Social Theory and Policy: Analyzing Concepts and Applications

Part 1: Selecting and Analyzing a Social Theory Concept

Choose one of the following concepts in social theory:

i.Solidarity

ii.Class

iii.Bureaucracy

iv.Cultural Capital

v.Civic Participation

vi.Or another concept of your choice (to be discussed with and signed off by module tutors)

i. Summarise the concept placing it in its historical and political context.  

ii. Drawing from texts in the module’s reading list, as well as from contemporary responses to these texts, discuss some important theoretical approaches to the chosen concept, their key limitations and critiques.

Apply your chosen concept from Part 1 onto a text representing a specific policy debate (e.g. a policy text, research piece or other text such as media/news piece) policy, piece of research, or other source (e.g. media/news report) from a provided list. The chosen text but be addressing an important social problem (such as Poverty, Gender inequality, Health inequality, Refugee rights, Children’s rights). Alternatively, you may select another policy/text outside of the provided list, however you will have to discuss this and have it signed off by the module tutors.

i. Describe the policy, piece of research, or other text.

ii. Discuss how the policy, piece of research, or other text, addresses an identified social problem. (i + ii: max 750 words)

iii. Critically analyse the policy, piece of research, or other text, drawing on your chosen theory concept

Your analysis should address the following questions:

- How does the concept help us understand the challenges in implementing the policy?

- How does it help interpret/understand the limitations of the data presented?

- How does it support or contest the source’s main arguments?

In your analysis, you may also refer to other concepts (discussed in class) to support your own argument, but you must show how these relate to your main chosen concept.

Questions you could consider while developing your argument (this is not a mandatory or exhaustive list – the questions below aim to offer some ground for scaffolding your argument in your own ways):

What is (are) the key problem(s) discussed in the commentary?

What other solutions to the problem are mentioned in the text? Discuss/compare those with the text’s proposed approach.

Why do the authors criticize the effectiveness of UN’s commitment to human rights in addressing global inequality? Do you agree?

What are the benefits and challenges of global migration discussed by the authors? What are the benefits and challenges that the authors overlook?

Part 2: Applying the Concept to a Policy Debate and Analyzing Critically

Are the agendas of ‘commitment to citizen rights’ and ‘reducing inequality’ irreconcilable?

What are the problems with a migration policy that does not offer equal political/economic rights to migrants? (e.g. discrimination, exploitation etc)

Thinking of today’s global refugee crisis, what is the importance of safeguarding economic and political (citizen) rights for refugees? What types of equality can be pursued within countries hosting refugees?

What policy provisions should be made for refugee children in specific?

Questions you could consider while developing your argument (this is not a mandatory or exhaustive list – the questions below aim to offer some ground for scaffolding your argument in your own ways):

What are the benefits of patient and public participation (PPP) described in the policy? What other benefits are not mentioned?

What types of ‘participation’ does the policy describe? What types of participation it does not discuss? How does it compare/relate to those other forms of participation?

What might be the challenges in ensuring that patients and the public will be involved fairly and meaningfully? What are the risks for involved patients?

How can more radical forms of citizen participation (e.g. health activism) facilitate the objectives addressed by the policy?

Critically discuss the policy’s use of Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Engagement and Participation’: does it represent Arnstein’s critique of top-down government participation spaces? How can the policy be informed/improved by Arnstein’s original critique?

Are structural problems, e.g. social/economic inequality being addressed by the policy? How might such problems influence participation?

What are the challenges of including the voice of marginalized groups such as homeless people, those receiving healthcare in prison, into the design and delivery of services? How could they be addressed?

How is the policy of patient public participation informed by wider debates around individual choice & responsibility in social policy (also see context reading)?

What are the benefits and challenges of supporting children’s participation in healthcare?

Questions you could consider while developing your argument (this is not a mandatory or exhaustive list – the questions below aim to offer some ground for scaffolding your argument in your own ways):

What does the article suggest are the social problems created by the one-child policy?

How is the policy reform expected to address these problems?

What is the ‘ideology’ that underpinned firstly the one-child policy and secondly the policy reform?

What are the main challenges described in the paper for implementing the policy shift? How might social theory help explain these challenges?

What types of inequality (e.g. class, gender) would need to be addressed by a more ‘family-friendly’ policy? Why?

What types of structural reforms might contribute to efficiency gains in policy implementation (also see context reading)?

What are the risks for citizens, families and children, associated with such structural reforms?

broad social change supportive of children and par- enting”

broad social change supportive of children and par- enting”

“broad social change supportive of children and par- enting”

“broad social change supportive of children and par- enting”

What kind of broader social change may be supportive of children and parenting?