Sociology 322: Social Theory

Fall 2010. 9:30 - 11:00. Tuesdays and Thursdays

Newcomb Hall, Room 17

Kevin Fox Gotham, Ph.D.

Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, School of Liberal Arts (SLA)

Professor of Sociology

Tulane University

102 and 220 Newcomb Hall

New Orleans, LA 70118

Tel: 504-862-3004

Email: kgotham@tulane.edu

Office Hours: By appointment

Course Description

Sociology 322 is designed as an introductory survey of social theory. We will examine a variety of classical and contemporary theories to understand and explain the transition from traditional to modern society, the nature of urbanization and industrialization, capitalism and social organization, and democracy and individuality, among other important sociological topics. The first ten weeks of the course will focus on the pioneering work of Karl Marx (1818-1883), Max Weber (1864-1920), and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), and contemporary applications of their theories. We will examine the theories of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim not just as intellectual history, but as sources of unique and powerful systems of thought that continue to have a major impact on our understanding of the contemporary world. We will read original writings by these theorists in an effort to grasp concretely how they understood and explained the dramatic societal changes affecting Europe and the United States during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In other weeks of the course, we will examine feminist theories, globalization theories, theories of risk society, theories of social-ecological systems, and theories of postmodernity.

Course Objectives

The objectives of this course are to present an overview of social theory in the historical context of its development, illustrate the links between theory and research, and foster a critical understanding of society. This means developing the ability to view the social world in a critical and systematic way, using empirical evidence and logical assumptions in order to answer questions of sociological interest. Social theory is the backbone of the sociology discipline and all major substantive questions of sociological interest are directly related to theory. We will examine different meanings and definitions of theory, how theories are evaluated, and how we can build on past and existing theories to build new ones to investigate society. We will also seek to understand how theories are shaped by the historical context in which they are produced.

One advantage of studying social theory is that it can help you cultivate and develop a “sociological imagination.” C. Wright Mills referred to the sociological imagination as the quality of mind necessary to grasp the relationship between individual biography, social structure, and human history. It is the mission of sociology, according to Mills, to help individuals achieve “lucid summations” of what is going on in the world and what is happening in their own lives. Developing a sociological imagination requires a background in social theory.

Program Outcomes

This course contributes to the sociology major by addressing the role of theory in sociology, such that the student will be able to:

• define theory and describe its role in building sociological knowledge;
• compare and contrast basic theoretical orientations;
• show how theories reflect the historical context of times and cultures in which they are developed;
• describe and apply one or more theoretical orientations in at least one area of social reality.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this course, student will be able to

• To describe the role of theory in the generation of new knowledge to understand the processes of social change and social order.
• To understand how social structures and processes shape and influence individual lives, circumstances, attitudes, and behaviors.
• To organize and synthesize data and information through conceptual refinement and theoretical extension 
• To develop systematic and generic understandings and propositions about social processes

These basic learning objectives will be assessed through group discussions, class participation, and three papers.

Required Readings

Antonio, Robert J. 2003. Marx and Modernity: Key Readings and Commentary. Blackwell Publishing.

Bellah, Robert (editor). 1973. Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society. University of Chicago Press.

Kalberg, Stephen. 2005. Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity. Blackwell Publishing.

Kivisto, Peter. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Most recent edition. Pine Forge.

Sociology Writing Group. A Guide to Writing Sociology Papers. Saint Martins Press.

.pdf copies of articles uploaded in Blackboard.

Course Expectations and Requirements

This course will generally follow a lecture and discussion format. The purpose of lectures is to provide necessary background material (e.g., historical, biographical, and conceptual), exegesis of the original texts, as well as commentary and critique. Readings are to be completed prior to each class meeting for which they are assigned. Everyone is encouraged to participate through open discussion and questions, including sharing thoughts and ideas, observations, and assessments during class time. Thoughtful and active participation means attending class regularly and being prepared to discuss the assigned subject matter. In line with that, I ask you to be mindful that education is not a process whereby a professor dumps a bunch of information into the heads of passive receivers (students). Learning is a collaborative process whereby information and knowledge is to be shared between the professor and students. Please do not be worried about asking “dumb questions.” If you are confused, chances are there are other people who are also befuddled and will welcome your efforts at clarification.

I require students to attend all classes and will take roll at the beginning of each class period. Be aware that just because I do not take attendance does not mean that I have overlooked absent students. Four or more unexcused absences will result in the lowering of your final grade by one letter grade. An unexcused absence is missing class without the professor’s permission or without presenting a valid excuse within twenty-four hours. Preparedness, attendance, and participation are expected and will have a bearing on final grades. Be on time to class and be sure to turn off your cell phones. Anybody who has ever spoken in front of a group knows that it can be very confusing for a speaker when people wander in and out or when phones ring. I always try to treat students with courtesy and respect. It makes life easier for all of us when you reciprocate.

Your grade for this course will be determined by your performance on three papers (about 8-12 pages each), attendance, and classroom participation. In each of the three papers, you may be asked to compare and contrast the way in which two different theories explain a given phenomenon. You may also be asked to connect the work of one or more classical theorist to some current event(s). Another typical assignment could be to consider the strengths and weaknesses of a contemporary theory in relation to a major concern of the classical theorists. All papers are to be typed, double-spaced, with one-inch margins, and page numbers in the top right hand corner. You will have at least one week to write each paper. Papers will be graded on a scale of A, A-, B+, B, B-,C+, C, C-, D+, D, and D-. One letter grade will be deducted for each day the paper is late. You are to hand in two copies of each paper. One copy is to be turned in with a “Social Theory Paper Evaluation” (see last page of syllabus) stapled to the back of the paper.

Finally, ten percent of your grade will be based on my evaluation of your participation in class and Thursday group discussions where each group will do a textual analysis of a major chapter or series of chapters, and turn in an outline at the end of class. A textual analysis explains what the author’s main points are, how they are connected, and offers a critique of the author’s argument. The class will be divided into six groups composed of about 5-6 people. The membership of these groups will be in alphabetical order and will remain the same throughout the semester. On the specified Thursdays, we will break into groups and each group will analyze the assigned readings. Everyone is required to read the assigned chapter(s) before we meet on Thursdays and break into groups (I recommend that each student put together a brief outline on the chapter(s) before meeting on Thursdays). Each group will discuss the reading, asking questions about the text(s), and identify the main points. At the end of the Thursday discussion each group will turn in a written outline that provides a brief summary, critical analysis, and evaluation of the chapter(s) using the following format:

1. Summary. Provide a brief summary outline of what the author is saying. Identify the central questions, main points, and core arguments. Rather than analyzing all the ideas that the author presents, you should focus in depth on one or two significant aspects of the text.

2. Analysis. Analysis involves going beyond what the author says. It means examining relationships between evidence and conclusions, between concepts in the text, and relationships between concepts in the work being analyzed and other texts. Moreover, analysis means identifying and clearly explaining the devices the author uses to convince the reader that he or she is correct. These devices can include logical reasoning (i.e., if/then statements), anecdotes (stories used to illustrate a point), appeal to authority, controlled study, and rhetorical virtuosity (skill at using language: big scientific words, humor, satire, irony, or nostalgia). What is important is that you understand what the author is doing, to be able to analyze the devices the author is using.

3. Evaluation. How well does the author answer his or her question and verify that answer? This is the realm of criticism and it assumes that you cannot really judge a text until you comprehend what the author is doing and how he or she does it. Evaluation involves answering the following questions:

A. What is the argument of the text? What concepts does the author use to support the arguments?

B. What are the implicit assumptions of the author’s argument? Identifying and evaluating an author’s assumptions are two intellectual skills most often demanded in social theory courses. All authors make assumptions about the way the world works.

C. What are the conclusions and implications of the author’s work? How do they connect with other readings?

D. Is the craftsmanship of the writing sound? Do the parts fit into a whole? Is the prose understandable? Do the ideas flow smoothly from one to another?

E. What other lines of reasoning or thinking occur to you as a result of reading this selection? What is it about the chapters that interest you? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the chapters or articles? How does this chapter help you understand current events and social problems?

Mastering the skill of textual analysis will help you write better papers and, more important, help you evaluate more clearly all books and articles you encounter in your academic career and beyond. Each unexcused absence for the Thursday discussions will result in the lowering of your participation grade by one letter grade. On the last day of class you will fill out a confidential evaluation of each member in your group. This evaluation will ask you to evaluate the intellectual contribution, courteousness, and respectfulness of each member of your group.

Some tips for group discussion

Ultimately, the success of a group discussion depends on the participants. Here are a few suggestions to make your discussions more enjoyable, productive and meaningful:

• Speak up! Group discussion is like a conversation; everyone takes part in it. Don't expect to be called on to speak; enter into the discussion with your comments of agreement or disagreement.
• Share your viewpoint and experience! When you find yourself disagreeing with other people's interpretations or opinions, say so and tell why, in a friendly way.
• Listen thoughtfully to others! Try to understand the other person's point of view. Remember, there are several points of view possible on every question. Be respectful, but also be critical: Don't accept ideas that don't have a sound basis.
• Be brief! Share the discussion with others. Be ready to let someone else speak. A good discussion includes everyone in the group.
• This is a discussion, not a debate!
• Come with your own questions in mind! As you read the chapters and articles, make note of the points on which you'd like to hear the comments of group members. If the questions asked don’t address your concerns, raise your own!

All participants in the course have a responsibility to do the readings for the week, to listen to what is being said by other participants (rather than being overly preoccupied with what you are going to say), and not to interrupt people in the middle of sentences. We hope to create a setting in which everyone feels comfortable talking, even if they do not have something “brilliant” or “profound” to say. Sometimes the most simple questions can lead to the most fruitful discussions.

All students are required to abide by the Tulane University Honor Code. According to the Newcomb-Tulane College website http://college.tulane.edu/code.htm this code "shall apply to academic conduct of each student from the time of application for admission through the actual awarding of a degree, even though academic conduct may occur before classes begin or after classes end, as well as during the academic year and during periods between terms of actual enrollment, and even if the academic conduct is not discovered until after a degree is awarded. The Code shall apply to a student’s academic conduct even if the student withdraws from school while a disciplinary matter is pending." "Any student behavior that has the effect of interfering with education, pursuit of knowledge, or fair evaluation of a student's performance is considered a violation. Any student found to have committed or to have attempted to commit the following misconduct is subject to the disciplinary sanctions outlined in this Code." The following are defined as violations:  

· Cheating -- Giving, receiving, or using, or attempting to give, receive, or use unauthorized assistance, information, or study aids in academic work, or preventing or attempting to prevent another from using authorized assistance, information, or study aids.

Consulting with any persons other than the course professor and teaching assistants regarding a take-home examination between the time the exam is distributed and the time it is submitted by the student for grading. Students should assume the exam is closed book; they may not consult books, notes, or any other reference material unless explicitly permitted to do so by the instructor of the course. 

• Plagiarism -- Unacknowledged or falsely acknowledged presentation of another person's ideas, expressions, or original research as one's own work. Such an act often gives the reader the impression that the student has written or thought something that he or she has in fact borrowed from another. Any paraphrasing or quotation must be appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism also includes the unacknowledged use of materials prepared by another person or agency engaged in the selling of term papers or other academic materials. Please consult Acknowledging Sources In Academic Work a copy of which may be obtained in the Newcomb-Tulane College Dean’s Office or the Center for Academic Advising for more information on documenting sources.  

• Fabrication -- Submission of contrived or altered information in any academic exercise. 
• False Information – Furnishing false information to any University official, instructor, or Tulane University office relating to any academic assignment or issue.
• Unauthorized collaboration -- Collaboration not explicitly allowed by the instructor to obtain credit for examinations or course assignments.
• Multiple submission -- Presentation of a paper or other work for credit in two distinct courses without prior approval by both instructors.
• Sabotage -- Destroying or damaging another student's work, or otherwise preventing such work from receiving fair graded assessment.
• Unfair advantage -- Any behavior disallowed by an instructor that gives an advantage over other fellow students in an academic exercise.
• Facilitation of academic dishonesty -- Knowingly helping or attempting to help another student violate any provision of the code.
• Tampering with academic records -- Misrepresenting, tampering with, or attempting to tamper with any portion of a student's academic record.
• Improper disclosure -- Failure of an honor board member or participant in an honor board hearing to maintain strict confidentiality concerning the identity of students accused of honor code violations.

The above material is quoted from: Tulane University. Code of Academic Conduct. Newcomb- Tulane College. http://college.tulane.edu/code.htm ; accessed August 15, 2010.

All grades, paper assignments, study questions and other important information about the class will be posted on the Blackboard Learning System.

Course Grades:

Paper #1 30 percent of final grade.

Paper #2 30 percent of final grade.

Paper #3 30 percent of final grade.

Class Participation and Thursday Discussion Outline 10 percent of final grade.

I do not give extra credit, extra assignments, nor other opportunities for improving grades. Moreover, I do not negotiate about grades, except when you believe there is an explicit error in the grading procedures. No grades will be determined by a curve.

TENTATIVE COURSE SCHEDULE

Week 1. August 24 and 26. Introduction to Social Theory

• George Ritzer. Chapter 1. A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years. Sociological Theory. Edited by George Ritzer. A .pdf copy is posted on Blackboard

• Peter Kivisto. Introduction. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited.

Weeks 2-4. Karl Marx and the Rise of Industrial Capitalism

Week 2. August 31 and September 2. Introduction to Karl Max

• “Introduction: Marx and Modernity.” Pp. 1-50 in Marx and Modernity: Key Readings and Commentary. Edited by Robert J. Antonio. 2003. Blackwell Publishing.

· Part 1. Marx’s Vision of History: Historical Materialism. (Pp. 51-73).

· Part 2. The Juggernaut of Capitalist Modernity (pp. 75-100).

Week 3. Capital, Commodities, and Globalization

September 7.

• Part 3. Marx’s Labor Theory of Value (pp. 101-30)

• Part 4. From Manufacture to Modern Industry (pp. 131-52).

September 9. Group Discussion

· Part 5. “Downside of Capitalist Growth.” Pp. 153-174.

· Part 6. “Globalization and Colonialism.” pp. 175-194.

Week 4.

September 14. Theory of Class Struggle and the Progressive Nature of Capitalist Modernity

· Part 7. “New Society Rising in the Old.” pp. 195-212.

· Part 8. “Revolutionary Proletariat and the Vicissitudes of History” pp. 213-248.

September 16. Contemporary Neo-Marxian Theories. Group Discussion.

• John P. Walsh, Anne Zacharias-Walsh. Working Longer, Living Less: Understanding Marx Through the Workplace Today. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Edited by Peter Kivisto.
• Marx and Modernity: Key Readings and Commentary. Edited by Robert J. Antonio. 2003. Blackwell Publishing. Read chapters 42-45, 52. Also read introduction by Antonio on pp. 273-276.

Weeks 5-7. Emile Durkheim and Nature of Social Solidarity

Week 5.

September 21. Introduction to Emile Durkheim.

• Robert Bellah. “Introduction.” Emile Durkheim: On Morality and Society.

September 23. What is Sociology? Robert Bellah. Emile Durkheim: On Morality and Society.

• Chapter 1 (pp. 3-22). “Sociology in France in the Nineteenth Century.”
• Chapter 3 (pp. 34-42). ”Principles of 1789 and Sociology.”
• Chapter 4 (pp. 43-57). “Individualism and the Intellectuals.”

Week 6. Social Solidarity, the Division of Labor, and Anomie.

September 28 - 30. Robert Bellah. Emile Durkheim: On Morality and Society.

• Chapter 6 (pp. 63-85). “Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity.”
• Chapter 7 (pp. 86-113). “Organic Solidarity and Contractual Solidarity.”
• Chapter 8 (pp. 114-33). “Division of Labor in Society.”
• Chapter 9 (134-146). “Division of Labor in Society: Conclusion.”
• Group Discussion on September 30.

Week 7.

October 5. Sociology of Religion. Robert Bellah. Emile Durkheim: On Morality and Society.

• Chapter 10 (pp. 149-166) “The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions.”
• Chapter 11 (pp. 167-186). “Origin of the Idea of the Totemic Principle or Mana.”
• Chapter 12 (pp. 187-224). “Elementary Forms of Religious Life.”

October 7. Contemporary Durkheimian Theories and Analyses. Group Discussion

• Robin Wagner-Pacifici; Barry Schwartz. 1991. "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a Difficult Past." American Journal of Sociology. 97(2): 376-420. (posted on Blackboard).
• Anne Hornsby. Surfing the Net for Community: A Durkheimian Analysis of Electronic Gatherings. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Edited by Peter Kivisto.
• Hand out first theory paper topic (Thursday, October 7). Papers due October 21 (Thursday)

Fall break from Oct. 14 – 17 (Thursday through Sunday)

Weeks 8-10. Max Weber and the Rationalization Process

Week 8. October 12. Introduction to Max Weber

• "Introduction - Max Weber: The Confrontation with Modernity." Pp. 1-48 in Kalberg, Stephen (editor). Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity.

Week 9. Modern Capitalism, Stratification, and Inequality

October 19 – 21. Stephen Kalberg (editor). Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity.

• Part 1: The Uniqueness of the West. Read pp. 49-120 (chapters 1-3).
• "Market and Planned Economies: Modern Capitalism's Substantive Conditions." Pp. 121-129 (chapter 4).
• "The Distribution within the Group: Class, Status, and Party." Pp. 147-162 (chapter 8).

Week 10.

October 26. Power, Authority, and Bureaucracy. Stephen Kalberg (editor). Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity.

• Part V. "Authority in the Modern Epoch." Read Pp. 173- 221.

October 28. Contemporary Weberian Theories and Analyses. Group Discussion.

• Charles Kurzman, et al. 2007. “Celebrity Status.” Sociological Theory. 25(4). December 2007 (posted on Blackboard).

• George Ritzer. The Weberian Theory of Rationalization and the McDonaldization of Contemporary Society. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Edited by Peter Kivisto.

Week 11. Organizational Deviance, Disaster, and Risk Society

November 2.

• Diane Vaughan. 1999. "The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25 (1999), pp. 271-305 (posted on Blackboard)
• Prechel, Harland and Theresa Morris. 2010. " The Effects of Organizational and Political Embeddedness on Financial Malfeasance in the Largest U.S. Corporations: Dependence, Incentives, and Opportunities. American Sociological Review. 75(3): 331-354. June 2010 (posted on Blackboard).

November 4. Group Discussion.

• Javier Auyero and Debora Swistun. 2008. "The Social Production of Toxic Uncertainty." American Sociological Review 2008 73: 357-379 (posted on Blackboard).
• Sherry Cable, Thomas E. Shriver and Tamara L. Mix. 2008. "Risk Society and Contested Illness: The Case of Nuclear Weapons Workers." American Sociological Review.73: 380-401 (posted on Blackboard)

Hand out second paper topic on Nov. 4 (Thurs). Paper due November 18 (Thurs)

Week 12. Theories of Social-Ecological Systems: Resilience, Vulnerability, and Sustainability

November 9

• Henrik Ernstson, Sander E. van der Leeuw, Charles L. Redman, Douglas J. Meffert, George Davis, Christine Alfsen, Thomas Elmqvist. 2010. "Urban Transitions: On Urban Resilience and Human-Dominated Ecosystems." Ambio: Journal of the Human Environment. 39(4): June 2010 (posted on Blackboard).
• Carl Folke. 2006. "Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses." Global Environmental Change. 16: 253–267 (posted on Blackboard).

November 11. Group Discussion

• Susan L. Cutter, Bryan J. Boruff, W. Lynn Shirley. 2003. "Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards." Social Science Quarterly. 84(2): June 2003. (posted on Blackboard).
• Deborah Wallace and Rodrick Wallace. 2008. "Urban Systems During Disasters: Factors for Resilience." Ecology and Society. 13(1): 18. (posted on Blackboard).

Week 13. Socio-Spatial Restructuring and Globalization Theories

November 16 – 18.

• William Robinson. 2007. "Theories of Globalization." Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford University Press. (posted on Blackboard).
• William H. Swatos, Jr.. Globalization Theory and Religious Fundamentalism. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Edited by Peter Kivisto.

November 18. Group Discussion.

• Oran R. Young, Frans Berkhout, Gilberto C. Gallopin, Marco A. Janssen, Elinor Ostrom, Sander van der Leeuw. 2006. "The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for scientific research." Global Environmental Change. 16: 304–316. Posted on Blackboard.
• Kevin Fox Gotham. “The Secondary Circuit of Capital Reconsidered: Globalization and the U.S. Real Estate Sector.” American Journal of Sociology. 112(1): 231-75. July 2006. Posted on Blackboard.

Week 14. Gender and Feminist Theories

November 23.

• Patricia Madoo Lengerman and Gilian Niebrugge. Chapter 13: Contemporary Feminist Theory. Sociological Theory. Edited by George Ritzer. (posted on Blackboard). Note: read only pp. 450-480. You are welcome to read the rest of the chapter but it is not required.
• Judith Lorber and Patricia Yancey Martin. The Socially Constructed Body: Insights from Feminist Theory. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Edited by Peter Kivisto.

Week 15. Theories of Postmodernity

November 30 - December 2.

• George Ritzer. Chapter 15: Contemporary Theories of Modernity. Sociological Theory. Edited by George Ritzer. (Posted on Blackboard)
• George Ritzer. Chapter 17: Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and the Emergence of Postmodern Social Theory. Sociological Theory. Edited by George Ritzer. (Posted on Blackboard)
• Kevin Fox Gotham. Contrasts of Carnival: Mardi Gras Between the Modern and the Postmodern. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Edited by Peter Kivisto.
• November 30. Course Evaluations and Thursday Group Discussion Evaluation
• December 2. Hand out third paper topic. Papers due no later than Thursday, December 16.

Social Theory Paper Evaluation.

Fall 2010. Gotham.

Name:

Paper #_____. Question #_____.

Paper grade: _____.

Analysis and Criticism:

POOR EXCELLENT

1 2 3 4 5 Thoughtfulness and organization of essay (e.g., is the essay well conceived and thought out or does it have a rushed and superficial quality to it).

1 2 3 4 5 Follows the directions of the assignment (e.g., answers questions sufficiently).

1 2 3 4 5 Coherence of explanation. Clear statements. Succinct.

1 2 3 4 5 Key terms and concepts are defined and explained.

1 2 3 4 5 Assertions and arguments supported with specific cites to the original works.

1 2 3 4 5 Assertions and arguments supported with specific quotes from the original works.

1 2 3 4 5 Depth of coverage of existing literature and original works.

Technical presentation:

X denotes that attention should be paid to this problem.

XX denotes that extra attention is warranted.

_____ Late paper (one letter grade is deducted for each day the paper is late).

_____ Paper format: pages numbered in top right hand corner, one inch margins, double-spaced.

_____ Appropriate citation format not followed.

_____ Text is too long or too short.

_____ Redundancy (wordy; can be trimmed without loss of meaning).

_____ Some statements are unsupported (e.g., undeveloped and/or vague statements).

_____ Insufficient coverage of existing literature.

_____ Insufficient depth of coverage.

_____ Typographic errors, misspelled words, punctuation errors.

_____ Incomplete sentences, awkward sentence structure.

_____ Some paragraphs are too long or too short.

Social Theory Paper Evaluation.

Fall 2010. Gotham.

Name:

Paper #_____. Question #_____.

Paper grade: _____.

Analysis and Criticism:

POOR EXCELLENT

1 2 3 4 5 Thoughtfulness and organization of essay (e.g., is the essay well conceived and thought out or does it have a rushed and superficial quality to it).

1 2 3 4 5 Follows the directions of the assignment (e.g., answers questions sufficiently).

1 2 3 4 5 Coherence of explanation. Clear statements. Succinct.

1 2 3 4 5 Key terms and concepts are defined and explained.

1 2 3 4 5 Assertions and arguments supported with specific cites to the original works.

1 2 3 4 5 Assertions and arguments supported with specific quotes from the original works.

1 2 3 4 5 Depth of coverage of existing literature and original works.

Technical presentation:

X denotes that attention should be paid to this problem.

XX denotes that extra attention is warranted.

_____ Late paper (one letter grade is deducted for each day the paper is late).

_____ Paper format: pages numbered in top right hand corner, one inch margins, double-spaced.

_____ Appropriate citation format not followed.

_____ Text is too long or too short.

_____ Redundancy (wordy; can be trimmed without loss of meaning).

_____ Some statements are unsupported (e.g., undeveloped and/or vague statements).

_____ Insufficient coverage of existing literature.

_____ Insufficient depth of coverage.

_____ Typographic errors, misspelled words, punctuation errors.

_____ Incomplete sentences, awkward sentence structure.

_____ Some paragraphs are too long or too short.

Social Theory Paper Evaluation.

Fall 2010. Gotham.

Name:

Paper #_____. Question #_____.

Paper grade: _____.

Analysis and Criticism:

POOR EXCELLENT

1 2 3 4 5 Thoughtfulness and organization of essay (e.g., is the essay well conceived and thought out or does it have a rushed and superficial quality to it).

1 2 3 4 5 Follows the directions of the assignment (e.g., answers questions sufficiently).

1 2 3 4 5 Coherence of explanation. Clear statements. Succinct.

1 2 3 4 5 Key terms and concepts are defined and explained.

1 2 3 4 5 Assertions and arguments supported with specific cites to the original works.

1 2 3 4 5 Assertions and arguments supported with specific quotes from the original works.

1 2 3 4 5 Depth of coverage of existing literature and original works.

Technical presentation:

X denotes that attention should be paid to this problem.

XX denotes that extra attention is warranted.

_____ Late paper (one letter grade is deducted for each day the paper is late).

_____ Paper format: pages numbered in top right hand corner, one inch margins, double-spaced.

_____ Appropriate citation format not followed.

_____ Text is too long or too short.

_____ Redundancy (wordy; can be trimmed without loss of meaning).

_____ Some statements are unsupported (e.g., undeveloped and/or vague statements).

_____ Insufficient coverage of existing literature.

_____ Insufficient depth of coverage.

_____ Typographic errors, misspelled words, punctuation errors.

_____ Incomplete sentences, awkward sentence structure.

_____ Some paragraphs are too long or too short.