Contemporary political sociology involves, but is not limited to, the study of the relations between state and society. Where a typical research question in political sociology might have been: "Why do so few American citizens choose to vote?" or even, "What difference does it make if women get elected?" political sociologists also now ask: "How is the body a site of power?", "How are emotions relevant to global poverty?" or "What difference does knowledge make to democracy?"

The opening up of political sociology does not mean that old topics have been discarded. Traditionally there were four main areas of research:

In other words, political sociology was traditionally concerned with how social trends, dynamics, and structures of domination affect formal political processes, as well as exploring how various social forces work together to change political policies. From this perspective we can identify three major theoretical frameworks: pluralism, elite or managerial theory, and class analysis (which overlaps with Marxist analysis). Pluralism sees politics primarily as a contest among competing interest groups. Elite or managerial theory is sometimes called a state-centered approach. It explains what the state does by looking at constraints from organizational structure, semi—autonomous state managers, and interests that arise from the state as a unique, power concentrating organization. A leading representative is Theda Skocpol. Social class theory analysis emphasizes the political power of capitalist elites. It can be split into two parts. One is the 'power structure' or 'instrumentalist' approach, another is the structuralist approach. The power structure approach focuses on 'Who Rules?' and its most well-known representative is G. William Domhoff. The structuralist approach emphasizes on the way a capitalist economy operates; only allowing and encouraging the state to do some things but not others (Nicos Poulantzas, Bob Jessop).