2026 Cambridge IAS-Level Sociology (9699) Practice Paper with Answers

Points that can be credited include:

• Informed consent (1 mark identification): Participants must be given sufficient information about the nature and purpose of the study so they can freely choose whether or not to participate without deception or coercion (1 mark description).
• Protection from harm (1 mark identification): Sociologists must ensure that participants are safeguarded against physical danger, emotional distress, embarrassment, or psychological trauma during and after the research (1 mark description).
• Anonymity and confidentiality (1 mark identification): Researchers must keep the identities and personal data of participants private, often using pseudonyms to prevent participants from being identified (1 mark description).
• Right to withdraw (1 mark identification): Participants must be made aware that they can leave the study or withhold their data at any point without negative consequences (1 mark description).
• Deception (1 mark identification): Researchers should avoid misleading participants about the true aim of the research unless strictly necessary (e.g. in covert observation), and must provide a full debriefing if deception is used (1 mark description).

[1 mark] for identification of each relevant ethical issue (up to a maximum of 2).
[1 mark] for an accurate description/development of each identified ethical issue (up to a maximum of 2).

(2 marks × 2 = 4 marks total)

Two reasons why interpretivists favour qualitative research methods are:

1. Achieving Verstehen and High Validity:
Interpretivists believe that human behaviour cannot be studied using the objective methods of the natural sciences because individuals possess agency and act based on subjective meanings. To truly understand social action, researchers need to achieve 'verstehen' (empathic understanding). Qualitative methods, such as unstructured interviews or participant observation, allow researchers to gain a rich, deep insight into participants' feelings, motives, and life-worlds. This generates qualitative data with high ecological validity, as participants describe reality in their own words and context rather than conforming to rigid quantitative metrics.

2. Avoiding Imposition of Categories and Fostering Flexibility:
Interpretivists argue that quantitative tools (like closed questionnaires) impose the researcher's assumptions, priorities, and pre-coded categories on respondents. In contrast, qualitative research adopts an open, flexible design where questions can be adapted dynamically based on respondents' cues. This approach minimises imposition bias and allows new, unexpected meanings to emerge naturally, reflecting the true social construction of reality by the participants themselves.

Up to 4 marks are available for each reason (2 × 4 marks = 8 marks total):

For each reason:
- 1 mark for identifying a valid reason why interpretivists prefer qualitative methods (e.g., obtaining verstehen / validity, capturing subjective meaning, natural setting / avoiding category imposition).
- 1 mark for basic explanation of how qualitative methods achieve this.
- 1 mark for the appropriate use of sociological concepts, terms, or relevant sociological material (e.g., verstehen, validity, social action, subjectivity, imposition bias, Weber, interactionism).
- 1 mark for applying and developing the explanation clearly in relation to the interpretivist approach.

Points that can be credited include:
- Gaining verstehen / deep empathetic understanding of actors' motives.
- High internal/ecological validity and detailed, descriptive qualitative data.
- Minimising the imposition of the researcher's values or rigid pre-coded categories.
- Studying behaviour in its natural setting (e.g., ethnographic field research).
- Exploring the fluid, socially constructed nature of meanings over time.

One strength of semi-structured interviews is that they provide high validity. Although the researcher works from a set interview schedule covering key themes, the open-ended nature allows them to ask follow-up questions and probe for clarification when a respondent gives an unexpected or nuanced response. This is a strength because it allows the sociologist to access rich, detailed qualitative data and develop a deeper empathetic understanding (verstehen) of participants' subjective meanings and interpretations.

One limitation of semi-structured interviews is that they lack reliability. Because the interviewer has the freedom to alter question ordering, rephrase prompts, or introduce unique probes depending on how the conversation develops, the procedure is not standardised. This is a limitation because subsequent researchers cannot exactly replicate the interview conditions to verify the consistency of the findings, making direct, objective comparisons across different cases or respondents difficult.

Explain one strength (up to 3 marks):
- 1 mark for identifying a valid strength (e.g., flexibility, high validity, ability to probe/clarify, uncovers rich qualitative data / depth, allows development of rapport).
- 1 mark for explaining how/why semi-structured interviews produce this characteristic (e.g., uses an interview guide with open-ended questions allowing the researcher to follow up on interesting or unexpected responses).
- 1 mark for explaining why this constitutes a methodological strength (e.g., provides deeper insight/verstehen into actors' subjective meanings, ensures authentic responses rather than imposing researcher categories).

Explain one limitation (up to 3 marks):
- 1 mark for identifying a valid limitation (e.g., low reliability, interviewer bias/effects, time-consuming data collection and analysis, difficult to quantify/compare).
- 1 mark for explaining how/why semi-structured interviews produce this characteristic (e.g., the non-standardised questioning, varying probe questions, and dynamic conversational flow mean every interview is unique).
- 1 mark for explaining why this constitutes a methodological limitation (e.g., prevents exact replication by other researchers, restricts comparability, undermines positivist standards of objectivity/consistency).

(Total: 6 marks)

The view that social order is maintained primarily through ideological control rather than coercive force suggests that individuals conform to societal expectations because they have internalised norms, values, and beliefs that make existing social arrangements appear natural, legitimate, and desirable.

One developed point supporting this view comes from Marxist and neo-Marxist theory. Louis Althusser argued that capitalist societies maintain stability through Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs)—such as the education system, the media, religion, and the family—rather than relying continuously on Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs) like the police and army. ISAs transmit ruling-class ideology, teaching individuals to accept capitalist hierarchy and inequality as normal. Similarly, Antonio Gramsci introduced the concept of hegemony, explaining that the ruling class wins the active consent of the subordinate classes by establishing cultural and ideological dominance. Because individuals internalise these ideological messages, they develop a 'false class consciousness' and willingly conform, rendering physical coercion unnecessary in day-to-day social life.

A second developed point comes from functionalist sociology. Talcott Parsons and Émile Durkheim emphasised that social order relies upon the establishment of a value consensus, achieved through effective primary and secondary socialisation. Agencies of socialisation (such as the family and schools) transmit core cultural values, which individuals internalise as part of their own moral framework and personality structure. Because people come to share common values and collective conscience, conformity becomes self-directed; individuals follow rules because they believe it is morally right to do so and experience guilt or social disapproval when deviating. Thus, internalised ideological consensus maintains social equilibrium far more effectively and continuously than external physical force.

Assessment Objectives: AO1 Knowledge and Understanding (4 marks), AO2 Interpretation and Application (6 marks).

Level 3 (8–10 marks):
- Good to very good knowledge and understanding of the view expressed in the quotation.
- The response is well-focused on explaining why social order relies on ideological control.
- Provides two clearly developed sociological points with appropriate concepts, theories, and/or empirical material (e.g., Althusser's ISAs, Gramsci's hegemony, Parsons' value consensus, internalisation of norms, Bowles and Gintis' correspondence principle).

Level 2 (4–7 marks):
- Basic to reasonable knowledge and understanding of the view.
- The response offers one developed explanation or two partially developed/basic explanations.
- Sociological material is present but may lack depth or explicit conceptual application to the quote.

Level 1 (1–3 marks):
- Limited knowledge and understanding of the view.
- Points are descriptive, fragmented, or common-sense with little or no sociological terminology.

Level 0 (0 marks):
- No creditworthy response.

One argument against the view that social class is no longer an important factor in shaping identity is that class continues to structure individuals' lived experiences, cultural tastes, and subjective self-perceptions through what Pierre Bourdieu terms 'habitus'.

According to Bourdieu, an individual's social class origin socialises them into a distinct set of dispositions, speech patterns, and cultural practices (cultural capital). Rather than identity becoming completely individualised or fluid, as postmodernists might argue, working-class and middle-class individuals actively navigate and internalise their social class position.

Furthermore, empirical research supports the continued salience of class identity. For example, Mike Savage's analysis of the Great British Class Survey highlighted persistent cultural and social divisions that define how people construct their identities. Similarly, Beverley Skeggs showed that working-class women maintain an acute awareness of their class position, often constructing their identity around notions of respectability in response to middle-class judgements. Therefore, social class remains a structural and cultural foundation that directly shapes social identity and life chances.

Assessment Objectives: AO2 (Interpretation and Application) = 3 marks; AO3 (Analysis and Evaluation) = 3 marks.

Level 3 (5–6 marks):
• A good argument is developed against the view stated in the prompt.
• The argument is well-focused, fully developed, and demonstrates clear sociological understanding.
• Sociological concepts, theories, and/or empirical research (e.g. Bourdieu's habitus/cultural capital, Skeggs, Savage, Willis, material inequality) are applied effectively and accurately to challenge the prompt.

Level 2 (3–4 marks):
• A reasonable argument is offered against the view.
• The point is developed to some extent, but may lack conceptual depth, theoretical detail, or full application to the question.
• Some relevant sociological material is used.

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
• A basic or limited point is made against the view (e.g. a simple assertion that class still matters because rich and poor people are different).
• The answer contains little or no sociological substance/concepts, or is largely common sense.

Level 0 (0 marks):
• No creditworthy response.

Indicative content:
• Arguments may focus on the persistence of subjective class identification.
• Bourdieu's concept of habitus and cultural capital illustrating how class tastes shape identity.
• Empirical studies demonstrating working-class or middle-class culture (e.g. Skeggs on working-class respectability, Willis on counter-school subcultural identity, Savage on contemporary class identities).
• The impact of material inequality and economic constraints on identity formation and life chances.

One argument against the view that social class is no longer an important factor in shaping identity is that class continues to structure individuals' lived experiences, cultural tastes, and subjective self-perceptions through what Pierre Bourdieu terms 'habitus'.

According to Bourdieu, an individual's social class origin socialises them into a distinct set of dispositions, speech patterns, and cultural practices (cultural capital). Rather than identity becoming completely individualised or fluid, as postmodernists might argue, working-class and middle-class individuals actively navigate and internalise their social class position.

Furthermore, empirical research supports the continued salience of class identity. For example, Mike Savage's analysis of the Great British Class Survey highlighted persistent cultural and social divisions that define how people construct their identities. Similarly, Beverley Skeggs showed that working-class women maintain an acute awareness of their class position, often constructing their identity around notions of respectability in response to middle-class judgements. Therefore, social class remains a structural and cultural foundation that directly shapes social identity and life chances.

Assessment Objectives: AO2 (Interpretation and Application) = 3 marks; AO3 (Analysis and Evaluation) = 3 marks.

Level 3 (5–6 marks):
• A good argument is developed against the view stated in the prompt.
• The argument is well-focused, fully developed, and demonstrates clear sociological understanding.
• Sociological concepts, theories, and/or empirical research (e.g. Bourdieu's habitus/cultural capital, Skeggs, Savage, Willis, material inequality) are applied effectively and accurately to challenge the prompt.

Level 2 (3–4 marks):
• A reasonable argument is offered against the view.
• The point is developed to some extent, but may lack conceptual depth, theoretical detail, or full application to the question.
• Some relevant sociological material is used.

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
• A basic or limited point is made against the view (e.g. a simple assertion that class still matters because rich and poor people are different).
• The answer contains little or no sociological substance/concepts, or is largely common sense.

Level 0 (0 marks):
• No creditworthy response.

Indicative content:
• Arguments may focus on the persistence of subjective class identification.
• Bourdieu's concept of habitus and cultural capital illustrating how class tastes shape identity.
• Empirical studies demonstrating working-class or middle-class culture (e.g. Skeggs on working-class respectability, Willis on counter-school subcultural identity, Savage on contemporary class identities).
• The impact of material inequality and economic constraints on identity formation and life chances.

### Indicative Content

Arguments for the view that theoretical factors are the most important influence:
- Theoretical perspective/epistemology: Positivists favour quantitative methods (e.g. structured questionnaires, experiments, official statistics) because they prioritise objectivity, reliability, standardised measurement, and the discovery of cause-and-effect laws. Interpretivists favour qualitative methods (e.g. unstructured interviews, participant observation) to achieve verstehen, subjective meaning, and high ecological validity.
- Validity, reliability, and representativeness: A researcher's primary aim to either generalise findings across a large population (sampling, representativeness) or to gain deep, authentic insight into human lived experience dictates their methodological tools irrespective of personal preference.
- Theoretical conception of society: Structuralists focus on macro-level patterns and social facts constraining human agency, necessitating quantitative survey data, whereas interactionists focus on micro-level agency and dynamic negotiation of meaning, necessitating ethnographic approaches.

Arguments against the view / emphasizing other factors:
- Practical factors:
- Time and funding: Funding bodies (e.g. government departments, corporate sponsors, research councils) frequently mandate specific methods or demand fast, quantifiable results. Lone researchers with limited budgets may be forced to use opportunistic or cheaper methods.
- Access and characteristics of the research population: Vulnerable or closed groups (e.g. criminal networks, elites, young children) may only be accessible via covert methods, gatekeepers, or informal interviews, overriding ideal theoretical preferences.
- Nature of the topic: Some topics (e.g. historical trends) necessitate secondary analysis of documents/statistics, while complex personal trauma requires sensitive qualitative techniques.
- Ethical factors:
- Protection of vulnerable participants from psychological harm, maintaining confidentiality/anonymity, and the necessity of informed consent may prevent the use of theoretically desirable methods (e.g. covert participant observation or lab experiments).
- Professional codes of conduct (e.g. BSA, ASA guidelines) enforce boundaries that supersede theoretical ideals.
- Methodological pluralism and triangulation: Many contemporary sociologists reject strict theoretical dogmatism, using mixed methods to balance validity and reliability or to cross-check findings (triangulation).

Conclusion/Evaluation:
- Sociologists rarely make choices based entirely on theoretical purity; in practice, research design is a pragmatic compromise where practical constraints and ethical boundaries define what is possible, while theoretical considerations define how the investigation is conceptualised and analysed.

### Mark Scheme (26 Marks Total)

AO1: Knowledge and Understanding (8 marks)
- Level 4 (7–8 marks): Detailed and thorough knowledge and understanding of theoretical factors (positivism, interpretivism, validity, reliability) alongside practical (cost, time, access, funding) and ethical considerations (consent, harm, privacy).
- Level 3 (5–6 marks): Good knowledge and understanding of theoretical and other factors influencing methodological choices; some sociological concepts and examples used accurately.
- Level 2 (3–4 marks): Basic knowledge of factors influencing method choice with limited depth or conceptual development.
- Level 1 (1–2 marks): Limited or partial knowledge, largely common-sense descriptions.
- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

AO2: Interpretation and Application (8 marks)
- Level 4 (7–8 marks): Sociological material is applied accurately, directly, and consistently to the specific question of whether theoretical factors take primacy over practical and ethical constraints.
- Level 3 (5–6 marks): Sociological material is applied well to the debate, though some points may lack complete integration or clear focus on the comparative importance.
- Level 2 (3–4 marks): Application is basic or patchy, with relevant points identified but not clearly focused on assessing the relative importance of theoretical factors.
- Level 1 (1–2 marks): Minimal application with weak relevance to the question set.
- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

AO3: Analysis and Evaluation (10 marks)
- Level 4 (8–10 marks): Sustained, explicit, and well-balanced evaluation of the view. Clearly contrasts theoretical determinants with practical/ethical determinants, demonstrates understanding of methodological pluralism/triangulation, and reaches a reasoned, substantiated conclusion.
- Level 3 (5–7 marks): Evaluative points are made and balanced against alternative viewpoints (e.g. practical/ethical considerations), though evaluation may lack nuance or full development.
- Level 2 (3–4 marks): Basic analytical or evaluative commentary; tends to juxtapose list-like descriptions of practical and theoretical factors with minimal critical comparison.
- Level 1 (1–2 marks): Very basic, unsupported assertions or one-sided assertions.
- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

1. Regulating family formation and dissolution (1 mark): Legal changes such as divorce legislation (e.g. no-fault divorce laws) or marriage laws alter how easily couples can legally end or enter relationships, directly affecting rates of divorce, lone-parent families, and reconstituted families (1 mark).

2. Financial and welfare support (1 mark): State policies such as paid maternity/paternity leave, subsidised childcare, or child tax credits shape the domestic division of labour and financial dependence within households, enabling parents to balance employment and child-rearing (1 mark).

[1 mark] for each identification of a relevant way social policy influences family life (maximum 2 marks).
[1 mark] for each developed description explaining how the policy influences family life (maximum 2 marks).

Points may include:
- Legislation regarding divorce/marriage (e.g., Divorce Reform Acts, equal marriage laws).
- Welfare benefits and tax policies (e.g., child benefit, family allowances, working family tax credits).
- Employment and parental leave policies (e.g., statutory maternity and paternity leave, shared parental leave).
- Child protection and compulsory education policies (e.g., raising the school leaving age, child welfare legislation altering childhood dependence).
- Housing policies (e.g., social housing allocation rules prioritising single parents or nuclear families).

Reason 1: Increased rates of divorce and marital separation
* Identification: Higher rates of divorce and relationship breakdown have led to an increase in people establishing separate residences.
* Explanation: When cohabiting or married couples separate, the household splits, frequently resulting in at least one partner (often the partner without primary custody of children) moving into a single-person household.
* Sociological material: This trend is supported by legal changes such as the introduction of no-fault divorce laws, as well as broader cultural shifts including secularisation and the decline in social stigma associated with divorce (e.g., Fletcher, Goode).
* Development / Application: Consequently, the normalisation of divorce as an acceptable solution to an unfulfilling relationship creates a steady demographic flow of adults of working age living alone for extended periods or permanently.

Reason 2: Individualisation and female economic independence
* Identification: Growing economic independence among women and the rise of individual lifestyle choice have enabled more people to choose living alone.
* Explanation: Greater access to higher education and professional career opportunities allows individuals—particularly women—to achieve financial autonomy without needing to rely on a partner's income for housing and living costs.
* Sociological material: This aligns with Beck and Beck-Gernsheim's concept of the 'individualisation thesis' and Beck's 'risk society', where traditional norms dictating marriage have weakened in favour of personal self-fulfilment and lifestyle negotiation (also linked to Wilkinson's concept of the 'genderquake').
* Development / Application: As a result, individuals are postponing marriage or choosing solo living as a deliberate, viable lifestyle option rather than an interim state, significantly increasing the proportion of single-person households across contemporary societies.

Four marks are available for each reason (2 × 4 marks).

For each reason:
* 1 mark: 1 point identification (e.g., increase in divorce/separation; increased life expectancy/ageing population; female financial independence / career focus; individualisation / personal choice).
* 1 mark: Explanation of how this factor leads to an increase in single-person households.
* 1 mark: Use of relevant sociological material (concepts, theories, studies, or named sociologists, e.g., Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, individualisation, pure relationship, secularisation, genderquake, beanpole family).
* 1 mark: Explanation/development of how the sociological material applies specifically to the growth of single-person households.

Indicative content:
* Rising divorce/separation: Legal reforms (e.g., Divorce Reform Acts), reduced stigma, secularisation, leading to former partners living alone.
* Ageing population / Increased life expectancy: Gender differences in life expectancy leading to a growing number of widowed elderly individuals living alone.
* Changing female career trajectories and economic independence: Reduced financial dependence on male breadwinners; delaying marriage/cohabitation to establish careers.
* Individualisation / Postmodern choice: Freedom from traditional familial norms; consumer culture and the growth of single-person living as an aspirational lifestyle.
* Delay in marriage/partnership formation: Younger adults spending longer periods living alone after higher education prior to establishing cohabiting partnerships.

Limitation 1: Idealisation of the nuclear family / Neglect of diversity
- Identification: The New Right assumes that the traditional nuclear family is the only natural and functionally effective family type.
- Sociological explanation: New Right thinkers argue that conventional married couples with traditional segregated roles provide the only effective moral framework and gender socialisation for children, viewing deviations as signs of family breakdown.
- Evaluation (Why it is a limitation): This viewpoint is overly deterministic and ignores evidence from postmodernists (such as Stacey) that diverse family structures (e.g., lone-parent, cohabiting, or blended families) function successfully. Furthermore, it romanticises the nuclear family and overlooks internal dysfunctions such as domestic violence, mental distress, and gender inequality highlighted by feminists.

Limitation 2: Victim-blaming and misinterpreting welfare dependency
- Identification: The perspective scapegoats lone-parent families and relies on a 'blame the victim' ideology.
- Sociological explanation: Thinkers such as Charles Murray claim that welfare state policies create a 'perverse incentive', fostering a culture of dependency and an underclass characterised by absent fathers and anti-social behaviour.
- Evaluation (Why it is a limitation): Sociological research shows that most lone parents do not choose dependency but are constrained by structural barriers such as unaffordable childcare, labour market inequalities, and relationship breakdown. By treating welfare as the cause rather than a safety net, the New Right ignores the structural roots of poverty and inequality.

[3 marks per limitation: up to 2 limitations explained, maximum 6 marks]

For each limitation:
- 1 mark for identifying a valid limitation of the New Right perspective on the family (e.g. idealises the nuclear family / ignores the dark side of the family; scapegoats lone-parent families / ignores structural causes of poverty; outdated view of gender roles / patriarchal assumptions; deterministic view of socialisation).
- 1 mark for explaining the limitation in relation to New Right theory/concepts (e.g. Murray, welfare dependency, underclass, traditional conjugal roles, family breakdown).
- 1 mark for explaining why this constitutes a theoretical or empirical limitation (e.g. contrasting with feminist, postmodernist or structural evidence; demonstrating how it misrepresents reality or ignores structural constraints).

(2 × 3 marks = 6 marks)

A complete, high-level response should explain the view that modern family life is characterised by ongoing gender inequality, focusing on the unequal distribution of domestic tasks, childcare, and emotion work.

Point 1: The unequal division of domestic labour and the 'dual burden'
Feminist sociologists argue that despite an increase in women entering paid employment, domestic tasks remain heavily gendered. Ann Oakley demonstrated that while men may 'help' with certain household chores, the primary responsibility for routine, labour-intensive housework and childcare continues to fall upon women. This creates a 'dual burden' (or 'second shift', as termed by Arlie Hochschild), where women complete a full day of paid employment only to return home to perform unpaid domestic labour. Studies of time-use surveys continue to show that women spend significantly more hours per week on routine domestic tasks (such as cleaning, cooking, and laundry) compared to men, meaning that the domestic sphere remains a site of exploitation and unpaid female labour.

Point 2: The burden of emotion work and the 'triple shift'
Beyond physical housework, feminist theorists highlight the invisible emotional and psychological labour performed by women in the home. Duncombe and Marsden developed the concept of the 'triple shift', arguing that women are expected to manage three demanding roles simultaneously: paid employment, unpaid housework/childcare, and emotion work. Emotion work involves maintaining family relationships, soothing children's anxieties, managing domestic tension, and sustaining their partner's emotional well-being. Radical and Marxist feminists (such as Fran Ansley) suggest that women act as 'takers of shit' and emotional shock absorbers for the frustrations generated by the capitalist workplace. Because emotional maintenance is largely unrecognised, unremunerated, and disproportionately performed by women, patriarchal power dynamics and gender inequality are sustained within the household.

Level 3 (8–10 marks):
• Good knowledge and understanding of the view expressed in the quotation.
• The response explains two or more well-developed sociological points showing why family life is viewed as unequal in terms of domestic labour and emotional support.
• Sociological concepts, theories (e.g., liberal, radical, Marxist feminist perspectives) and empirical evidence/thinkers (e.g., Oakley, Hochschild, Duncombe and Marsden, Ansley, Boulton) are applied accurately and effectively.

Level 2 (4–7 marks):
• Reasonable knowledge and understanding of the view expressed in the quotation.
• The response provides one developed point or two basic/partially developed points explaining gender inequality in the family.
• Some relevant sociological concepts or evidence are included, but application may be limited or descriptive in parts.

Level 1 (1–3 marks):
• Limited or basic knowledge and understanding.
• The response may rely on common-sense assertions, make brief isolated points, or present general descriptive statements about housework/family life with little or no sociological framing.

Level 0 (0 marks):
• No creditworthy response.

Indicative Content:
- Oakley's critique of the symmetrical family and evidence of the 'dual burden'.
- Duncombe and Marsden's concept of the 'triple shift' (paid work, domestic labour, emotion work).
- Hochschild's concepts of the 'second shift' and emotional labour in private life.
- Marxist feminist views on women absorbing stress/frustration (Ansley) and reproducing the labour force.
- Radical feminist arguments regarding patriarchal oppression and power imbalances in decision-making and money management (e.g., Edgell, Pahl and Vogler).
- Childcare responsibilities and maternal gatekeeping / cultural expectations of intensive mothering.

A complete, high-level response should explain the view that modern family life is characterised by ongoing gender inequality, focusing on the unequal distribution of domestic tasks, childcare, and emotion work.

Point 1: The unequal division of domestic labour and the 'dual burden'
Feminist sociologists argue that despite an increase in women entering paid employment, domestic tasks remain heavily gendered. Ann Oakley demonstrated that while men may 'help' with certain household chores, the primary responsibility for routine, labour-intensive housework and childcare continues to fall upon women. This creates a 'dual burden' (or 'second shift', as termed by Arlie Hochschild), where women complete a full day of paid employment only to return home to perform unpaid domestic labour. Studies of time-use surveys continue to show that women spend significantly more hours per week on routine domestic tasks (such as cleaning, cooking, and laundry) compared to men, meaning that the domestic sphere remains a site of exploitation and unpaid female labour.

Point 2: The burden of emotion work and the 'triple shift'
Beyond physical housework, feminist theorists highlight the invisible emotional and psychological labour performed by women in the home. Duncombe and Marsden developed the concept of the 'triple shift', arguing that women are expected to manage three demanding roles simultaneously: paid employment, unpaid housework/childcare, and emotion work. Emotion work involves maintaining family relationships, soothing children's anxieties, managing domestic tension, and sustaining their partner's emotional well-being. Radical and Marxist feminists (such as Fran Ansley) suggest that women act as 'takers of shit' and emotional shock absorbers for the frustrations generated by the capitalist workplace. Because emotional maintenance is largely unrecognised, unremunerated, and disproportionately performed by women, patriarchal power dynamics and gender inequality are sustained within the household.

Level 3 (8–10 marks):
• Good knowledge and understanding of the view expressed in the quotation.
• The response explains two or more well-developed sociological points showing why family life is viewed as unequal in terms of domestic labour and emotional support.
• Sociological concepts, theories (e.g., liberal, radical, Marxist feminist perspectives) and empirical evidence/thinkers (e.g., Oakley, Hochschild, Duncombe and Marsden, Ansley, Boulton) are applied accurately and effectively.

Level 2 (4–7 marks):
• Reasonable knowledge and understanding of the view expressed in the quotation.
• The response provides one developed point or two basic/partially developed points explaining gender inequality in the family.
• Some relevant sociological concepts or evidence are included, but application may be limited or descriptive in parts.

Level 1 (1–3 marks):
• Limited or basic knowledge and understanding.
• The response may rely on common-sense assertions, make brief isolated points, or present general descriptive statements about housework/family life with little or no sociological framing.

Level 0 (0 marks):
• No creditworthy response.

Indicative Content:
- Oakley's critique of the symmetrical family and evidence of the 'dual burden'.
- Duncombe and Marsden's concept of the 'triple shift' (paid work, domestic labour, emotion work).
- Hochschild's concepts of the 'second shift' and emotional labour in private life.
- Marxist feminist views on women absorbing stress/frustration (Ansley) and reproducing the labour force.
- Radical feminist arguments regarding patriarchal oppression and power imbalances in decision-making and money management (e.g., Edgell, Pahl and Vogler).
- Childcare responsibilities and maternal gatekeeping / cultural expectations of intensive mothering.

One developed argument against the view is that domestic labour and emotional responsibility remain heavily gendered, creating a 'dual burden' or 'triple shift' for women rather than equal conjugal roles.

Feminist researchers, such as Ann Oakley, argue that claims of symmetry (such as those suggested by Young and Willmott) exaggerate the extent to which men participate in domestic chores; men's participation often consists of occasional, non-essential tasks rather than daily maintenance.

Furthermore, Duncombe and Marsden argue that women in dual-earner households perform a 'triple shift' consisting of paid employment, domestic housework, and emotion work (managing emotional harmony and psychological support within the family). In addition, research into financial decision-making (e.g., Pahl and Vogler) reveals that men frequently maintain control over major financial decisions (the allowance system or pooling with male control). Therefore, unequal power dynamics and unequal distributions of labour demonstrate that modern conjugal roles remain far from equal.

Level 3 (5–6 marks):
• A developed argument against the view is provided.
• The argument is supported using relevant sociological concepts, theories, and/or empirical research (e.g. triple shift, dual burden, emotion work, radical/Marxist feminist critique, Duncombe and Marsden, Oakley, Edgell, Pahl and Vogler, domestic abuse evidence).
• Clear, explicit application to the debate regarding equality of conjugal roles.

Level 2 (3–4 marks):
• An argument against the view is identified with some explanation/development.
• Includes some sociological terminology or evidence, but the explanation may lack full development, depth, or clear conceptual linkage.

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
• A point against the view is stated in a basic or commonsense manner without sustained sociological support.
• Very limited or no sociological material used.

Level 0 (0 marks):
• No response or no creditable response.

### Indicative Content

Introduction:
- Define key concepts: conjugal roles, power distribution, decision-making processes, domestic division of labour, patriarchal power.
- Outline the central debate between 'march of progress' views (which argue relationships are becoming increasingly egalitarian) and feminist theories (which contend that power remains structured around patriarchal inequality).

Arguments and evidence supporting the view (Progress towards equality):
- March of Progress thesis: Young and Willmott's concept of the symmetrical family, characterised by joint conjugal roles, shared domestic tasks, and joint leisure/decision-making.
- Economic independence and lagged adaptation: Gershuny highlights that increased female participation in full-time employment has led to gradual renegotiation of household power and financial autonomy.
- Modern financial management: Pahl and Vogler identified a shift away from patriarchal allowance systems towards the 'pooling' of financial resources, where both partners have access to household income.
- Individualisation and the pure relationship: Giddens and Beck argue that traditional gender roles have broken down in late modernity; relationships are now negotiated democratically and based on equality and mutual consent.

Arguments and evidence against the view (Persistent inequalities in power):
- Decision-making hierarchies: Stephen Edgell's study found that very important decisions (e.g. moving house, major financial investments) were predominantly made by men or with men having the final say; women were largely restricted to minor decisions (food, interior decoration, children's clothes).
- Career prioritisation: Hardill found that middle-class dual-earner couples consistently prioritised the husband's career over the wife's when relocating or making major life changes.
- Flaws in pooling systems: Pahl and Vogler observed that even where pooling occurs, men frequently exercise greater control over large sums and retain final authority over expenditure.
- The Triple Shift and Emotion Work: Duncombe and Marsden argue that women bear the brunt of emotion work alongside paid employment and domestic chores ('triple shift'), reflecting unequal burdens and emotional control.
- Radical feminist perspectives and domestic abuse: Dobash and Dobash demonstrate that domestic violence and coercive control are extreme manifestations of unequal patriarchal power and authority within the home.
- Intersectional factors: Differences by social class, ethnicity, and age show that experiences of power are not uniform and that lower-income households often face distinct power strains.

Conclusion:
- Synthesise both perspectives: while overt sharing and democratic negotiation have grown culturally, structural and subtle forms of male power and decision-making dominance persist in many contemporary households.

Mark Scheme Allocation:
- AO1: Knowledge and Understanding (8 marks)
- AO2: Interpretation and Application (8 marks)
- AO3: Analysis and Evaluation (10 marks)

---

### AO1 Knowledge and Understanding (8 marks)
- Level 4 (7–8 marks): Accurate, comprehensive, and detailed sociological knowledge and understanding of theories, concepts, and evidence relating to power and decision-making in the family (e.g. Edgell, Pahl and Vogler, Young and Willmott, Duncombe and Marsden, Giddens).
- Level 3 (5–6 marks): Good knowledge and understanding of relevant sociological ideas and concepts, though with minor omissions in depth.
- Level 2 (3–4 marks): Basic knowledge and understanding; mainly descriptive accounts of family roles or domestic chores without clear theoretical grounding.
- Level 1 (1–2 marks): Limited or superficial knowledge; common-sense assertions with minimal sociological content.
- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

### AO2 Interpretation and Application (8 marks)
- Level 4 (7–8 marks): Consistently and accurately applies sociological material directly to the question stem, drawing clear links between decision-making models, domestic labour, and broader patterns of gender equality.
- Level 3 (5–6 marks): Good application of material to address the specific issue of power and decision-making, though some points may lack full development.
- Level 2 (3–4 marks): Partial application; material is broadly about the family or conjugal roles but not consistently applied to power/decision-making.
- Level 1 (1–2 marks): Limited application; sociological ideas mentioned without clear connection to the specific focus of the question.
- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

### AO3 Analysis and Evaluation (10 marks)
- Level 4 (9–10 marks): Sustained, explicit, and balanced evaluation of the view. Analyses both sides of the debate (march of progress vs feminist/structural perspectives), explores nuances (e.g. financial management vs decision importance), and reaches a well-reasoned, supported conclusion.
- Level 3 (6–8 marks): Good analysis and evaluation with clear counter-arguments presented; may juxtapose perspectives or have a slightly less developed conclusion.
- Level 2 (3–5 marks): Basic evaluation, typically through juxtaposition of different views (e.g. describing functionalism then feminism) without deeper critical analysis.
- Level 1 (1–2 marks): Limited or isolated evaluative comments; lack of balance or critical structure.
- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.