Introduction to Sociology Assignment Brief Semester 1 2025
| University | South East Technological University (SETU) |
| Subject | Introduction to Sociology |
Part 1: Group Poster
Submission deadline: 21st November 5 pm Turn it in
(PDF upload to Moodle)
Weighting: 25% of overall grade
Task:
In a group of four, produce a research poster (no presentation) on the following topic:
- Pick a vulnerable group that social care workers often engage with (e.g., people experiencing homelessness, disabled people, children in out-of-home care, asylum seekers, Travellers, older adults).
- Identify the everyday challenges that affect this group’s participation in society.
- Using your sociological imagination and concepts/theories from the module, explain the sociological origins of these “personal problems” as public issues.
Your poster should clearly present the group’s challenges and offer theory-informed insights, grounded in reliable evidence.
Are You Searching Answer of this Question? Request Ireland Writers to Write a plagiarism Free Copy for You.
Guidelines:
- Poster format: A2 or A3, landscape; concise text (≤250–300 words), clear visuals (figures/tables), 6–10 references.
- Evidence: Include at least one Irish official statistic (e.g., CSO/Tusla/Pobal) and peer-reviewed sources.
- Group collaboration: Each member must contribute; include a short roles log (who did what) as an appendix page at the end of the PDF.
- Referencing: Harvard (min 6 sources)
- Submission: Upload PDF to Moodle.
Poster and Submission Requirements
Only one person from the group uploads the file
- Poster Content:
a. Include your group number.
b. List all group members’ full names, surnames, and student IDs on the poster. - File Naming for Turnitin Upload:
a. Use the following format for your file name:
group[number] [surname1] [surname2] [surname3].pdf
i. Example: group1 loveikaite hogan obrien.pdf - AI Declaration:
a. Include a clear statement declaring whether or not AI tools were used in the creation of your work, and how they were used if applicable. - Bibliography List:
a. Provide a full and correctly formatted bibliography for all sources referenced in your poster. - Roles Log:
a. Include a brief log of roles and contributions for each group member, describing their individual responsibilities in the project
Part 2: Individual work
Assessment date: 9th Dec 5 pm Turn it in
Weighting: 75% of overall grade
Format: Case study
Word count: 2500-3000
Case Scenarios (choose ONE)
Scenario 1 — Single Parent Experiencing Domestic Violence (DV)
A single mother in a commuter town is separating from an abusive partner. She has a 4-year-old attending ECCE and a 7-year-old in primary school. Recent incidents involved coercive control (financial restriction, monitoring phone/location) and threats. She is considering a refuge but fears school disruption and stigma; family supports are limited due to partner’s isolation tactics. Rent and transport costs are high; she works variable retail hours. She worries disclosure may trigger child protection involvement and is unsure of legal rights and safety planning.
Scenario 2 — Migrant Family Navigating Services
Two-parent migrant family (temporary status) recently moved to Ireland. Children (6 and 10) attend local school. Parents face language barriers, irregular employment, and limited recognition of qualifications. They encounter prejudice in housing viewings and feel surveilled when accessing supports. Cultural foods are expensive/hard to access; community ties are emerging but fragile. They are unclear about entitlements, fear “making a mistake” with paperwork, and report the children experiencing bullying and microaggressions.
Scenario 3 — Homelessness in the Private Rental Crisis
A lone father and 3-year-old were issued a no-fault tenancy termination and now sleep between relatives’ homes and occasional emergency accommodation. Shift work clashes with childcare availability; the toddler’s sleep and feeding have deteriorated. The parent avoids seeking help due to stigma and fears of being seen as “unfit”. Applications for HAP/social housing are underway; transport costs to work and crèche are rising; waiting lists for supports are long.
Section A — Apply Theory to a Current Case
You need to choose one of the above scenarios. Using sociological perspectives (min 2) covered in the module, explain the social problem, focusing on applying sociological theory/concepts discussed in class to show why the issue exists and persists in Irish society and why this matters for social care practice.
Prompts (guide):
- Name 2–3 sociological perspectives
- Apply the perspectives to the case: you may identify structural forces, social/economical/cultural institutions, power relations, culture/values, and/or mechanisms that produce and reproduce the problem in Ireland.
- Relevance for social care: state 3 practice implications (e.g., assessment, advocacy, interprofessional/anti-oppressive practice, empowerment).
Section B — Sociological Imagination & Positionality (reflective short answer)
Using the sociological imagination, reflect on your social identity (gender, age, ethnicity/race, social class etc) in relation to the social problem. Explain how your perspective is shaped by cultural and social values (e.g., classed, gendered, ethnic, professional, generational norms) and analyse the implications of those values for your relationships with people experiencing the issue (e.g., empathy, prejudice/bias, boundaries, power, collaboration, language and/or discrimination).
Guidelines:
- Use Harvard referencing system
- Your statements must be supported with academic sources
- At the end of your assignment provide reference list in alphabetical order
- Include AI declaration
- Use academic formatting: times new roman, size 12, justified alignment, 1.5 spacing
Get Solution of this Assessment. Hire Experts to solve this assignment for you Before Deadline.
Grading Rubric — Part 1 (Score out of 100; scaled to 25%)
| Criterion | First (≥70) | Upper Second (60–69) | Lower Second (50–59) | Pass (40–49) | Fail (<40) |
| Focus & Definition of Group/Problem | Vulnerable group precisely defined; everyday challenges scoped with nuance and appropriate Irish context. | Clear definition and scope; minor omissions or limited nuance. | Generally clear but somewhat broad/implicit; some contextual gaps. | Basic identification; lacks clarity or relevance to participation in society. | Misidentified/unclear group or challenges; off‑task. |
| Use of Evidence (incl. Irish official statistic) | Integrates high‑quality peer‑reviewed sources and at least one relevant Irish official statistic; sources critically appraised and directly support claims. | Strong use of peer‑reviewed sources and Irish stat; limited critical appraisal. | Adequate sources; Irish stat present but weakly integrated; descriptive. | Minimal sources; Irish stat missing or poorly linked; over‑reliance on general websites. | Insufficient/irrelevant sources; no Irish stat; unsupported claims. |
| Theoretical Framing & Sociological Imagination | Explains how ‘personal troubles’ arise from public issues using module concepts/theories; shows mechanisms (structure, power, institutions, intersectionality). | Appropriate theories applied with clear links to public issues; some mechanism detail. | Theories identified; application mostly descriptive; limited linkage to mechanisms. | Superficial theory mentions; weak connection to public issues. | Absent/incorrect theory; no sociological imagination evident. |
| Analysis & Insight | Concise, insightful interpretations; Irish policy/service context considered; coherent argument. | Good analysis with minor gaps; some policy/practice linkage. | Mixed analysis; assertions sometimes unsubstantiated; limited policy linkage. | Largely descriptive; few analytical insights. | No analysis; inaccurate or misleading interpretation. |
| Visual Communication & Design | ≤300 words; visuals (figures/tables/infographics) are accurate, legible, and add meaning; layout professional & accessible (alt‑text/labels). | Clear visuals and layout; minor crowding or redundancy. | Readable but busy; visuals partially relevant or small. | Cluttered/low readability; visuals decorative only; poor sizing. | Non‑compliant format; illegible or missing visuals. |
| Referencing (Harvard) | 6–10 in‑text citations & reference list formatted consistently; all claims traceable. | Minor Harvard/style errors; overall consistent. | Noticeable inconsistencies; some missing page numbers/DOIs. | Frequent errors; incomplete traceability. | Inadequate/absent referencing; academic integrity concerns. |
| Group Collaboration (Roles Log) | Clear, credible roles log evidencing equitable contributions and collaboration. | Roles log present; minor detail gaps. | Roles log basic; equity unclear. | Roles log minimal/late. | No roles log or indicates non‑participation. |
| Professionalism & Submission Compliance | All instructions followed (A2/A3, landscape, PDF, file‑naming); polished language. | Minor formatting or language issues. | Some non‑critical non‑compliance. | Multiple non‑compliances; weak proofreading. | Major non‑compliance; difficult to mark. |
Grading Rubric — Part 2: Case-Study
| Criterion | First (≥70) | Upper Second (60–69) | Lower Second (50–59) | Pass (40–49) | Fail (<40) | ||||||
| Criterion | First (≥70) | Upper Second (60–69) | Lower Second (50–59) | Pass (40–49) | Fail (<40) | ||||||
| 1. Introduction, Thesis, Referencing, Style & Grammar (incl. Harvard & formatting) | Precise, succinct case framing and a clear, arguable thesis signposting mechanisms and practice relevance. Harvard referencing is correct and consistent in-text and in the reference list; sources are appropriate and integrated smoothly. Style is academic, cohesive, and concise; grammar, spelling, and punctuation are accurate; formatting follows guidance (Times New Roman 12, 1.5 spacing, justified) with excellent consistency. | Clear introduction and defensible thesis; minor gaps in signposting. Harvard mostly correct with only minor inconsistencies. Academic style with good flow; a few grammar/spelling issues not impeding meaning; formatting largely compliant. | Adequate introduction; thesis broad or somewhat implicit. Harvard used but with recurrent minor errors (e.g., author–date mismatches, inconsistent bibliography entries). Style readable but uneven; several grammar/spelling issues; noticeable formatting lapses. | Vague or underdeveloped introduction; thesis unclear. Harvard referencing inconsistent or incomplete (missing some citations or list entries). Style colloquial or repetitive; frequent grammar/spelling errors affecting clarity; formatting only partially follows guidance. | No coherent introduction or thesis. Harvard absent or incorrect (systematically misapplied or missing in-text citations and/or bibliography). Style non-academic/disjointed; pervasive grammar/spelling errors impede understanding; formatting non-compliant. | ||||||
| 2. Selection & Justification of Two Theories | Two distinct theories precisely named/defined (key concepts/authors); compelling rationale for case relevance. | Accurate identification/brief definition; rationale mostly sound. | Correctly named; thin/partial definitions; generic rationale. | Basic listing with minimal rationale; minor conflation of theories. | Incorrect/missing theories or serious conflation. | ||||||
| 3. Theory-in-Action: Irish Structures, Power & Mechanisms | Insightful mechanism-level application to Irish context; shows how structures/institutions, power (classed/gendered/racialised) & norms reproduce the problem; integrates scenario cues. | Clear application with Irish relevance; mechanisms stated, some depth gaps. | Mostly descriptive with intermittent mechanism claims; Irish link present but uneven. | Surface description; weak mechanism logic; limited Irish specificity. | Misapplies theory; no meaningful mechanism analysis or Irish link. | ||||||
| 4. Integration/Contrast Between Theories | Shows complementarity/tensions; explains what each theory illuminates/limits for this case. | Some integration/contrast; minor missed opportunities. | Basic juxtaposition; limited synthesis. | Minimal cross-reference; mostly parallel summaries. | No integration; unrelated or contradictory uses. | ||||||
| 5. Use of Case Evidence (text/tables/cues) | Selects salient details; interprets accurately; evidence tightly underpins claims. | Generally accurate interpretation; occasional selection/interpretation lapses. | Adequate but uneven selection; some inaccuracies. | Limited or generic evidence; weak links to claims. | Misreads/ignores evidence; unsupported assertions. | ||||||
| 6. Practice Implications & Social Care Values | Three specific, feasible actions directly derived from analysis; each explicitly tied to named social care values (e.g., rights, dignity, self-determination, equity, anti-oppressive, cultural humility, trauma-informed, interagency) with expected outcomes. | Three clear actions; values mostly explicit; link to analysis mostly sound. | Two–three general actions; values partly explicit; partial derivation from analysis. | Vague or generic actions; values implicit; weak derivation. | Missing, inappropriate, or unsafe actions; no value linkage. | ||||||
| 7. Social Identity Statement (Section B) | Concise, relevant articulation of social location/experiences; nuanced and pertinent to case. | Clear statement; minor depth gaps. | Adequate but formulaic; limited specificity. | Superficial; tenuous relevance. | Absent or unrelated. | ||||||
| 8. Positionality Analysis: How Identity Shapes Reading (Section B) | Analyses how classed/gendered/racialised/professional norms shape interpretation; recognises bias, power, language, boundaries. | Good analysis; some discussion of bias/power. | Partial analysis; limited engagement with bias/power. | Descriptive self-report; minimal analysis. | No analysis; uncritical stance. | ||||||
| 9. Practice-Relationship Implications (Section B) | Concrete implications for collaboration, empathy, boundaries, anti-discriminatory & trauma-informed practice in Irish settings. | Clear implications; minor specificity gaps. | General implications; partial contextualisation. | Vague implications; weak practice linkage. | Absent or inappropriate. | ||||||
Stuck in Completing this Assignment and feeling stressed ? Take our Private Writing Services
Writing sociology assignments on vulnerable groups, homelessness, or migration can be tough when theory and Irish context must align. Our experts at Ireland Assignments provide introduction to sociology assignment, theory-based Social Care Case Study Support, and professional Assignment Writing Services Ireland — all 100 % AI-free, plagiarism-free, and Harvard-referenced for high grades.
