OxfordAQA A-Level Sociology: Exploring Sociology — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. 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 sample assessment materials as they become available.

Related: Exploring Sociology study guide · Exploring Sociology revision notes

---

Section A

1. Distinguish between formal and informal social control, giving one example of each. [4]

2. Identify three agencies of socialisation and explain, for each, one way it transmits norms and values. [6]

Section B

3. Using the example of truancy from school, explain how the same behaviour can be regulated by both formal and informal social control simultaneously. [6]

4. Explain how the positivist and interpretivist traditions differ in their approach to choosing a research method, giving one example of a method favoured by each. [8]

5. For the research question “why do some working-class students underachieve at school?”, explain what a positivist approach and an interpretivist approach would each contribute, and one limitation of each. [10]

6. Explain what is meant by triangulation, and evaluate whether it resolves the disagreement between positivist and interpretivist approaches. [8]

7. Evaluate the claim that a sociologist’s choice of research method is determined more by theoretical position than by practical or ethical factors. [10]

---

Answers

1. Formal social control relies on written rules and designated institutions with the power to punish, such as the law and the criminal justice system, or school disciplinary codes [1] [1]. Informal social control relies on unwritten expectation and social reaction, such as disapproval, gossip or exclusion from family and peers [1] [1].

2. Any three, 2 marks each: Family — transmits norms and values through primary socialisation, modelling behaviour and directly rewarding or discouraging conduct from early childhood [1] [1]. Education — transmits norms and values through both the formal curriculum and the hidden curriculum of school rules, routines and hierarchy [1] [1]. Peer group — transmits norms and values through approval and disapproval among equals, especially influential in adolescence [1] [1]. Media — transmits norms and values by presenting and normalising particular behaviours, roles and lifestyles to a mass audience [1] [1].

3. Truancy is regulated formally through fines or legal action taken against parents, and through the school’s own disciplinary procedures [1] [1]. It is regulated informally through disapproval or pressure from family and peers, and through the social expectation that a child should be in school [1] [1]. A strong answer recognises that these two routes operate simultaneously on the same behaviour, rather than treating formal and informal control as applying to separate categories of conduct [2].

4. Positivists favour methods that produce quantifiable, comparable data across large populations, such as structured questionnaires or official statistics, on the grounds that sociology should model itself on the natural sciences and identify general patterns [1] [1] [1]. Interpretivists favour methods that capture meaning and lived experience, such as unstructured interviews or participant observation, on the grounds that human behaviour cannot be reduced to countable variables without losing what makes it meaningful to those involved [1] [1] [1]. The disagreement is therefore theoretical, not just practical — it concerns what counts as valid sociological knowledge in the first place [2].

5. A positivist approach might use large-scale official statistics on exam results by social class [1]; this is valued for being representative and able to reveal broad patterns across a large population [1]; its limitation is that it is limited in explaining why the pattern exists [1]. An interpretivist approach might use unstructured interviews or classroom observation with a small number of students [1]; this is valued for revealing the lived experience of labelling, teacher expectation or subcultural pressure [1]; its limitation is limited generalisability beyond the small group studied [1]. A strong answer notes that the two approaches are not simply competing but answer different questions — one reveals the pattern, the other reveals the mechanism — which is itself an argument for triangulating them [2] [2].

6. Triangulation is combining quantitative and qualitative methods within a single piece of research, so that the weaknesses of one method are offset by the strengths of the other [1] [1]. It does not fully resolve the theoretical disagreement, since a committed positivist or interpretivist may still regard the other tradition’s data as invalid or unscientific in principle [2]; however, in practice, most modern sociological research draws on both approaches, using quantitative data to establish a pattern and qualitative data to explore the meaning behind it, which is a genuinely productive compromise even if it does not settle the underlying epistemological debate [2] [2].

7. For theoretical determination: a sociologist’s theoretical position defines what counts as valid evidence in the first place — a committed positivist is unlikely to regard unstructured interview data as scientifically respectable regardless of practical convenience, and vice versa for an interpretivist confronted with a structured questionnaire [2] [2]. Against — practical and ethical factors matter independently: even a sociologist with a clear theoretical preference may be unable to use their preferred method due to time and funding constraints, the size or accessibility of the sample, or ethical requirements such as informed consent, protection from harm and the right to withdraw, which can rule out certain designs (for example, covert observation) regardless of theoretical preference [2] [2] [2]. Judgement: theoretical position is usually the starting point that narrows the field of acceptable methods, but practical and ethical constraints frequently determine the final, specific choice within that narrowed field, so the strongest answer treats the two as operating together rather than ranking one as simply more important than the other [2].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Listing agencies of socialisation and types of social control as two separate, disconnected lists rather than pairing a specific agency with a specific mechanism.
• Describing a research method’s practical strengths and weaknesses without connecting the choice back to a theoretical justification.
• Treating triangulation as automatically resolving the positivist–interpretivist disagreement, rather than evaluating how far it actually does.
• Writing about Unit 2 in isolation from Unit 1, when strong answers draw on family-related content as worked examples of the methodological issues discussed here.
• On the final evaluate question, ranking theoretical, practical and ethical factors without reaching a reasoned judgement about how they interact.