Theoretical framework

Socialization Theory

“Socialization” is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists,

anthropologists, political scientists, and educationalists to refer to the lifelong
process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs, and ideologies,
providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within
his or her own society. Socialization is thus “the means by which social and
cultural continuity are attained.”

Socialization is the means by which human infants begin to acquire the skills
necessary to perform as a functioning member of their society and is the most
influential learning process one can experience. Unlike other living species,
whose behavior is biologically set, humans need social experiences to learn their
culture and to survive. Although cultural variability manifests in the actions,
customs, and behaviors of whole social groups, the most fundamental
expression of culture is found at the individual level. This expression can only
occur after an individual has been socialized by his or her parents, family,
extended family, and extended social networks.

Attachment Theory
Attachment theory is a concept in developmental psychology that concerns the
importance of "attachment" in regards to personal development. Specifically, it
makes the claim that the ability for an individual to form an emotional and
physical "attachment" to another person gives a sense of stability and security
necessary to take risks, branch out, and grow and develop as a personality.
Naturally, attachment theory is a broad idea with many expressions, and the best
understanding of it can be had by looking at several of those expressions in turn.

Psychologist John Bowlby was the first to coin the term. His work in the late 60s
established the precedent that childhood development depended heavily upon a
child's ability to form a strong relationship with "at least one primary caregiver".
Generally speaking, this is one of the parents.

Bowlby's studies in childhood development and "temperament" led him to the

conclusion that a strong attachment to a caregiver provides a necessary sense of
security and foundation. Without such a relationship in place, Bowlby found that a
great deal of developmental energy is expended in the search for stability and
security. In general, those without such attachments are fearful and are less
willing to seek out and learn from new experiences. By contrast, a child with a
strong attachment to a parent knows that they have "back-up" so to speak, and
thusly tend to be more adventurous and eager to have new experiences (which
are of course vital to learning and development).

There is some basis in observational psychology here. The baby who is attached
strongly to a caregiver has several of his or her most immediate needs met and
accounted for. Consequently, they are able to spend a great deal more time
observing and interacting with their environments. Thusly, their development is
facilitated.

For Bowlby, the role of the parent as caregiver grows over time to meet the
particular needs of the attached child. Early on, that role is to be attached to and
provide constant support and security during the formative years. Later, that role
is to be available as the child needs periodic help during their excursions into the
outside world.1

Mary Ainsworth
Mary Ainsworth would develop many of the ideas set forth by Bowlby in her
studies. In particular, she identified the existence of what she calls "attachment
behavior", examples of behavior that are demonstrated by insecure children in
hopes of establishing or re-establishing an attachment to a presently absent
caregiver. Since this behavior occurs uniformly in children, it is a compelling
argument for the existence of "innate" or instinctual behavior in the human
animal.

The study worked by looking at a broad cross-section of children with varying

degrees of attachment to their parents or caregivers from strong and healthy
attachments to weak and tenuous bonds. The children were then separated from
their caregivers and their responses were observed. The children with strong
attachments were relatively calm, seeming to be secure in the belief that their
caregivers would return shortly, whereas the children with weak attachments
would cry and demonstrate great distress under they were restored to their
parents.
Structural Functionalism
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, a British social anthropologist, gave the concept of
social structure a central place in his approach and connected it to the concept
of function. In his view, the components of the social structure have
indispensable functions for one another—the continued existence of the one
component is dependent on that of the others—and for the society as a whole,
which is seen as an integrated, organic entity. His comparative studies of
preliterate societies demonstrated that the interdependence of institutions
regulated much of social and individual life. Radcliffe-Brown defined social
structure empirically as patterned, or “normal,” social relations (those aspects
of social activities that conform to accepted social rules or norms). These rules
bind society’s members to socially useful activities.
American sociologist Talcott Parsons elaborated on the work of Durkheim and
Radcliffe-Brown by using their insights on social structure to formulate a
theory that was valid for large and complex societies. For Parsons, social
structure was essentially normative—that is, consisting of “institutional
patterns of normative culture.” Put differently, social behaviour conforms
to norms, values, and rules that direct behaviour in specific situations. These
norms vary according to the positions of the individual actors: they define
different roles, such as various occupational roles or the roles of husband-father
and wife-mother. Moreover, these norms vary among different spheres of life
and lead to the creation of social institutions—for example, property
and marriage. Norms, roles, and institutions are all components of the social
structure on different levels of complexity. Several ideas are implicit in the
notion of social structure. First, human beings form social relations that
are not arbitrary and coincidental but exhibit some regularity
and continuity. Second, social life is not chaotic and formless but is, in
fact, differentiated into certain groups, positions, and institutions that are
interdependent or functionally interrelated. Third, individual choices are
shaped and circumscribed by the social environment, because social
groups, although constituted by the social activities of individuals, are
not a direct result of the wishes and intentions of the individual
members. The notion of social structure implies, in other words, that
human beings are not completely free and autonomous in their choices
and actions but are instead constrained by the social world they inhabit
and the social relations they form with one another.

References:
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework “sets the stage” for the presentation of the particular
research question that drives the investigation being reported based on the
problem statement. The problem statement of a thesis presents the context and
the issues that caused the researcher to conduct the study. As McGaghie et al.
(2001) put it:

Reference