Loading…
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select a social phenomenon and apply a named social theory to explain it
4 weeks
Select a real, observable social phenomenon — gentrification in a specific city, the rise of populist politics, the persistence of racial occupational segregation, digital platform labour, or social movement mobilisation — and apply a named social theory (Bourdieusian field theory, critical race theory, feminist standpoint theory, structuration theory, world-systems theory, or Foucauldian biopolitics) to explain it. The theory must produce specific explanatory claims about this phenomenon — not just provide a vocabulary.
Proof required
Theory application document (700+ words) identifying the real phenomenon with evidence of its existence, naming the social theory and explaining its core concepts, applying the theory to produce at least three specific explanatory claims about the phenomenon, and explaining what the theory reveals that a non-theory account misses.
What gets checked
Common mistakes
Powstik Guide
A 700-word application of a named theory to a real phenomenon.
Steps
Template
Phenomenon (evidence): Theory: Explanation: What it misses:
What gets sent back
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Identify theoretical limitations and apply a competing framework
3 weeks
Identify at least two specific limitations of the M1 theory's explanation of this phenomenon — what does it leave unexplained, what does it explain away rather than genuinely explain, what are the empirical anomalies? Apply a competing theoretical framework to the same phenomenon and explain what it accounts for that the M1 theory does not. The competing framework must be named and applied, not just described.
Proof required
Theoretical limitations and competing framework document (500+ words) identifying at least two specific limitations of the M1 theory's explanation of this phenomenon, applying a competing named framework to produce at least two explanatory claims, and explaining what the competing framework accounts for that M1 does not.
What gets checked
Common mistakes
Powstik Guide
Your theory's limits, and a rival framework applied.
Steps
Template
Limits of theory 1 for this case 1. 2. Rival framework: Claim 1: Claim 2: What the rival explains that theory 1 doesn't:
What gets sent back
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Defend theory application under social theory academic challenge
1 week
Present the theory application and competing framework analysis to a social theory academic, sociologist, or social science researcher. The reviewer must challenge specific theoretical applications — 'you're applying Bourdieu's field theory here but you've conflated field and habitus — how do you distinguish them in your analysis?', 'your competing framework explains more of the phenomenon but at the cost of explanatory parsimony — how do you weight that?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's social theory or social science credentials, at least three specific challenges to theory application or comparison with responses, and any analysis updates committed to.
What gets checked
Common mistakes
Powstik Guide
Your theory application, challenged by a social theorist.
Steps
Template
Challenge session log Date: Duration: Reviewer name: Reviewer role and credentials: Challenge 1 (a concept application): What they asked: My answer: Did it hold? Challenge 2: What they asked: My answer: Did it hold? Challenge 3: What they asked: My answer: Did it hold? Update I am committing to:
What gets sent back
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.