Parsons' approach seems a bit mechanistic today. Maybe Luhmann would fit better - he actualizes Parsons in a way that grasps `reality´ better - or at least the different social spheres (`systems´) that relate to each other in certain ways.

In general, I would say functionalism is quite dead - and there are good reasons for it. If you care for conflict, there is actually a whole branch of sociology (`sociology of conflict´) specializing on it. I, personally, prefer more down-to-earth approaches: why not start with social movements, that is actors that usually have to do with most conflicts? 

I think the theory of functionalism is very much alive for example in the education system, where the functions of an institution intended to give a non-confrontational vision. That is, functionalism theory predicts that each is in the rightful place, in this way the conflict is impossible.

If you really want to do a conflict analysis should review the sociology of conflict. I agree with the previous speaker.

Functionalist serve as a morphostatic force or balance to morphogenesis in society. Functionalist believe society consist of a stable system of interrelated parts of individuals, institutions and structures. These structures serve social functions that contribute and work together to promote social stability and a unified whole.

Complex adaptive transformation sciences view increasing Complexity in open, viable systems as healthy and maintain that health by balancing flows between sameness, rigidity, order and predictability on the one hand and change, randomness, chaos, and unpredictability on the other. Morphostasis (Ms) describes a system’s tendency to strive toward stability, a state of dynamic equilibrium. Morphogenesis (Mg) refers to the generating behavior that allows for growth, creativity, innovation, and change, all of which are characteristic of sustaining systems. In well-functioning systems both Ms and Mg are necessary (Anderson & Guernsey, 1985).

Cybernetics suggests that change cannot be found without a roof of stability over its head. Similarly, stability will always be rooted to processes of change. An overemphasis on one over the other threatens the system’s well being (Becvar & Becvar, 1996). In Complexity, systems move back and forth from states of chaos to organization to chaos in order to strive for maximum organization. In both cases, however, it is a balance between recursion and constraint that either change occurs or stability is maintained. What most people do not understand is that with each change, a system must destabilize in order to restructure itself at a higher level of functioning (Schein, 2004). There is a natural tension with which we must adapt, but such adaptation constructs the most stable, flexible, and adaptive systems. Thus, Functionalist serve the stabilizing portions of social systems.

I would recommend to distinguish between the functional structuralism (Parsons) and functionalist approaches in the social sciences in general. The latter one could be reduced to two axioms: 1) society and human behavior does not produce problems but solutions for problems. The underlying assumption is that social systems operate in the "medium of meaning"and communicative or interactional behaviour "makes sense", though there is no moral implication, at all. "Meaningful" behavior can (and more than often is, as we know) the opposite of meaningful in the moral sense of the word or according to our everyday's notion.

2) = social constructivism: Neither problems nor solutions can be perceived. There ARE no problems and solutions. Rather, "problem-solution" is the observation mode of the functionalist observer. The common alternative is causality (cause-effect). This is why functionalist approaches are (thankfully) on the rise in pedagogy. Then, a certain behavior of a child is not observed as a problem, nor do we KNOW it's cause (that would be causal explanation) but we are forced to interpret the child's behavior as a production of meaning. Even if this behavior seems to be clearly destructive. This leads to a respectful, reflective and dialogic practice.

thank you very much for your feedback.  I'll expand my research view substantially.

The Functionalist paradigm holds an objective view of reality, concerned with explaining how organizations and society maintain order, Burrell and Morgan (1979). 

Positivism, which is one view as to how knowledge is created and which is highly favoured by researchers,  theorizes that behaviour can be predicted and that cause-and-effect relationships are clear and pervasive Burrell and Morgan (1979). 

Functionalism strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social whole over the individual parts (human actors).  This  contrasts sharply with the Interpretivist paradigm which holds a subjective view of reality and its anti-positivist epistemology which is concerned with explaining individuals’ perception of organizations and society and which seeks to understand the subjective individual and organizational processes that shape and control behaviour. 

In the interpretivist paradigm, explanations of human behaviour and all aspects of organizational life, are socially constructed, also known as  the perspective of constructivism.   Consequently, to understand the processes that constructed an individual’s behaviour, researchers must gather data that reveal an individual’s subjective experiences, the interpretive lenses that give meaning to that experience, as well as the organizational factors and contexts that create these expressions. 

Knowledge therefore flows from the objectivist or subjectivist metal frames of individuals.   Individuals construct "small-scale models", in their minds, of the entities and relationships which they perceive to form the external reality in order to anticipate and explain events, Craik, (1943). 

Ffunctionalists take an objective perspective and tend to have a realist ontology, a positivist epistemology, a deterministic vew of individuals, and a nomothetic methodology.   Interpretivists  on the other hand, take a subjective perspective and tend to have a nominalist ontology, an anti-positivist epistemology, a voluntarist view of individuals, and a ideograpic methodology, (Grant and Perrin, 2002). 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236941623_Building_a_knowledge_society_one_individual_at_a_time_a_multi-level_review

Working Paper Building a knowledge society one individual at a time: a mul...

Both functionalist perspectives and conflict theory perspectives are useful.  The part of functionalism that focuses on the basic institutions of society, how they are structured, what they do, etc., gets away from a solely individualistic view of social reality.  I.e., society is not just a collection of individuals, but also has patterns and organization, partly through the "institutions" -- class, family, work, government,culture etc.  Its original form did not pay much attention to conflict.  Some forms of conflict theory look at the struggles for control of scarce and desired resources (money, prestige, land, etc.) which are extremely important for understanding what goes on.