OxfordAQA A-Level Sociology: Exploring Sociology — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions; examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. As 9690 is a newly launched qualification (first teaching September 2026), use these alongside OxfordAQA’s own specimen papers and mark schemes.

Unit 2 is one written exam of 1 hour 45 minutes and 60 marks in two sections: Section A Socialisation and social control (40 marks, short and extended response questions) and Section B Research methods and theory (20 marks, an extended response question). This paper follows that shape. The question tariffs in Section A (2, 2, 4, 4, 8 and 20) are modelled on OxfordAQA’s Unit 1 specimen paper, which has the same 40-mark Section A description; no Unit 2 specimen paper was available to check.

Related: Exploring Sociology study guide · Exploring Sociology revision notes

---

Section A: Socialisation and social control (40 marks)

Answer all questions in this section.

1. Define what is meant by re-socialisation. [2]

2. Outline one difference between a positive sanction and a negative sanction. [2]

3. Identify and briefly explain two ways in which peer groups may act as an agency of informal social control. [4]

4. Identify and briefly explain two problems with using official police statistics to measure crime. [4]

5. Explain the Marxist view of social control in contemporary society. [8]

6. Evaluate the view that socialisation, rather than formal social control, is the main way in which social order is maintained. In your answer, use examples drawn from your society or any society you know about. [20]

Section B: Research methods and theory (20 marks)

7. Evaluate the view that a sociologist’s choice of research method is determined more by their theoretical position than by practical or ethical factors. [20]

(Section A: 2 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 8 + 20 = 40 marks. Section B: 20 marks. Total: 60 marks.)

---

Answers

1. [2 marks] 2 marks for a clear and accurate definition; 1 mark for a partial one. Re-socialisation is the process of learning new norms, values and roles that replace those learned earlier, often when a person enters a new setting such as a prison, the armed forces or a religious order, or after migrating to a different society.

2. [2 marks] 2 marks for a clear difference, 1 mark for a partial one. A positive sanction rewards behaviour that conforms to norms (for example praise, a certificate or promotion), while a negative sanction punishes behaviour that breaks norms (for example a fine, a detention or being ignored by friends). The difference is reward for conformity versus punishment for deviance.

3. [4 marks] 1 mark for each of two ways identified, and 1 further mark for each brief explanation (2 + 2). Possible answers:

• Approval and acceptance: members who follow the group’s norms of dress, speech or behaviour are accepted and included, which rewards conformity.
• Ridicule, gossip or exclusion: members who break group norms can be mocked or left out, which discourages the behaviour.
• Peer pressure towards subcultural norms: the group can push members to conform to its own norms even where these clash with those of parents or school.

4. [4 marks] 1 mark for each of two problems identified, and 1 further mark for each brief explanation (2 + 2). Possible answers:

• The dark figure of crime: many crimes are never reported (victims may see them as trivial, fear reprisals or distrust the police), so the statistics undercount crime.
• Recording practices: the police use discretion over whether a reported incident is recorded as a crime, and counting rules change over time, so trends may reflect recording rather than behaviour.
• Targeting of particular groups or areas: more police attention on some groups produces more recorded offences among them, so the statistics may reflect policing patterns (the social construction of crime) rather than who actually offends.

5. [8 marks, levels of response: knowledge and understanding 4, analysis 4]

• Level 4 (7-8): detailed, accurate knowledge of the Marxist view with key concepts clearly understood; well-developed analysis kept focused on social control.
• Level 3 (5-6): reasonable knowledge with some key concepts, lacking detail in places; relevant analysis that is not fully developed.
• Level 2 (3-4): some knowledge with limited depth; concepts named rather than developed; analysis vague or general.
• Level 1 (1-2): limited knowledge with little reference to social control; little or no analysis.
• 0: nothing relevant.

Indicative content: Marxists see social control as serving the interests of the ruling class and keeping an unequal capitalist system in place, a conflict rather than a consensus view. Althusser distinguished the repressive state apparatuses (the police, courts, prisons and army), which control by force or the threat of it, from the ideological state apparatuses (education, the media, religion, the family), which control by spreading ruling-class ideas so that inequality appears natural or fair; through interpellation people come to accept the identities and places these institutions offer them. Gramsci’s concept of hegemony explains how the ruling class rules mainly by winning consent to its ideas, using force only when consent fails. Marxists also argue that formal control is applied selectively: the law and policing concentrate on working-class property crime, while white-collar and corporate crimes by the powerful are less often detected or punished. Analysis can note that control by ideology is cheaper and more stable than control by force, and that the view may understate people’s ability to resist or reject ruling ideas.

6. [20 marks, levels of response: knowledge and understanding 6, application 7, evaluation 7]

• Level 4 (16-20): detailed knowledge of theories, studies and concepts; well-developed application with relevant examples from a named society, clearly linked to the question; sustained evaluation comparing perspectives, reaching a well-supported judgement.
• Level 3 (11-15): reasonable knowledge covering most key ideas; relevant application with good examples, some points lacking depth or links to the question; mostly developed evaluation of more than one viewpoint, with a judgement that may be uneven.
• Level 2 (6-10): some knowledge with some depth; some application, with examples brief or partly developed; evaluation attempted but lacking depth or balance.
• Level 1 (1-5): limited knowledge; little use of examples; mainly descriptive with little evaluation.
• 0: nothing worthy of credit.

Indicative content:

• For socialisation: functionalists argue that order rests on a value consensus internalised through primary and secondary socialisation, so most people conform without being watched; Mead shows how the self develops through interaction and taking the role of others, so norms become part of who we are; informal agencies (families, schools, peers, religions, the workplace) control most everyday behaviour through sanctions such as approval and disapproval. Examples: queuing, dress codes or religious observance followed without any legal requirement.
• For formal social control: laws, the police and the criminal justice system deal with those whom socialisation fails to reach (inadequate socialisation); crime prevention through policing and surveillance deters offending; Zuboff argues that digital platforms now gather behavioural data on a vast scale and use it to predict and shape behaviour. Examples: speed cameras, CCTV, penalties for tax evasion.
• Marxist evaluation: socialisation is itself a form of control, since the ideological state apparatuses spread ruling-class ideas, backed by the repressive state apparatuses when consent breaks down; the two are not alternatives.
• Feminist evaluation: gender socialisation and informal controls within families and communities restrict women’s behaviour, so “order” can mean patriarchal order.
• Interactionist evaluation: formal control can create deviance rather than reduce it; Stanley Cohen’s study of moral panics shows how media and control agencies can amplify deviance; Goffman shows how institutions attempt deliberate re-socialisation and how stigmatised identities are produced.
• Fanon: in colonial societies domination worked both through force and through the colonised internalising the coloniser’s view of them, which illustrates that the two forms of control operate together.
• A strong conclusion judges how far the balance differs between societies and situations, for example between everyday conformity and serious crime.

7. [20 marks, levels of response as for Question 6, with examples drawn from research rather than from a named society]

Indicative content:

• For theoretical position: positivists seek objective, quantifiable data that reveal patterns and causes, so they prefer questionnaires, structured interviews, experiments and official statistics, valued for reliability and representativeness; interpretivists seek meanings and lived experience, so they prefer unstructured interviews and participant observation, valued for validity. A committed researcher from either tradition may reject the other’s data as unscientific or as lacking meaning, whatever its convenience.
• Against, practical factors: time and funding, access to the group studied and the size of the sample needed can rule a method in or out; a small-budget study of a hard-to-reach group may have to use a small number of interviews whatever the researcher’s preference.
• Against, ethical factors: informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity and participant wellbeing can rule out designs such as covert observation, or research with vulnerable groups, regardless of theory.
• Other factors: the topic and research question (sensitive subjects may suit anonymous self-completion questionnaires), the funding body’s requirements, and the researcher’s values; Burawoy’s public sociology suggests research may also be shaped by the aim of engaging wider publics.
• Triangulation and mixed methods show that many researchers combine approaches, which weakens a strict link between theory and method.
• A strong judgement might conclude that theoretical position narrows the range of acceptable methods, while practical and ethical constraints often decide the final choice within that range.

---

Where marks are usually lost

• On 2-mark definitions, giving an example without saying what the term means.
• On “identify and briefly explain” questions, naming two points without the brief explanation that earns the second mark for each.
• On Question 5, describing the Marxist view of society in general rather than keeping the answer on social control.
• On the 20-mark questions, listing perspectives one after another without comparing them or reaching a judgement, and (on Question 6) giving no examples from a named society, which the question asks for.
• On Question 7, discussing practical strengths and weaknesses of methods without linking the choice back to positivist or interpretivist theory.