spciology homework

SOCIOLOGY 498

Senior Seminar

Book Review Assignment: 25 points

Due: by 11:55p ET on Sunday of Week 6

Each student will select a book considered to be one of the ‘great works’ in sociology, in the first week, to read and critique. There is a list from which to choose a book to review and critique, but students can select books outside the list in consultation with the instructor. Students will be required to write a book review and report on the review in a related Discussion Board Assignment.

This critique should be written in the style of reviews in Contemporary Sociology (about 750 words).

Review:

A critical book review briefly describes the content of a book and, more importantly, provides an in-depth analysis and evaluation of its ideas and purpose. The descriptive element of a review should give the reader an understanding of the author’s arguments, while the evaluative element should detail your assessment of the book’s ideas.

Your review should include:

· the author’s purpose/thesis in writing the book

· the author’s key arguments and evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses

· brief summary of the methodology used, level of analysis and sample

· comments on how the book relates to other work on the same subject

· comments on how the book makes a significant contribution to the study of sociology; and the sub-field of focus (if relevant)

· information about the author’s reputation or authority in the field

· comments on future research that may be implied by (or build on) the author’s work

Choose one book from the list below for your book review. NOTE: each of these books is available through the APUS library.

As an alternative, you may email me (by Week 3) for approval with a book citation; or if you are willing to go outside of APUS’ online library for a book and are interested in a particular sub-field, I am more than happy to make other suggestions.

BOOK LIST:

Collins, P.H. (2000) Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.

Collins, PH. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. New York: Routledge.

Comte, A. (2000). The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte: Volume 1. [Tr. By Harriet Martineacu]. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche.

Du Bois, W.E.B. (2001). The negro. Mineola: Dover Publications.

Durkheim, E. 1952. Suicide: a Study in sociology. [Tr. John A Spaulding]. London: Routledge & K. Paul.

Ehrenreich, B. (2005). For Her Own Good: Two centuries of experts’ advice to women. New York: Anchor Books.

Elliott, A. and Lemert, C. (2006). The New Individualism: the emotional cost of globalization. New York: Routledge.

Kozol, J. (2005). The Sham of the Nation: the Restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Crown Publishers.

Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Simmel, G. (2004). The philosophy of money. [Tr. Tom Bottomore and David Frisby]. New York: Routledge.

Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: a Comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Skocpol, T. (1994). Social revolutions in the modern world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine.

Weber, M. (2001/1930). The protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism. (Tr. Talcott Parsons).

Format:

· APA-style formatting

· Typed

· 1” margins

· Double-spaced

· Arial or Time New Roman, 11 pt font

GRADING RUBRIC

CATEGORY	Outstanding	Above Average	Average	Below Average	Unacceptable
Book’s Purpose/Thesis	Purpose of thesis of book is clearly identified (2 pts)	Description of purpose or thesis needed some elaboration (1.5 pts)	Description of purpose or thesis lacked clarity in some areas. (1 pts)	Description of purpose or thesis not clear, needs much elaboration. (.5 pt)	No description of purpose or thesis included (0 pts)
Methodology	Clearly discussed details about methodology (i.e. level of analysis, sample, type of method, etc). (4 pts)	Details about methodology needed some elaboration. (3 pts)	Details about methodology lacked clarity in some areas. (2 pts)	Details about methodology needs much elaboration. (1pts)	Details about methodology not included. (0 pts)
Key Arguments	Clearly key arguments of book (5 pts)	Needed some elaboration on key arguments of book. (4 pts)	Discussion about key arguments lacked clarity in some areas. (3 pts)	Needed significant elaboration on key arguments. (2 pts)	Did not include key arguments from book (0 pts)
Analysis	Clearly analyzed the strengths, weakness and contribution of the book. (8 pts)	Needed some elaboration on the strengths, weakness and contribution of the book. (6 pts)	Lacked clarity in some areas of analysis of the strengths, weakness and contribution of the book. (4 pts)	Need significant elaboration on the strengths, weakness and contribution of the book (2 pts)	Did not analyze the strengths, weakness and contribution of the book. (0 pts)
Author Background	Included information on author’s background, reputation and/or authority in the field. (2 pts)	Need some elaboration on author’s background, reputation and/or authority in the field. (2.5 pts)	Lacked clarity on author’s background, reputation and/or authority in the field. (1.5 pts)	Need significant elaboration on author’s background, reputation and/or authority in the field. (.5 pts)	Did not discuss author’s background, reputation and/or authority in the field. (0 pts)
APA Formatted Citations	Included APA formatted in-text citations and full references for ALL paraphrased and quoted work from other sources. (2 pts)	Minor errors in APA formatting of citations. (1.5 pts)	Multiple errors in APA formatting of citations. (1 pt)	Missing some citations, and errors in APA formatting. (.5 pts)	No citations included. (0 pts)
Grammar & Spelling	Author makes no errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. (2 pts)	Author makes a couple errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. (1.5 pts)	Author makes a few errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. (1 pt)	Author makes multiple errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. (.5 pts)	Authors makes so many errors in grammar and spelling that the intent of the paper can not be understood. (0 pts)