Week 5 — Sociology-in-Action Workshop · "Front Stage / Back Stage"

Course: Introduction to Sociology (SOC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Adeyemi
Objective: Objective 4 — social interaction, status & role, and Goffman's dramaturgy · SLO A (apply theory) & SLO B (reason from evidence)
Worth 50 points · Sociology Workshops group = 15% of the grade · Workshop 5
Mode this week: structured observation/reflection (other weeks alternate with data-interpretation workshops). No special tools — just your own eyes, a browser, and an approved chatbot.

This is the course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one Sociology Workshop. Some weeks you'll read real social data (a chart or table from the Census, Pew, BLS, the World Bank, or Our World in Data); other weeks you'll observe and reflect on your own social world. Either way you'll end by catching an AI's mistakes. All external resources are links — nothing to buy or download.

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you met sociology's most theatrical idea: Erving Goffman's dramaturgy (1959) — the claim that social life is like a performance. We're constantly managing the impressions others form of us (impression management), shifting between the front stage (where we perform for an audience, following social scripts) and the back stage (where we drop the performance to relax or prepare). You also learned that we occupy statuses and play roles, and that a single person can feel role conflict (tension between roles) or role strain (tension within one role).

The guiding question: Where is the front stage and the back stage in a place you already spend time — and what do the "performances" you see (including your own) reveal about the social scripts at work?

This workshop turns the dramaturgy lens on real life. Choose one of two paths below.

---

Part 2 — Choose Your Path

Path A — Observe a real setting (front stage / back stage). Pick one public setting you're already in this week and watch how people's behavior changes between an "onstage" area (performing for an audience) and a "backstage" area (away from that audience). Good options:

• a café or restaurant (the counter/dining floor vs. the kitchen or behind the register)
• your workplace (with customers vs. in the break room)
• a classroom (the instructor "on" while teaching vs. before/after class)
• a store (a salesperson with a shopper vs. restocking or chatting with coworkers)
• a front desk / reception anywhere (greeting visitors vs. between visitors)

Observe ethically (required). Watch only public behavior that anyone present can see. Do not record audio or video, do not photograph people, do not eavesdrop on private or sensitive conversations, and do not enter restricted areas. You are noticing patterns, not surveilling individuals. Keep it respectful and anonymous — no names.

Path B — Map your own statuses & roles (find a role conflict). Prefer to look inward? List the statuses you hold (e.g., student, employee, sibling, friend, teammate, caregiver) and the roles that come with each. Then identify one real role conflict (a clash between two of your roles) OR one real role strain (competing demands within a single role) you've actually felt.

Write your choice in one sentence: "For this workshop I will ______ (observe [setting] / map my own statuses and roles)."

---

Part 3 — Observation & Reflection Scaffold (fill this in)

This is the what-I-observed → which-concept → so-what move. Use the version that matches your path.

If you chose Path A (observe a setting):

Prompt	Your answer
The setting (where, when — public area only)	______
Front-stage behavior I observed (what people did while "performing" for an audience)	______
Back-stage behavior I observed (how the same kind of behavior changed away from that audience)	______
Props / costumes / scripts (uniforms, name tags, set phrases, the layout that marks the "stage")	______
So what? (what does the front/back-stage difference reveal about the social scripts and expectations in this setting?)	______

If you chose Path B (map your statuses & roles):

Prompt	Your answer
My statuses (list several; mark each ascribed or achieved)	______
A status and its role set (one status + the behaviors expected of it)	______
A role conflict OR role strain I've felt (name which, and describe it)	______
Count the roles (conflict = between 2+ roles; strain = within 1 role — show your count)	______
So what? (how does naming this as a structural role tension — not just "being busy" — change how you'd think about it?)	______

---

Part 4 — Connect to the Concept (required)

In a sentence or two each, tie your observation to the week's vocabulary:
1. Name the concept your observation best illustrates (front stage / back stage / impression management — or role conflict / role strain) and say why it fits.
2. If Path A: what social script is the front-stage performance following, and who is the audience? If Path B: is your tension role conflict or strain, and how does counting the roles prove it?
3. Goffman says performing a role is not the same as being fake. In your own words, why is the front-stage "performance" a normal, necessary part of social life rather than dishonesty?

---

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Answer in a sentence or two each:
1. In your own words, what is the difference between the front stage and the back stage? Use your own example.
2. Give one example (from your observation or your life) of impression management — a prop, a costume, or a scripted behavior used to shape how others perceive someone.
3. What's the difference between role conflict and role strain? (Define each by the number of roles involved.)
4. (Optional, if you found any number online about service work, bureaucracy, etc.): what does that statistic show — and what does it not show? Does it prove a cause, or just describe a pattern?

---

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment (required — this is the BYOAI step)

Now bring in your approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) and be the sociologist who checks its work.

1. Describe your observation (or your status/role map) and ask: "Analyze this using Goffman's dramaturgy and the concepts of role conflict and role strain. Tell me which concepts apply, and give me one statistic about emotional labor or front-line service work to support the analysis."
2. Check everything it says against this week's ideas and a real source:
   - Did it correctly apply the concepts — front stage / back stage, and especially role conflict vs. role strain (does it keep them straight, or swap them)? Chatbots frequently blur these two.
   - Did it misattribute a theorist — e.g., credit McDonaldization to Weber (it's Ritzer), or dramaturgy to the wrong person?
   - Did it invent a statistic or a "study"? Search for any number it gives at the source (BLS, Pew). If you can't find it, treat it as fabricated — and say so. (Note: "how much emotional labor" or "how bureaucratic" something is rarely has a single clean measured number.)
   - Did it overgeneralize or stereotype a group of workers, or slide from correlation to causation (e.g., "service workers are unhappy because they perform emotional labor")?
3. Write 3–4 sentences reporting what the AI got right and at least one thing you had to correct, verify, or flag — a role-conflict/role-strain mix-up, a misattribution, an overgeneralization, a correlation-as-causation slip, or a number you couldn't confirm at the source. (If it happened to get everything right, say how you verified each claim — that's the skill.)

The habit all term: the tool drafts, you judge. A chatbot will confidently swap role conflict and role strain or invent a statistic — catching it is the point.

---

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your chosen path (Part 2), your completed scaffold (Part 3), your Part 4 concept connection, your Part 5 answers, and your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph. Due Sunday, Oct 4, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model responses — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students observe their own settings or map their own statuses, so responses vary. The key grades the reasoning — the what-I-observed → which-concept → so-what move, the correct use of front/back stage and role conflict/role strain, and the quality of the AI-critique — not a specific "right" observation.

Model worked example (Path A — a coffee shop):
- Front stage: at the counter, the barista smiles, uses scripted greetings ("Hi, what can I get started for you?"), wears the apron (a costume), and keeps an even, upbeat tone — performing for the customer audience.
- Back stage: in the back room or turned away from customers, the same barista drops the tone, complains about a rush, jokes with a coworker, leans on the counter — the performance is off.
- Props / scripts: the apron and name tag (costumes), the register and menu board (set/props), the standard phrases (script).
- So what? the front/back-stage gap reveals the emotional labor the job's script demands — friendliness is part of the role, performed for an audience, not a measure of the worker's private mood. Naming it as a performance (not fakeness) shows how service interactions are socially produced.

Model worked example (Path B — statuses & roles):
- Statuses: student (achieved), employee (achieved), daughter (ascribed), friend (achieved).
- Role conflict (between roles): "My shift is scheduled for the same evening as a required study session" — two different roles (employee vs. student) pulling apart → role conflict (count: 2 roles).
- Role strain (within one role): "As a team lead I'm supposed to be both a friendly peer and the person who enforces deadlines" — one role with competing internal demands → role strain (count: 1 role).
- So what? seeing it as a structural role tension (not just "I'm overwhelmed") points toward real fixes — renegotiating the schedule, clarifying role expectations — rather than self-blame.

Expected answers:
- Part 4 / Part 5: front stage = performing for an audience following social scripts; back stage = away from that audience, performance dropped. Impression management = using props/costumes/scripts (uniform, gavel, set phrases) to shape perceptions. Role conflict = tension between two or more roles; role strain = tension within a single role (the count-the-roles test). Goffman's point: performing a role is how social life functions — not dishonesty.
- Part 5 Q4 / Part 6: any statistic typically describes a pattern (prevalence/correlation); it usually does not prove a cause. Full credit on Part 6 for a specific catch — most commonly the AI swapping role conflict and role strain, misattributing McDonaldization to Weber, inventing a statistic about emotional labor (unverifiable at the source), overgeneralizing about workers, or asserting a cause from a mere pattern. Full credit also if the student verified each AI claim against a real source and reported how.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Observation / map (Parts 2–3) — a clear, concrete observation of front/back stage OR a real status/role map, ethically gathered (14)	14	7–11	0–5
Concept connection + "so what" (Part 4) — names the right concept accurately and draws a thoughtful implication (12)	12	6–10	0–4
Analysis questions (Part 5) — accurate front/back-stage and role conflict-vs-strain distinctions; correct read of what a statistic does/doesn't show (12)	12	6–10	0–4
AI-critique (Part 6) — names a specific thing checked/corrected: a conflict/strain mix-up, a misattribution, a fabricated stat, an overgeneralization, or a correlation-vs-causation slip (12)	12	6–10	0–4

Quality gate (self-checked): this is an observation/reflection workshop, so it asserts no specific statistic as fact — the only numbers a student might bring in are explicitly conditioned on verifying them at the source (BLS/Pew). The dramaturgy framing (Goffman, 1959), the front-stage/back-stage and impression-management definitions, the status/role and role conflict vs. role strain distinctions, and the theorist attributions (Goffman → dramaturgy; Ritzer → McDonaldization, not Weber) are all accurate and cross-checked against an authoritative source (OpenStax §4.3). The AI-critique explicitly targets the role-conflict/strain mix-up, theorist misattribution, fabricated statistics, overgeneralization/stereotyping, and correlation-vs-causation — the discipline's load-bearing AI risks. No correlation is presented as causation. The observation protocol includes an ethics guard (public behavior only; no recording, photographing, eavesdropping, or restricted areas).