Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 379–385, 10.1111/soc4.12245
Connecting Social Psychology and the Sociology of Sport:
Using Goffman as a Framework for Sociological Sports
Research
Gretchen Peterson*
Department of Sociology, California State University
Abstract
Research on the sociology of sports has much to contribute to public discourse on sports and is well
positioned to do so through the connection between sociology of sports and social psychology. This article
uses the work of Erving Goffman (1967) as a framework for situating research in the sociology of sports
into the themes of courage and gameness, integrity, and composure. This framework provides a way of
organizing research in the field and also highlights areas where further research is needed.
Over the past two decades, several authors have called for greater focus on the sociology of
sports and a need to connect sports and society (Bourdieu 1988, Washington and Karen
2001, Zirin 2008). While Bourdieu may have argued that the sociology of sports is “scorned
by sociologists…despised by sportspersons” (1988:153), the more recent emphasis within the
discipline of sociology on public sociology bodes well for greater attention on the sociology
of sports. Because of the universality of sports as a feature of social life, the sociology of sports
has the potential to participate in public debates on sports.
In his 2004 American Sociological Association Presidential Address, Michael Burawoy encouraged sociologists to “make public sociology a viable and legitimate enterprise, and, thereby,
invigorate the discipline as a whole” (Burawoy 2005: 259). Burawoy lays out a division of labor
for sociology such that professional, critical, policy, and public sociology are recognized and
valued for their contributions. While Burawoy envisioned this for sociology as a whole, one
arena particularly ripe for public sociology is the arena of sports. As sports columnist, Dave Zirin,
said “It’s time for sports sociologists to get their bats off their shoulders and begin to shape debates
in the sports world” (Zirin 2008). This highlights the need for sociologists to engage in the very
public domain of sports and to use our sociological insights in the public debates surrounding
sports. The purpose of this article is to lay further groundwork for the public sociology of sport
by connecting ideas and theories from social psychology with the sociology of sports. To begin,
I analyze how Goffman’s understanding of ritual and character provides a framework for much
of the sociological work on sports.
Ritual in sports
As Birrell (1981) explains, sport is significant in society largely because of its ritualistic nature.
Birrell draws from Durkheim and Goffman to demonstrate the theoretical underpinnings of
sports as ritual and then uses media examples of heroic action in sports to support her argument.
While Durkheim focuses on religious ritual, his emphasis on the process of ritual allows his arguments to be extended to other arenas. Goffman is able to extend Durkheim’s work by delineating the processes of ritual involved in everyday interaction (Birrell 1981). The sporting
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
380 Sports and Social Psychology
context allows for examination of both the Durkheimian notion of ritual as an exciting, extraordinary event and Goffman’s notion of the ritual as everyday interaction. This interweaving of
the everyday and the extraordinary in sport can be seen in Cottingham’s (2012) work on interaction ritual and sports fandom. While Collins (2004) argued that sports fans fell outside the
scope of interaction ritual theory because the emotional peaks that occur are contrived and situationally specific, Cottingham found that successful interaction rituals occurred not only in the
moments of high intensity as would be found in the stadium but also outside the stadium in
other everyday interactions. This highlights the strength of the fan identity and the importance
of rituals to the maintenance of that identity.
Beyond understanding sport fandom, Goffman’s (1967) work on interaction ritual provides
an additional framework for situating research on the sociology of sport. Goffman argues for
four main themes of character as those of courage, gameness, integrity, and composure. The
value for courage, as Goffman sees it, is a value for an individual’s ability to proceed with a
course of action despite the danger that exists. Individuals who continue to expend considerable
effort even in the face of setbacks or pain are seen to show gameness. Integrity is demonstrated
when athletes resist the temptation to depart from moral standards. Finally, composure is demonstrated through an athlete’s poise. Displays of character not only show something about the
individual performing the action but also show something about the values that society holds.
Research on the sociology of sports can be situated within these main themes. For this analysis,
I combine courage and gameness as one theme given that in sports the danger that exists is often
manifested through the setbacks and pain from injuries. Athletes overcoming such injuries or
continuing despite injuries can be seen as demonstrating courage or gameness.
Character: courage and gameness
Athletes who are able to overcome setbacks or injuries to achieve success are glorified in media
accounts following a game or performance. This glorification represents a larger societal attitude
that normalizes pain as part of the sporting experience (Young and White 1995; Theberge 1997;
Collinson 2005). Both male and female athletes portray this toughness or gameness by continuing to play despite injuries sustained during the athletic contest. Theberge (1997) found that
women hockey players viewed success while playing injured as an important sign of ability.
Even when athletes are not playing injured, spectators perceive top athletes as having
sacrificed for their sports. However, these top athletes do not see their behavior as a sacrifice.
Instead, they enjoy what they do (Hemery 1986; Chambliss 1989). While the athletes may
enjoy the mundane work required to achieve excellence, society still values sacrifice and tends
to imbue their hard work as a great sacrifice. Thus, even when extraordinary play is not being
demonstrated, gameness is still evident in the attitudes society holds toward athletes since the
behaviors seen as necessary to become a top athlete are still seen as sacrifices being made for
sports performance.
Studies focusing on gendered assumptions of competence in sport also fit within the framework of gameness and courage. Women in sports have often been subjected to assumptions of
being less competent than their male counterparts. Wachs (2002) demonstrates how the rules of
coed softball, while intended to “level” the playing field, actually reinforce notions of female
athletes as less competent. Rules mandating a minimum number of female players, only
allowing a female player to serve as a roving outfielder, and giving men two bases for a walk
all support the notions of female players as less competent since the rules dictate female involvement and limit male involvement in certain plays. In this case, rules are designed to allow
women to succeed and to demonstrate their gameness, although the setback they are seen to
overcome is the disadvantage of being a woman. In addition, women playing traditionally
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 379–385, 10.1111/soc4.12245
Sports and Social Psychology
381
“male” sports face perceptions that the male version of the sport is the standard and that the female version is simply not the same (Knapp 2014; Theberge 2000).
Beyond the gendered rules, evaluations of performance vary by gender as well. Both Wachs
(2005) and Biernat and Vescio (2002) found that athletic plays by female athletes were viewed as
extraordinary and that women playing well was surprising. Biernat and Vescio (2002) found that
even when men and women are viewed to have similar levels of athletic ability, the men were
presumed to be more competent as hitters. This tendency to view women as less competent was
also evident in Snyder and Ammons (1993) study of coed softball. They found that interactional
norms on the field supported male dominance particularly at the more competitive levels
although the male players would freely admit how important the female players were to the
success of the team. These studies all highlight how gender affects perceptions of an athlete as
demonstrating gameness. Women are presumed to need help to be successful as athletes particularly when competing with men.
Beyond assumptions of competence, female athletes also face challenges to their identities as
women. The gameness that is celebrated in athletics does not connect with a feminine identity.
In her study of girls’ softball, Malcom (2003) found that girls playing softball may overemphasize
feminine behavior displays. This peaks when the girls are 12–13 years old but then declines
somewhat as the girls age. This behavior occurs among adult female athletes and appears to
be consonant with the “apologetic defense”. The apologetic defense is a coping strategy that
counters the perceived masculine identity of athlete by overemphasizing feminine behavior
displays. While women are allowed to embrace the masculine athlete identity, the apologetic
defense is used to counter that masculinization. The girls would use jewelry and hairstyles to
promote their femininity and would talk about boyfriends to promote their heterosexuality.
The use of apologetic behaviors to counter the masculinization of the athlete identity for
women was further supported by the work of Davis-Delano and colleagues (2009). Ezzell’s
(2009) work on “defensive othering” by female rugby players complements these studies of
the apologetic defense. By identifying with dominants, engaging in normative identification,
and propping up dominants, these female athletes engage in identity work to cope with
challenges to their identities as females.
Character: integrity
Integrity in sport is an important social issue as evidenced by recurring reports of drug use by
athletes and cheating. In a commentary in Contexts, Peterson (2013) explored the issue of defensive doping (where athletes claim to need to use banned substance because everyone else does)
and discussed how some athletes viewed doping as necessary to remain competitive. As media
reports of the use of banned substances in sports seem to increase, sociologists need to consider
the role that integrity plays in sport in society. Eitzen (1988) addresses this from a conf lict theory
perspective, arguing that a conf lict theorist would view cheating in sports as deviant anytime it
provides an unfair advantage even if cheating is widespread and might not be considered deviant
because so many are doing it. The issue of cheating in sports also lends itself to a discussion of
which behaviors are seen as deviant. Mewett (2002) presents a typology of cheating in professional running that includes “clean” cheating and “dirty” cheating. Clean cheating is covered up
and not penalized unless it becomes obvious, whereas dirty cheating involves a personal financial gain arising from a betrayal of trust. This typology of cheating illustrates how cheating, at
times, may not be seen as a violation of integrity.
While issues of integrity may arise in adult sports, the lessons passed on to children in youth
sports are also notable. Pilz (1995) demonstrates that in success-oriented sports, the longer children play in a soccer club, the more likely they are to see intentional fouls as fair. In effect, the
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 379–385, 10.1111/soc4.12245
382 Sports and Social Psychology
soccer clubs act as agents of socialization legitimizing rule violations by the juvenile athletes.
Further evidence of this can be found in junior tennis where cheating on calls has become expected in the sport (Casper 2006). Casper’s work found that cheating can be caused by personal
pressure, pressure from coaches, and pressure from parents. These socializing agents in children’s
lives may serve to normalize cheating in athletics so that young people grow up to see cheating
as expected in sports.
Character: composure
A number of studies have examined how athletes maintain composure during a sporting
event. Snyder and Ammons (1993) interviewed college baseball players and found that they
used emotion management strategies in an effort to maintain an appropriate level of tension
and anxiety to achieve optimal performance. These athletes viewed composure as involving
some level of tension but in a controlled way. Athlete composure is also a main theme in
Greer’s (1983) study of spectator booing and the home advantage in basketball. Greer’s study
demonstrated that following a period of sustained protest by the crowd, the performance of
the visiting team declined. Thus, the visiting team did not maintain their composure in the
face of sustained crowd protest. Greer’s study illustrates a process by which the home
advantage could be realized and supports the work of Schwartz and Barsky (1977) on the
home advantage. Schwartz and Barsky found that the home advantage was strongest in
hockey and basketball and less so in the outdoor sports of football and baseball. In indoor
sports, the effect of crowd protest could be the strongest and may ultimately contribute more
to home advantage in those sports. These studies on the home advantage highlight how the
social setting inf luences athletes’ composure. The variation in normative expectations for
crowd behavior in sports ref lects expectations that athletes should be allowed to perform
without distraction (as in golf or tennis) or should be expected to perform despite distraction
(as in basketball and football). This may be rooted in the differences between individual and
team sports, but it is a question for further study.
Not surprisingly, a number of studies have found that gender affects perceptions of composure.
Messner and colleagues (1993) found gender marking on the part of sports commentators in
terms of the treatment of success and failure in basketball and tennis. Their research demonstrated that “men were framed as active agents in control of their destinies, women as reactive
objects” (130). While both men’s and women’s success was attributed in part to talent, hard
work, and intelligence, women’s successes were also attributed to luck, emotion, and family.
Women who were not performing well were often seen as lacking the emotional composure
needed to perform.
When athletes are not able to perform successfully, they face the emotional and social consequences of failure. As Ball (1976) explains, “to fail is to involuntarily demonstrate role-distance,
a discrepancy between performance and position, self, and role” (728). For the player who fails,
he must deal with the embarrassment that results. For fellow athletes, group reactions to the failure of other players (as evidenced by players being traded, being sent to a lower division, or
leaving the game entirely) include degradation or cooling out. The concepts of degradation
and cooling out come from Garfinkel (1956) and Goffman (1952), respectively. However, Ball
(1976) pulls these concepts together and illustrates how they play out in the professional sports
worlds of baseball and football. The same can be found in professional hockey where players can
be traded, waived, or “gassed” (Gallmeier 1989). When players are about to leave a team, their
teammates often struggle with how to respond to them, resulting in a type of shunning where
the player is ignored by others. The players who will remain on the team seem to want distance
between themselves and the player who is leaving because of failure.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 379–385, 10.1111/soc4.12245
Sports and Social Psychology
383
Conclusion
The purpose of this article was to utilize a framework provided by the work of Goffman (1967)
to connect research in the sociology of sports with social psychology. Even though much of the
research has not addressed Goffman’s work specifically, the themes he identified of gameness,
courage, integrity, and composure can serve to situate the sociological research on sports. In
terms of courage and gameness, sports research has found that both athletes and spectators have
internalized an expectation that athletes should overcome setbacks or injuries in their achievements. This is likely ref lected in the appeal of the underdog or the “Cinderella story” that fans
embrace and the media emphasizes in its coverage of sports. The consequences of this emphasis
on persevering despite setbacks can be an increased danger for athletes as they risk even more
serious injuries when trying to perform despite injuries. Future research could examine how
these internalized values for perseverance and gameness affect athletes at all levels in terms of
how far they will go to achieve in sports.
The issue of cheating in sports receives considerable attention in the media. There are
new reports regularly of athletes using banned substances or finding other ways to
circumvent the rules of the game. The research on cheating in sports has demonstrated
that there is some level of expectation that athletes will try to cheat. The adage, “If you
ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying”, ref lects this attitude that athletes should be doing
everything they can to win. This attitude has even carried down to younger athletes.
Further research on integrity in sports could further examine the variety of ways that
athletes attempt to circumvent the rules. Understanding doping is an important part of
understanding contemporary sports, but so are other violations of rules. What we learn
about rule violations can be carried over into understanding behaviors at the recreational
level of sports or behavior outside of sports.
In terms of composure, research shows that athletes have to work to manage their emotions
to maintain composure and that they are affected in some sports by crowd behavior. Because of
the connection between composure and emotions, it is not surprising that perceptions of composure are subject to gendered assumptions. Maintaining composure is not unique to
performance in sports, so further research in this area could serve to increase our understanding
of emotion management in sports and in other aspects of our lives.
This article has highlighted the connection between social psychology and the sociology
of sport. However, for sociologists researching in this area to contribute to public debates
around sports, more work also needs to be done on macrolevel analyses of sports. As
Eckstein, Moss, and Delaney (2010) explain, almost three-fourths of sports sociology
research between 1977 and 2008 (as represented in three main journals) took a more
microlevel approach. If the sociology of sports hopes to answer the call of Michael Burawoy
and Dave Zirin by moving studies of sports into the public arena, research also needs to
address more of the macrolevel issues facing sports today. The sociology of sports has much
to contribute to public discourse on sports.
Short Biography
Gretchen Peterson is Professor and Department Chair at California State University,
Los Angeles. She earned her PhD in 2000 from the University of Arizona and has been a professor
at CSULA for 14 years. Professor Peterson studies social exchange, fairness, emotions, and, most
recently, adult recreational softball. She consistently takes a social psychological approach to these
various topics. Her research utilizes multiple methodologies including experiments, surveys, and
observational methods.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 379–385, 10.1111/soc4.12245
384 Sports and Social Psychology
Note
* Correspondence: Gretchen Peterson, Department of Sociology, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State
University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA. E-mail: gpeters@calstatela.edu
References
Ball, Donald W. 1976. ‘Failure in Sport.’ American Sociological Review 41(4): 726–739.
Biernat, M. & T. K. Vescio. 2002. She Swings, She’s Great, She’s Benched: Implications of Gender-Based Shifting Standards
for Judgment and Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(1): 66–77.
Birrell, Susan. 1981. ‘Sport as Ritual: Interpretations from Durkheim to Goffman.’ Social Forces 60(2): 354–376.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. ‘Program for a Sociology of Sport.’ Sociology of Sport Journal 5: 153–161.
Burawoy, Michael. 2005. ‘2004 American Sociological Association Presidential Address: For Public Sociology.’ The British
Journal of Sociology, 56(2): 259–294.
Casper, Jonathan. 2006. ‘You Can’t Be Serious, that Ball was IN: An Investigation of Junior Tennis Cheating Behavior.’ The
Qualitative Report, 11(1): 20–36.
Chambliss, Daniel F. 1989. ‘The Mundanity of Excellence: An Ethnographic Report on Stratification and Olympic
Swimmers.’ Sociological Theory, 7(1): 70–86.
Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Collinson, Jacquelyn Allen. 2005. ‘Emotions, Interaction, and the Injured Sporting Body.’ International Review for the Sociology
of Sport 40: 221–240.
Cottingham, Marci D. 2012. ‘Interaction Ritual Theory and Sports Fans: Emotions, Symbols, and Solidarity.’ Sociology of
Sport Journal 29: 168–185.
David-Delano, Laurel R., April Pollock, and Jennifer Ellsworth Vose. 2009. ‘Apologetic Behavior Among Female Athletes:
A New Questionnaire and Initial Results.’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 44(2-3): 131–150.
Eckstein, Rick, Dana M. Moss, and Kevin J. Delaney. 2010. ‘Sports Sociology’s Still Untapped Potential.’ Sociological Forum
25(3): 500–518.
Eitzen, D. Stanley. 1988. ‘Conflict Theory and Deviance in Sport.’ The International Review for the Sociology of Sport 23(3):
193–204.
Ezzell, Matthew B. 2009. ‘Barbie Dolls on the Pitch: Identity Work, Defensive Othering, and Inequality on Women’s
Rugby.’ Social problems, 56(1): 111–131.
Gallmeier, Charles P. 1989. ‘Traded, Waived, or Gassed: Failure in the Occupational World of Ice Hockey.’ Journal of Sport
and Social Issues 13(1): 25–45.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1956. ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies.’ American Journal of Sociology, 61: 420–424.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. ‘Where the Action Is.’ Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, Erving. 1952. ‘Cooling the Mark Out: Some Adaptations to Failure.’ Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal
Processes 15: 451–463.
Greer, Donald L. 1983. ‘Spectator Booing and the Home Advantage: A Study of Social Influence in the Basketball Arena.’
Social Psychology Quarterly 46(3): 252–261.
Hemery, David. 1986. The Pursuit of Sporting Excellence: A Study of Sport’s Highest Achievers. London: Willow.
Knapp, Bobbi A. 2014. ‘Smash Mouth Football: Identity Development and Maintenance on a Woman’s Tackle Football
Team.’ Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38(1): 51–74.
Malcom, Nancy L. 2003. ‘Constructing Female Athleticism: A Study of Girls’ Recreational Softball.’ The American Behavioral
Scientist 46(10): 1387–1404.
Messner, Michael A., Margaret Carlisle Duncan, and Kerry Jensen. 1993. ‘Separating the Men from the Girls: The Gendered
Language of Televised Sports.’ Gender and Society 7(1): 121–137.
Mewett, Peter G. 2002. ‘Discourses of Deception: Cheating in Professional Running.’ The Australian Journal of Anthropology
13(3): 292–308.
Peterson, Gretchen. 2013. ‘Defensive Doping.’ Contexts 12(4).
Pilz, Gunter A. 1995. ‘Performance Sport: Education in Fair Play (Some Empirical and Theoretical Remarks).’ International
Review for the Sociology of Sport 30(3+4): 391–418.
Schwartz, Barry and Stephen F. Barsky. 1977. ‘The Home Advantage.’ Social Forces, 55(3): 641–661.
Snyder, Eldon E. and Ronald Ammons. 1993. ‘Baseball’s Emotion Work: Getting Psyched to Play.’ Qualitative Sociology,
16(2): 111–132.
Snyder, Eldon E. and Ronald Ammons. 1993. ‘Adult Participation in Coed Softball: Relations in a Gender Integrated Sport.’
Journal of Sport Behavior 16(1): 3–15.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 379–385, 10.1111/soc4.12245
Sports and Social Psychology
385
Theberge, Nancy. 2000. Higher Goals: Women’s Ice Hockey and the Politics of Gender. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Theberge, Nancy. 1997. ‘It’s Part of the Game: Physicality and the Production of Gender in Women’s Hockey.’ Gender and
Society, 11: 69–87.
Wachs, Faye Linda. 2005. ‘The Boundaries of Difference: Negotiating Gender in Recreational Sport.’ Sociological Inquiry,
75(4): 527–547.
Wachs, Faye Linda. 2002. ‘Leveling the Playing Field: Negotiating Gendered Rules in Coed Softball.’ Journal of Sport and
Social Issues 26(3): 300–316.
Washington, Robert E. and David Karen. 2001. ‘Sport and Society.’ Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 187–212.
Young, K. and P. White. 1995. ‘Sport, Physical Danger, and Injury: The Experience of Elite Women Athletes.’ Journal of
Sport and Social Issues 19: 45–61.
Zirin, Dave. 2008. ‘Calling Sports Sociology off the Bench.’ Contexts 7(3): 28–31.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015): 379–385, 10.1111/soc4.12245
SOCI 1125 Online - Introduction to Society: Processes and Structures – Fall Semester 2017
Instructor: Annette Reynolds
ARTICLE REVIEW ASSIGNMENT
This assignment is worth 15% of your final grade. Due date: Nov. 16 at 11:30 pm – submit your paper
online using the assignment submission tool under “Article Review” on the course website. Your task for
this assignment is to read and summarize the main points from a sociological article provided by the
instructor, analyze and expand on the information using material from your course textbook, and
provide a response or commentary. This will help you develop academic skills that are vital to writing
good papers in sociology or other social sciences in future. Follow the instructions below carefully:
REQUIREMENTS:
•
Length and format: your paper should be approximately 4 pages (1200 words) and no more than 6
pages (2000 words) in length. Type your paper in 11 or 12 point font and double-space.
•
Write your review on an article posted in the folder under “Article Review” on the course website. If
you wish to write about an article not listed in this folder, you MUST send me the article and get my
permission two weeks in advance of the due date otherwise your paper will not be accepted!
•
Draw upon relevant information from the course textbook (Schaefer, Grekul and Haaland, Sociology:
A Brief Introduction) and lecture notes to expand upon, explain, analyze and comment on the
information in the article you are reviewing. You do not need to use any additional resources but be
sure to cite them properly if you do. See more tips on writing your review on the next page.
•
Summarize the main points in the article using your OWN WORDS and expression as much as
possible! Be sure to place quotation marks around any sentences copied directly from your sources.
Do not over-use quotations – this is not an evaluation of your ability to copy sentences! I need to be
able to assess your comprehension of the article and your ability to summarize main points.
•
Maintain an academic tone by using a formal writing style such as you see in scholarly texts or
articles. Do not use slang or common everyday speech. Avoid vague, universalizing and unsupported
generalizations, as well as emotional or moralizing comments and reference to personal experiences
or opinions – just state your points and back them up!
•
Include citations for quotations AND material paraphrased in your own words and give a reference
list at the end of your paper using ASA or APA style. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ON MY HANDOUT:
“Guidelines for Citations”. Marks will be deducted for improper formatting!
•
State the title of the article and the author(s) names at the top of the first page. Put your own name,
course and section number in the top right corner. No cover page please.
•
PLAGIARISM – DON’T DO IT! See KPU Policy ST-2. Plagiarism includes but is not limited to
submitting a paper you did not write, in whole or in part; copying from any source without using
quotation marks or failing to include citations to indicate sources; and getting so much help from
another person such as a tutor or friend that the writing can no longer be considered your own.
PREPARING YOUR ARTICLE REVIEW
Choose an article from the folder posted under the “Article Review” page of the course website that is of
interest to you and that you understand!
BE AN ACTIVE READER:
•
Read the article several times. Ask and answer the following questions: e.g. what was the purpose of
the study? What has previously been written on the subject? What methods did the researchers
use? What were the strengths or limitations of the methods? What sociological theories and
concepts were used in the analysis? What other concepts or theories might apply in this case? What
are the author’s central arguments? What are the key facts from the results or findings?
•
Get an overall understanding of the article the first time around. Highlight key points. Note: don’t
get bogged down on the description of methods used, especially if they involve statistical analysis –
just skim read this section. Focus on the introduction, discussion of previous studies, results, and
conclusions. Look up the meaning of sociological terms in your course textbook, and use a dictionary
to learn the meanings of other words that are unfamiliar to you.
•
Read ALL chapters and sections from the textbook by Schaefer, Grekul and Haaland related to the
topic of your article and take notes to help you write your review/response.
TAKE POINT FORM NOTES: Make your own set of notes on key points BEFORE writing up your review.
Don’t just sit down and write up a draft of your paper as you read the article – this can result in a
disorganized or overly lengthy review full of irrelevant details.
•
Identify key facts, arguments and sociological analysis in the article. Don’t copy word for word. Turn
away from the article, try remember what was said, then summarize the main points in your own
words. Record the page numbers as you go along.
•
DON’T RECORD EACH AND EVERY DETAIL! Your goal here is to provide a summary of only the most
salient points as succinctly as possible. Avoid lengthy explanations of the methods used in the
study. Just state which method(s) were used (e.g. a survey and statistical analysis, qualitative
interviews, or content analysis). You might comment on significant aspects of the methodology.
•
Pick out key quotations that encapsulate central arguments made in the article. Copy the text
accurately within quotation marks. Explain what the quotation means in your own words or follow
up with a commentary. DON’T OVER-USE QUOTATIONS! Use them wisely and sparingly.
•
To prepare your review/commentary, refer back to your course textbook to expand upon or further
explain the main points from the article. Show how the research and analysis fit in with other
studies in sociology and discuss how it contributes to a better understanding of the subject.
Consider how sociological theories not used in the study might be useful in analyzing the subject. Do
this with care. Don’t just do it for the sake of doing it. Think about which theory or perspective BEST
applies to the subject and explains the problem. Consider your own response to the points made in
the article – do you agree or disagree with the author and why? What evidence from the course text
or other course materials supports your viewpoint? What are the strengths of the research and its
limitations? Suggest areas for future research and/or analysis.
WRITING YOUR PAPER:
ORGANIZATION: Organize points so they flow smoothly and logically from one another. This is often
more important than proper grammar in making a paper readable.
•
WRITE AN OUTLINE of the main points you will discuss. This will help you collect and synthesize
related points from your notes and organize them in a logical order.
•
Write well developed paragraphs! Each paragraph should have its own “controlling idea” or
separate sub-topic. When you start discussing a new sub-topic, start a new paragraph. In other
words, keep related points together and avoid jumbling a bunch of unrelated points in a long
paragraph. Paragraphs should flow smoothly and logically from one another.
➢ The introductory paragraph should provide a general idea of what the article is about and
the main conclusions reached, as well as the sociological analysis or perspective.
➢ The body paragraphs will expand on the main points of the article and include your
additional information, explanation and analysis. Use as many paragraphs as you need.
➢ The concluding paragraphs should provide commentary on the strengths and limitations of
the study and suggest areas for future research and/or analysis.
•
Try to integrate your review/commentary in a discussion of the main points in the article as you go
along. If you find this difficult, summarize the main points first followed by your response.
WRITING STYLE: Note that I cannot mark papers that are un-readable or incomprehensible!
•
Aim for clarity: make sure your writing makes sense! Read your paper out loud and ask yourself
if it is clear and meaningful – if you don’t understand what you’re trying to say, I won’t either!
•
Maintain a formal tone suitable for academic writing: Avoid slang and everyday speech. Refrain
from personal references, experiences and opinions. Statements of opinion like “I thought the
author did a great job” are empty and meaningless. State points in your commentary objectively
and use evidence from the textbook or reasoned arguments to support them.
•
Revise and edit: get rid of details that don’t advance the main points or condense points so they
are more succinct. Include any significant points you have overlooked. Move sections around to
improve organization and include transitions to help maintain coherence. Check your vocabulary
– look up words you’re not sure about in the dictionary and correct faulty usage.
•
Proofread and polish: print out your paper as you may not catch errors and typos on the
computer screen. Correct errors in wording, grammar, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation
and capitalization in pencil then complete your final draft. Remember you are aiming for clarity!
Note: I can help with questions about this assignment but I do not review drafts of student papers.
You may book a tutor at a KPU Learning Centre who can help you improve your writing, and it
possible to submit your paper online for feedback if you complete your draft early enough. See:
http://www.kpu.ca/learningcentres/tutoring.
CITATIONS AND REFERENCE LIST – IMPORTANT!
If you are unfamiliar with using citations, it is recommended that you meet with a librarian at KPU or
visit the Learning Centre for help. You may use ASA (American Sociological Association) or APA
(American Psychological Association) style. In either case, you MUST read the instructions in my
handout: GUIDELNES FOR CITATIONS and the Quick Style Guide for either style. Additional resources are
available on the KPU library site: http://libguides.kpu.ca/citations
CITATIONS: to indicate your sources of information, include a citation in parentheses within the body of
your paper at the end of the sentence. Examples below use ASA style:
•
Include author’s LAST NAMES only (no initials and no first names), followed by the publication
DATE, then PAGE NUMBER(s) – regardless of which style used. In the example below, 1976 is
the publication date and 139 is the page number:
Some feminists argue that occupational segregation is “the primary mechanism in capitalist societies
that maintains the superiority of men over women” (Hartmann 1976: 139). Occupations that are
typically designated as “feminine” or “women’s work” tend to be less well paid and less respected…
•
Include citations EVERY TIME you refer to ANY information from your sources (whether quoted
directly or summarized). Yes…this could mean after every sentence. It can be helpful to mention
the author’s last names to make it clear that a set of sentences come from the same source and
the same page. If authors’ names are given in your sentence, include the date and page in
parentheses immediately after their names. Example:
As Schaefer, Grekul and Haaland (2017: 17) point out, symbolic interactionism is a micro-sociological
perspective that focuses on social interaction in everyday life. It also analyzes the ways people make
sense of the social world by assigning meaning to their experiences. This differs from the functionalist
and conflict perspectives which tend to examine large scale organizations or broad social trends in
society as a whole. Symbolic interactionists also acknowledge that meanings are dynamic as they “are
constantly being reconstructed” (Schaefer, Grekul and Haaland 2017: 18).
•
DO NOT GIVE TITLES OF ARTICLES OR BOOKS IN CITATIONS OR ANYWHERE ELSE!!! There is no
need and it just wastes space. The title of the article will be at the top of the first page and titles
of other sources will be given in your reference list.
•
How do you format a citation when one author’s work is cited or quoted by another author?
Include BOTH authors’ works in the citation: the author whose work you did not read, followed
by the author whose work you did read. In the following example, you read page 142 of the text
by Schaefer, Grekul and Haaland who cite a report by Brazao:
RCMP reports indicate that “at least 800 workers are trafficked in Canada each year” (Brazao 2008
cited in Schaefer, Grekul and Haaland 2017: 142).
Note that your Reference List will include ONLY the Schaefer, Grekul and Haaland text, NOT the
report by Brazao because you didn’t actually read this report.
REFERENCE LIST: List your sources at the end of your paper. If a source was used it, will be cited in your
paper and any source that is cited will appear in the reference list. DO NOT INCLUDE SOURCES THAT
YOU DID NOT READ. Examples below use ASA style.
•
List entries in ALPHABETICAL ORDER by authors’ last names. NO NUMBERS OR BULLETS! Doublespace between each entry.
•
BOOKS – include AUTHORS’ NAMES (first author’s name is inverted, others in normal order),
publication DATE, TITLE in italics or underlined, PLACE of publication (city and province or state
abbreviated), a colon, and PUBLISHER. Indent the second line. Example:
Macionis, John and Linda M. Gerbner. 2008. Sociology, 6th Canadian edition. Toronto, ON:
Pearson Prentice Hall
•
JOURNAL ARTICLES – include AUTHORS’ NAMES, publication DATE, ARTICLE TITLE in inverted
commas, JOURNAL NAME, volume number, issue number in parentheses (or DOI number), a
colon, and page numbers. Example:
Hallet, Ronald E. and Kristen Barber. 2014. “Ethnographic Research in a Cyber Era”, Journal of
Contemporary Ethnology, 43(3): 306-330
Thornberg, Robert. 2013. “Distressed Bullies, Social Positioning and Odd Victims: Young People’s
Explanations of Bullying”. Children and Society, DOI: 10.1111: 1-11.
•
ARTICLES IN BOOKS (an edited anthology or collection of essays) – list the AUTHOR of the
article, DATE article was published, ARTICLE TITLE in inverted commas, page numbers,
EDITOR’S name (ed.), DATE of book publication, BOOK TITLE, PLACE of publication, and
PUBLISHER (bibliographical information for the book handwritten at the top). Example:
Wolf, Daniel. 1999. “The Rebels: A Brotherhood of Outlaw Bikers”, pp. 99-111 in Bruce Ravelli
(ed.). 2005. Exploring Canadian Sociology: A Reader. Toronto, ON: Pearson
•
MY LECTURE NOTES: give my last name and current date in citations: (Reynolds, 2017). If you
refer to more than one lecture, use “a”, “b”, “c”…to distinguish them: e.g. (Reynolds, 2017a),
(Reynolds, 2017b)… In the reference list, give my name, date, lecture title and KPU information:
Reynolds, Annette. 2017a. Lecture on Gender. Surrey, BC: KPU.
_______________. 2017b. Lecture on Socialization. Surrey, BC: KPU
GRADING CRITERIA – Grading Rubric posted separately - Copy and paste it to the end of your paper
There are no surprises here! I use this rubric to grade students’ papers so you can see exactly what is
expected for each grade level and what you need to do in order to achieve the grade you’re hoping for.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment