’t illegal there. Thus Kenya would have no record of it doing anything illegal. 

In the international political system, nation states have the right to set laws in their own countries. There may be international treaties banning the dumping of toxic waste, but there are no enforceable international laws relating to green crime. 

Moreover, in the above example, Kenya may even deny it is dumping toxic waste. Tanzania may not even be able to verify that the pollution is coming from Kenya  as Kenya doesn’t have to allow access to other countries to check whether it is actually them who are doing the polluting. 

Point 2: the powerful commit green crimes

A second reason green crime (defined as environmental harm) may be difficult to control is that the rich and powerful often benefit from committing green crime while it is the poor who suffer the harms. 

From a Marxist point of view the powerful establish the laws to benefit them, and if they benefit harming the environment, they are unlikely to make harming the environment a criminal act. 

Exploitation of the natural environment has long been part of making a profit in the capitalist system: extracting oil, mining minerals, harvesting wood from forests, all of these destroy local environments and create pollution. 

For example, look at Shell in Nigeria. Shell and the Nigerian elite didn’t see pollution in the Niger Delta as illegal. This was because the pollution didn’t harm them, it only harmed the poor locals.

It is only in the last few decades that people have started to campaign to make the worst acts of environmental harm illegal, but it is cheaper for corporations and countries to not regenerate land after they’ve extracted it, and to not bother clearing up their waste.

Developing countries, mainly India and China, think they are justified in using fossil fuels to develop to catch up to the West, because this is what Western Europe and America did to generate wealth over the last two centuries! 

Companies have to pay fines if they pollute today. However, companies often choose to carry on polluting and just pay the fines. Companies can make more profit this way because fines are rarely high enough. There is no political will to impose high fines for pollution because the political class think profit is more important.

Sources and signposting

For more help with the A-level sociology exams see my exams page.

For a deeper dive into Green Crimes see my post on Green Crime!

Two reasons why the media represents young people in negative ways

The June 2022 A-level Sociology paper addressed the representation of young people in mass media. The media, controlled by middle-aged professionals, prioritizes sensational stories, leading to negative portrayals of youth. This bias stems from a lack of understanding of youth culture and the emphasis on news values like negativity and extraordinariness, leading to skewed representations.

This question came up on the June 2022 A-Level Topics in Sociology paper (7192/2).

Below are my thoughts on the question and a model answer.

a 10 mark question with item from the AQA's A-level topic 2 sociology paper, media topic.

The full 10 mark question, with item

Item M

The content of the mass media is often produced and controlled by professionals who are middle aged or older. It also concentrates on exciting stories and sensational headlines to attract audiences. The content of the mass media sometimes represents young people in negative ways. 

Applying material from Item M, analyse two reasons why the content of the mass media sometimes represents young people in negative ways (10).

Guidance on how to answer

This is an interesting question on WHY young people are sometimes portrayed negatively. This is relatively easy to answer by drawing on a range of material from the media topic.

There are two very clear hooks in the item here:

  • Media content is controlled by professionals who are middle aged or older
  • The media concentrates on exciting and sensationalist stories. 

These should be the two reasons you refer to.

What you need to do is draw the links between these two reasons and negative portrayals of younger people. You can get marks for developing points using studies, theories and concepts. You can also get analysis points for contrasting to older people and marks for evaluating.

NB be careful not to go off on a tangent evaluating, keep evaluations short and focused on previous points

A model answer

This should get you 10/10…

Media content controlled by professionals (point 1)

Traditional media outlets are more likely to be managed by older people who do not fully understand youth culture. Thus older journalists and editors may put a negative spin on some youth events because they don’t fully understand what is happening. 

This has been the case with several moral panics over youth culture. Stan Cohen’s study of the mods and rockers in the 1960s demonstrated this. For the most part Mods and Rockers were just about style and having fun. However when a minority of them clashed the media picked up on this and misrepresented all mods and rockers (youth) as violent and opposed to one another. This was due mainly to older people not fully understanding the underlying reality. 

This also happened with Rave Culture in the 1990s. Sarah Thornton pointed out that mainstream media portrayals focused on the one death of Leah Betts, demonising drug culture and exaggerating how dangerous it was. In reality millions of young people took ecstasy and were all fine, it was just part of normal youth. 

This is in contrast to the lack of reporting of older people dying of alcohol related diseases which is far more likely to cause early deaths among the old than younger people taking ecstasy. 

Ironically young people are drinking less than older generations did when they were young, but instead of reporting this the media focus on exaggerating drug use. 

There does seem to be something of a bias against young people, as in the case of The Sun reporting on Sam’s Journey (on TikTok). Sam was buying lunch boxes on special offer from Tesco to resell them for a profit on Amazon. The Sun demonised him for doing this, and yet the media generally celebrates entrepreneurs more generally. This seems to be a clear case of the media demonising the young in particular, this could be because the professionals at The Sun are older. 

Media concentrates on sensationalist stories (point 2)

According to Galtung and Rouge, media companies select news items based on news values. News values include such things as negativity and extraordinariness, thus the more negative an event, the more likely news media are to portray it. 

Young people are generally more likely to engage in publicly deviant and criminal acts than older people, for example they are more likely to be involved in protests and were more involved in the London Riots than older people.

Younger people are also more likely to be engaged in violent crimes such as knife crime, again a very newsworthy topic. 

And if they are more involved in these kinds of events which are more newsworthy, they are more likely to be portrayed negatively. 

From this point of view it doesn’t matter whether young people are, overall, more likely to engage in positive acts than older people, these won’t get reported on because they are not newsworthy. 

Older people may do more harm to society than younger people, but they are more likely to be engaged in state or corporate crime and these are not as sensationalist, so are less likely to be reported on. 

However in the postmodern age there is more youth reporting of youth culture, and so a much wider variety of young people writing and filming about non sensationalist aspects of what they are doing, such as with YouTube and TikTok, which is much more representative than just the news. 

Sources and find out more…

This material is relevant to the media topic within A-level sociology.

For more advice on how to answer exam questions please see my exams and essay advice page.

The AQA topic 2 paper this is taken from.

Model answers to this paper from the AQA.

Two ways globalisation has influenced religious beliefs and practices of ethnic minorities

Below is a question and answer to one 10 mark question on the AQA’s 7192/2 Topics Paper: Beliefs in Society section.

The Question

Outline and explain two ways in which globalisation may have influenced religious beliefs and practices of minority ethnic groups in the UK (10)

My thoughts on the question

This is NOT a good question. It’s what I call a technical question. By this I mean there is VERY little you can say, hardly any ability to use theories concepts which are directly relevant to both the specific parts of the question.

You have to be REALLY careful to make the links between chain in the logic of your answer, see below.

The Mark Scheme

NB you can see from the mark scheme that they’re not expecting too much. The fact that you need to analyse by comparing to non ethnic minorities which ISN’T about the question shows how tough this is.

This is in COMPLETE CONTRAST to how you would normally answer a 10 mark question, which would be 100% focus on the two parts of the question, in this case globalisastion and Ethnic Minorities.

Seems like the AQA are changing the way they mark these papers year on year.

An answer which should get you 10/10

One aspect of globalisation is increasing migration of ethnic minorities to the UK.

The 1950s – 1970s saw relatively high levels of migration from the Caribbean and Asia, and ethnic minorities generally had higher levels of religiosity. 

Cultural Defence theory argued that ethnic minorities turned to religion as a source of both comfort and identity in the face of hostility from the white British population. Thus initially cultural defence theory argues globalisation results in ethnic minorities in the UK being MORE religious. 

For Asian communities mosques, for example, were mainly attended by ethnic minorities only, and this remains the case largely today. Thus one consequence of globalisation is more segregated religious communities. 

We possibly see evidence of this where Caribbean migrants were concerned. They were not made to feel welcome in mainstream British churches and so formed their own Pentecostal churches. 

According to the 2011 Census and other surveys, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindhus are between 2-3 times more likely to practice their religion than white Christians, and black Christians are 3 times more likely to attend church than white Christians. Thus religion is clearly more important. 

The higher levels of religiosity among ethnic minorities in the UK also suggests that secular aspects of globalisation haven’t impacted them as much as White Britons. 

Point Two…

A second aspect of globalisation is the increasing interconnectedness of the media which means ethnic minorities within the UK have more information about religious practices and beliefs abroad.

The global media is more likely to report on news events which are sensationalist, such as when Fundamentalist groups engage in terrorist attacks abroad.

This may have encouraged some minority ethnic groups to hide aspects of their traditional religious practices for fear of a backlash from the British public. For example some Muslim girls may be less inclined to wear headscarves, both male and female Muslims may pray less if this makes them stand out at work or school for the same reasons. 

On the other hand Fundamentalist views spread on social media may attract some ethnic minorities and lead them into extremist practices. The possibility of increased radicalisation has led to the PREVENT agenda in schools, which means Muslims especially are under increased surveillance. Some Muslim groups work with authorities to try to deradicalise people, this is very much a change in practices because of globalisation. 

However increased targeted surveillance may mean some Muslim children feel persecuted which may radicaliSe them further. These views may well remain hidden for years and result in unexpected extreme radical practices, such as with Shemina Begum leaving the country to join ISIS. 

Another religiously related global event we know about because of the media is the Israel-Palestine war, and although mainly political, this is most definitely related to religion. This has led to tensions between Jews and Muslims in the UK, increasing divisions for the most part, polarising religious views. 

So globalisation of the media has resulted in increasing differentiation of religious views in the UK among ethnic minority groups as some get more extreme and others maybe hide away aspects of their religious practice to not attract attention. 

Find out more and related posts

Mark Scheme for this paper is here. If you follow the links back the AQA also has a model answer of its own for this question which gets 9/10!

Reasons why Ethnic Minorities have higher levels of religiosity.

Exams, Essays and Short Answer Questions – Further exam advice for A-level sociology including paper 2!

A Man in Full: A Criticism of Traditional Masculinity

A man in full is a 2024 Netflix limited series which has some good examples of negative representations of traditional masculinity.

The programme follows the demise of Charlie Croker, a real estate mogul in Atlanta, Georgia. Just turned 60, Croker is an extreme alpha male character who lives a lavish lifestyle. He has a mansion, hunting lodge and estate, private jet and a wife half his age. He has also spent the last ten years building a massive skyscraper: the concourse. 

Charlie Croker and his wife

The character of Croker is stereotypically hegemonically masculine. He was the star of the college football team when he was younger. He ‘lives life on his own terms’, he puts himself first, he enjoys hunting. In one scene we see him loving watching horses breed: ‘ah this is life’ he states.

Croker is a very physical man, but at 60 he’s starting to deteriorate. He has a replacement knee put in which is state of the art, robotic. This enables him to be walking within two days because ‘it’s not OK for a man to be weak’. 

The series starts with Croker’s lavish 60th birthday party, in which Shania Twain sings for him. It’s all about him and he loves the attention. The day after this his bank calls him in for a meeting and tells him he needs to repay the $800 million he owes them. 

There are two key characters at the bank who want Croker to repay the $800, Harry Zale and Rayomnd Peepgrass. They not only want him to repay the money, they also want to crush him financially. They want to destroy him, to ruin his reputation. 

Raymond Peepgrass has been working with Croker for years. He has been the main liaison between Croker and the bank. He hates Croker as croker has made him feel like a nobody. He also envies him and wishes he could be him. He is obsessed with bringing Croker down. He is a bit of a weasley character who has always lived a servile life working at the bank. So he starts out NOT being hegemonically masculine. However, as the plot progresses, we see Peepgrass becoming more ‘masculine’ as he obsesses more and more with destroying Croker. 

Raymond Peepgrass

Peepgrass’s boss is Harry Zale who is also keen to bring Croker down, but for him it’s not a personal vendetta. He just seems to relish the masculine accomplishment of destroying another alpha male. He was an ex-wrestler in college and keeps wondering if he could ‘take’ Croker in a fight. 

Hegemonic masculinity ends in tears and death…. 

The main plot line for the series is Croker’s attempts to avoid bankruptcy with the assistance of his lawyer, Roger White. White is not a hegemonically masculine character, he is much more balanced. He is a brilliant lawyer, working for a ‘bad man’ (Croker) because the work is interesting and pays well. However he does have a conscience and wishes he could be doing more good. 

Over the course of the six episodes we see that hegemonically masculine all lead to disaster. Traits such as violence, competition, the urge to control and manipulate, eventually lead to misery and even death. 

On the other hand, those who admit to the failings of these traits have a happier ending. 

The most damning critique of hegemonic masculinity is in the interplay between Croker and Peepgrass. 

Peepgrass’s descent into traditional masculinity has a comic end. Towards the end of the movie he and Zale are ordered to leave Croker alone by their boss (Croker struck a deal with the mayor who did him a favour). Zale accepts this but Peepgrass can’t leave it alone. He seduces Croker’s ex-wife and ends up sleeping with her. He also sets up a company with the intention of buying a majority share in Croker’s concourse (the skyscraper). Peepgrass has convinced Croker’s ex-wife to transfer over her and her son’s shares in the concourse. 

Croker gets wind of this and sets off to confront his ex-wife, he finds her sleeping with Peepgrass. Peepgrass taunts him about having stolen his company AND his wife. Croker throttles Peepgrass, his hand locks up and he can’t release his grip and Peepgrass dies, then Croker has a heart attack and dies himself. The last scene we see is Croker dead, his robotic knee still twitching. 

So here we have two men going at each other and both dying in a farcical situation. Both have been brought down by their aggressive hatred of the other. However, neither intended to kill the other or die, so they’ve lost control at the end of the day. 

The critique of Croker’s alpha male character is the most obvious. He has made many enemies throughout his life by stamping on people and it’s clear no one is going to come to his aid in his time of need. He has bankrupted himself through going into deep debt to build a skyscraper. The phallic imagery here should be obvious. 

The major sub-plot in the series is Roger White helping out another character, Wes Jordan. Wes hit a police officer over an incident involving a parking ticket. Wes’ car had been nudged into a parking zone by another vehicle and was being towed. He objected to this, the police were called and he lashed out after one officer used force to cuff him. 

This ended him up in a high security prison because he refused to accept a plea deal. Roger White manages to get the case thrown out eventually. He argues that Wes was in fact just scared when faced with both the police officer and parking official. It was this fear that led to violence. The message here seems obvious: hegemonic masculine traits get you in trouble. However if you accept the failings of your hegemonic masculinity there is redemption. 

Further, while in jail, Wes has to turn on violence, here it helps him survive. So the only place this character trait works: it’s jail, where all the losers are. 

Characters who are less hegemonically masculine do much better

Croker tries to get another local billionaire, Herb, to bail him out of bankruptcy. Herb is a very quiet man who lives his life in the background. He is calm, collected, rational, not aggressive or overtly masculine. He stands in contrast to the ostentatious masculinity on display by Croker.

The characters are mostly painfully black and white but there is a tiny amount of nuance. Croker has a moment towards the end when he ‘does the right (not traditionally masculine) thing’ because of his son. 

Also the character of the Mayor is ambiguous in terms of his gender traits. 

NB the women in the series are generally portrayed much more positively, but I wanted to focus on men here. 

Links to A-level sociology 

This is mostly relevant to anyone studying the media option in the second year.

This is a good example of traditional masculinity being represented in a very negative way! 

Sources 

IMDB – A Man in Full

Evaluate group interviews to investigate subject choices made by pupils

This methods in context question came up in the June 2022 A-level sociology education with theory and methods paper. 

Below I include the item, a plan and a possible response. NB this isn’t an easy question IMO!

The Item and Question 

Read Item C below and answer the question that follows

As well as compulsory subjects at school, pupils can often choose optional ones. Pupils may choose different subjects for a variety of reasons. They may have a personal interest or talent in a subject or act on the basis of advice given by parents, professionals working within schools or others. However, there are patterns in subject choices linked to class, gender and ethnicity which could result from factors external to schools. 

One way of studying differences in the subject choices made by pupils is to use group interviews. This type of interview can encourage deeper thought as participants can develop ideas put forward by other group members. However, participants may be influenced by peer pressure. Furthermore, some pupils, teachers and parents may find it difficult to find a time to meet as a group.

Applying material from Item C and your knowledge of research methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of using group interviews to investigate the reasons for subject choices made by pupils.

Hints for Methods in Context Questions 

The difficulty with Methods in Context questions is keeping three things in mind at once:

  1. The specific topic as elaborated on by the item – in this case subject choice. 
  2. The research contexts – where and who you are researching. 
  3. The theoretical, practical and ethical strengths and limitations of the specific method – in this case group interviews.  

The easiest way to do this is to highlight the main points in the item and then do quick bullet points for the contexts and method. 

For example my plan to cover would look something like this: 

Topic (subject choice)Contexts Method – Group interviews
TAKEN FROM ITEM:
– Personal interest/ talent
-Advice from parents/ teachers/ others
– External factors (home, socialisation/ poverty/ culture)
-Influence of class, gender, ethnicity. 		– SCHOOL or HOME
– Who… pupils/ teachers/ parents. Mixture of the above 		– Practical – access/ time. 
-Theoretical – validity, reliability, representativeness.
-Also ethical factors such as consent.
  • I would then start with each of the four things on the left and TRY and relate them to BOTH context and then practical, ethnical, and theoretical issues. 
  • Then Contexts in relation to the method (and the topic)
  • And finally if you have time start with the method and relate to the other two. 
  • Try to not repeat yourself, but if you do it doesn’t matter, there are no points for style, but do make sure you have a conclusion!
  • Careful NOT to just recycle what’s in the item. 

This is NOT an easy question to answer!!! 

For more information on how to answer questions on methods in context. 

I briefly cover group interviews here. 

Evaluate group interviews to investigate subject choices made by pupils

Suggested answer below…

(First a reminder of the question AND item!)

an item for an A-level sociology methods in context exam question.

One of the general strengths of group interviews is it allows for respondents to bounce ideas off each other. This means you could get more in-depth answers than when interviewing individuals. It also allows for respondents to check each other’s answers for accuracy. A group interview can also be like a conversation, where the respondents are talking among themselves, which is natural. If the researcher is skilled they may even drift into the background. The researcher can also check group dynamics to know when to interject and possibly detect if respondents are exaggerating or lying based on the responses of others. All of this means group interviews should have relatively high validity. 

However these strengths may not apply when researching this particular topic of subject choice. 

If you are researching small groups of students and trying to find out their personal motives for choosing say science, or maths or performing arts, for example, they may not be forthcoming with their real motives if those motives are not perceived as being acceptable to peers. Embarrassment may prevent individuals from telling the truth in a group setting because of peer pressure. 

Similarly ideas about what is acceptable or cool may result in students in a group giving you what they see as socially desirable motives rather than their actual motives. For example among boys it might be desirable to make a lot of money, so that might be the reason given for choosing economics, rather than them just being interested in the subject.

Validity may further be reduced by the types of student, as mentioned in the item. Working class boys are more likely to see taking an interest in school as cool, thus you are less likely to get valid information about students liking a subject as the motive. However with middle class boys it is more acceptable to express interest in school work. 

Where parental influence is concerned it may be seen as shameful to admit this in front of one’s peers, so this method wouldn’t be good here. 

Girls are more comfortable with conversational settings and discussing their feelings, thus you are more likely to get valid information about why girls choose their subjects compared to boys. 

The mix of different classes, different genders and ethnicities in the group would also influence the results. In terms of reliability, it would be more difficult to repeat if you had a mixture because you may not be able to get the same mix in other schools. 

Thus if you want reliability, you might want to do research on just boys and girls from one class background and ethnicity. 

Another way of doing this would be to research on a subject by subject basis, and ask students why they chose that subject, here you would probably get more specific information compared to asking students in general. 

Another possible way of getting validity in group settings might be to get all the boys, for example, who chose typically girls subjects, they might be more willing to open up if they are with other students who have chosen subjects outside of their gender domain. .

You can also research with parents and teachers, the latter may be able to tell you their take on why students choose different subjects. In terms of researching parents I think you’d have little to gain because they don’t necessarily know their children’s real reasons, and they could be just as unwilling to open up about their role in subject choice in a group. 

From a practical point of view you would have to do these interviews in school, it’s going to be difficult to get groups of students together outside. This means you’d need to get past the headmaster, the teacher, gain parental consent ideally, it would be tricky practically. 

And students would either need to agree to stay after school or be given time off lessons. 

Group interviews would be quicker than individual interviews initially, you could research up to 5 students, any more and some students may clam up or sit back given the size of the group, but it would take a long time to transcribe. 

You would be able to interview dozens of students in say a week, in one school, using this method, so it’s good for representativeness. 

Ethically this allows for students to speak for themselves. 

It might be best to do this BEFORE students take their subject choices, that way students are more likely to be open about pressure, and it might make them think more about making choices independently. This could be a good method for improving reflexivity in the research process. 

In conclusion I don’t think this is a good method for researching this topic, it is too sensitive to reasonably expect students to open up about it. 

However if you were to be very selective and select all the non typical students who have chosen one subject it could work to yield valid, if not very representative data. 

Thoughts on this question 

It is not an easy question. This is mainly because this is not a particularly good method for this topic. Also it’s one of the LEAST interesting topics for students to have to think about. 

Because of these two factors, it is precisely the kind of question that will give you that empty and numb feeling. Especially in the exam you might well sit there and feel a sense of dredd. You might feel angry: ‘what is the point of this’? I think this and I’m a teacher INTERESTED in this kind of stuff. I can only imagine how bad this must have been for an average A-level student. 

For the most part the examiners have provided some pretty good questions over the last few years. THIS is an exception, you just had to suck it up and get on with it! 

But it is what it is. 

Sources 

For more information on how to answer questions on methods in context. 

For more general advise on all sociology exam papers.

Mark Scheme for 2022 paper 7192/1

Click to access AQA-71921-MS-JUN22.PDF

The examiners report June 2022 for paper 7292/1

Click to access AQA-71921-WRE-JUN22.PDF