Q6
(a) What is science? Do you think that the methods used in natural sciences can be applied to sociology? Give reasons for your answer. (20 marks) (b) What do you understand by gender-based domestic division of labour? Is it undergoing a change in the wake of increasing participation of women in formal employment? Clarify your answer with illustrations. (20 marks) (c) How can you assess the significance of social movements in the digital era? Explain. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) विज्ञान क्या है? क्या आपको लगता है कि प्राकृतिक विज्ञानों में प्रयोग की जाने वाली विधियों को समाजशास्त्र में उपयोग किया जा सकता है? अपने उत्तर के समर्थन में कारण बताइए। (20 अंक) (b) लिंग-आधारित घरेलू श्रम-विभाजन से आप क्या समझते हैं? क्या औपचारिक रोजगार के क्षेत्र में महिलाओं की बढ़ती भागीदारी के कारण इसमें कोई बदलाव आ रहा है? अपने उत्तर को उदाहरण देकर स्पष्ट कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) आप डिजिटल युग में सामाजिक आंदोलनों के महत्व का आकलन कैसे कर सकते हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक)
Directive word: Explain
This question asks you to explain. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
Begin with a brief conceptual introduction addressing all three parts. For part (a), allocate ~40% time/words (20 marks): define science, then critically examine positivist vs. interpretivist positions on method transfer, citing Comte, Durkheim, Weber, and Winch. For part (b), allocate ~40% (20 marks): define gender-based domestic division of labour, apply Hochschild's 'second shift' or Marxist-feminist framework, then assess change using NSS Time Use Survey 2019, Ola/Uber women drivers, or IT sector dual-earner households. For part (c), allocate ~20% (10 marks): assess digital-era movements through Castells' networked sociality, #MeTooIndia, farmers' protests (Twitter/X mobilisation), and evaluate significance via visibility vs. slacktivism debate. Conclude with synthesis on sociology's methodological pluralism and gendered transformation.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Definition of science (systematic, empirical, falsifiable); positivist claim (Comte, Durkheim) vs. interpretivist critique (Weber, Winch, Gadamer) on method transferability
- Part (a): Specific objections: Verstehen vs. Erklären; subjectivity; value-neutrality debates; reflexivity in social sciences
- Part (b): Conceptualisation of gender-based domestic division of labour (Parsons' instrumental-expressive, Hochschild's 'second shift', Marxist-feminist 'reproductive labour')
- Part (b): Empirical assessment of change: NSS Time Use Survey 2019 data; IT sector dual-earner couples; gig economy women workers; persistent 'time poverty' and 'mental load' inequalities
- Part (c): Digital-era social movements: Castells' 'network society', 'connective action' (Bennett/Segerberg); #MeTooIndia, farmers' protests 2020-21, CAA-NRC mobilisations
- Part (c): Critical assessment: visibility/amplification vs. slacktivism, algorithmic censorship, digital divide in protest participation
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), treats 'do you think' as evaluative demand, not binary yes/no, weighing positivist and interpretivist positions; for (b), addresses 'is it undergoing change' with balanced assessment, not assertion; for (c), 'assess significance' demands criteria (scale, durability, policy impact) applied to digital movements. | Answers all parts but treats (a) as descriptive comparison, (b) as trend report without evaluation criteria, (c) as list of digital tools without significance assessment. | Misreads (a) as 'define science only', ignores evaluative stance; (b) as 'describe women's employment'; (c) as uncritical celebration of online activism. |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | For (a), deploys Comte/Durkheim positivism against Weber/Winch/Gadamer hermeneutics with precision; for (b), uses Hochschild, Marxist-feminism (Federici), or Connell's hegemonic masculinity; for (c), applies Castells' network society or Bennett's connective action with conceptual accuracy. | Names theorists correctly but applies frameworks superficially or conflates concepts (e.g., treating Verstehen as mere empathy). | No named theorists; or misattributes (e.g., calling Durkheim interpretivist); theoretical claims unsupported. |
| Indian / empirical examples | 20% | 10 | For (a), cites Indian sociological practice (village studies, Srinivas' 'field view'); for (b), NSS Time Use Survey 2019, Ola/Uber women driver studies, IT sector ethnographies (Radhakrishnan, Fuller/Narasimhan); for (c), #MeTooIndia, farmers' protests (TikTok/YouTube mobilisation), Shaheen Bagh. | Mentions 'women in IT sector' or 'farmers' protests' without specific data or study citations; generic 'Indian family' references. | Western-only examples (US second shift, Arab Spring) without Indian grounding; or no empirical illustrations at all. |
| Multi-paradigm analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a), holds positivist and interpretivist positions in tension, possibly citing Bhaskar's critical realism as synthesis; for (b), presents both 'optimist' (education/employment transformation) and 'pessimist' (stalled revolution, time poverty) positions; for (c), weighs networked mobilisation against digital divide, state surveillance, and slacktivism critique. | Acknowledges alternative view in passing sentence but doesn't develop; dominant narrative remains one-sided. | Wholly one-sided: pure positivism or pure interpretivism; unilinear progress narrative on gender; uncritical techno-optimism on digital movements. |
| Conclusion & sociological imagination | 20% | 10 | Synthesises across parts: methodological pluralism as sociology's strength; gendered transformation as incomplete revolution requiring structural (not just individual) change; digital movements as transforming collective action repertoires but not replacing offline organising; proposes future research or policy direction. | Summarises each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion restates main points without analytical advancement. | No conclusion, or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats question wording; no sociological imagination linking personal troubles to public issues. |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Sociology 2025 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) What is common sense? How are common knowledge and sociology related to each ot…
- Q2 (a) What is positivism? Critically analyze the major arguments against it. (20 marks) (b) Highlight the main features of historical materia…
- Q3 (a) Compare capability deprivation approach with that of social capital deprivation in understanding chronic poverty. (20 marks) (b) Are pr…
- Q4 (a) Give an account of the recent trends of marriage in the Indian context. How are these different from traditional practices? (20 marks)…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) In what way is the scope of sociology unique? Explain. (10 marks) (b) Does the…
- Q6 (a) What is science? Do you think that the methods used in natural sciences can be applied to sociology? Give reasons for your answer. (20…
- Q7 (a) What is sampling in the context of social research? Discuss different forms of sampling with their relative advantages and disadvantage…
- Q8 (a) What do you understand by sustainable development? Discuss the elements of sustainable development as proposed in the UNDP's Sustainabl…