(a) What aspects of 'Enlightenment' do you think paved way for the emergence of sociology ? Elaborate. (20 marks)
(b) Explain the different types of non-probability sampling techniques. Bring out the conditions of their usage with appropriate example

Question

(a) What aspects of 'Enlightenment' do you think paved way for the emergence of sociology ? Elaborate. (20 marks)
(b) Explain the different types of non-probability sampling techniques. Bring out the conditions of their usage with appropriate examples. (20 marks)
(c) Discuss social mobility in open and closed system. (10 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'elaborate' in part (a) demands detailed expansion with causal reasoning, while (b) requires 'explain' with conditions and examples, and (c) needs comparative 'discuss'. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to (a) given its 20 marks and theoretical depth, 35% to (b) for technique-detail with examples, and 25% to (c) for the comparative analysis. Structure: brief integrated intro → three distinct sections with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesising how Enlightenment rationality, methodological rigour, and mobility studies together constitute sociology's disciplinary identity.
- Part (a): Enlightenment pillars — reason over tradition (Descartes/Kant), scientific empiricism (Bacon/Newton), secularisation and critique of religious authority, progress and perfectibility of society (Condorcet), and the 'social contract' tradition (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) that relocated sovereignty to society
- Part (a): Sociology's emergence — Comte's 'social physics' as Enlightenment applied to society; Durkheim's 'social facts' as empirically observable; Marx's materialist critique of Hegelian idealism; Weber's rationalisation thesis as Enlightenment dialectic
- Part (b): Non-probability types — convenience sampling (conditions: exploratory research, limited resources; example: pilot survey of street vendors in Delhi's Chandni Chowk)
- Part (b): Quota sampling (conditions: representativeness by strata when probability impractical; example: caste-wise opinion polling in Bihar panchayat elections)
- Part (b): Purposive/judgmental sampling (conditions: expert knowledge required, small specialised population; example: studying Naxal-affected villages in Chhattisgarh for conflict research)
- Part (b): Snowball sampling (conditions: hidden/hard-to-reach populations; example: transgender community access in Mumbai for HIV prevalence study)
- Part (c): Open system — achievement-based, meritocratic mobility (Sorokin), industrial societies, high circulation mobility; Indian example: IT sector enabling intergenerational mobility for rural engineers
- Part (c): Closed system — ascriptive, caste/feudal estates, low mobility; Indian example: ritual purity barriers in traditional jajmani system; contemporary hybridity through reservation as state-mediated mobility

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), 'elaborate' is met with causal chains showing how specific Enlightenment ideas generated sociological methods/concepts; for (b), 'explain' includes precise conditions of usage with justification; for (c), 'discuss' presents balanced comparison with evaluative edge on contemporary India.	Recognises the three directives but treats them uniformly as 'describe'; conditions in (b) are listed not justified; (c) becomes a simple table of differences.	Misreads 'elaborate' as 'list Enlightenment thinkers'; ignores 'conditions of usage' in (b); treats (c) as definition-only without system comparison.
Theoretical framing	20%	10	(a) Deploys Habermas's 'unfinished project of modernity' or Foucault's critique of Enlightenment reason to show reflexivity; (b) cites Cochran's sampling theory or Sudman's practical guidelines; (c) uses Sorokin's vertical/horizontal mobility typology and Goldthorpe's class schema.	Names Comte, Quetelet, Sorokin correctly but without integrating their specific theoretical contributions into the argument.	No named theorists; or confused attribution (e.g., calling sampling 'Durkheimian method').
Indian / empirical examples	20%	10	(a) Indian sociology's Enlightenment inheritance via Ghurye/Srinivas vs. indigenous alternatives (Indology); (b) at least two Indian research scenarios with methodological justification; (c) empirical mobility data (NFHS-5, IHDS, or NCAER studies) showing open/closed system dynamics in India.	Generic Indian examples (caste system mentioned without specificity) or Western cases for (b); no quantitative mobility evidence in (c).	No Indian grounding; or factually wrong examples (e.g., calling India a 'fully open system').
Multi-paradigm analysis	20%	10	(a) Counter-Enlightenment critique (Horkheimer/Adorno, Foucault) alongside celebration; (b) acknowledges when probability sampling is preferable despite cost; (c) presents Srinivas's 'dominant caste' or Corbridge's 'elite as old' thesis as challenge to pure open-system narrative.	Brief nod to critique in (a) without development; (b) and (c) one-sided.	Wholly celebratory of Enlightenment; treats non-probability sampling as 'second-best' without defence; (c) ignores caste persistence.
Conclusion & sociological imagination	20%	10	Synthesises across parts: Enlightenment reason enabled scientific sociology (a), whose methods (b) reveal mobility patterns (c); connects to contemporary challenges (post-truth, big data sampling, gig economy mobility); ends with Mills-style 'biography and history' framing.	Summarises three parts separately without integration; no forward-looking element.	No conclusion, or mere restatement of question; or conclusion only addresses highest-mark part (a).

Q2

Directive word: Elaborate

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Sociology 2022 Paper I