You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Of all the methods you will be asked to apply to education, the interview is the one where the human encounter itself becomes the research instrument — and that is exactly why it is so revealing and so treacherous in a school. An interview involves a researcher asking questions directly of a participant, but the data it yields is co-produced in a relationship: between an adult and a child, between an outsider and a professional, between someone with a clipboard and someone who suspects they are being judged. In education the parties to that relationship are unusually unequal and the topics unusually sensitive, so the very rapport that makes interviews powerful can curdle into deference, performance or guardedness. This lesson takes the interview method — structured, unstructured, semi-structured and group — and runs it through the PET framework (Practical, Ethical, Theoretical), always asking how the distinctive characteristics of educational research (the vulnerability and literacy of pupils, the social-desirability pressures on teachers, the timetable and hierarchy of schools, peer pressure in groups, the consent rights of parents) reshape each strength and limitation. Above all it trains the exam skill the 20-mark Methods in Context question rewards: hooking every methodological point to the specific education topic and the specific Item.
This lesson develops the application of interviews within the Methods in Context question on AQA A-Level Sociology (7192), Paper 1: Education with Theory and Methods (7192/1). That question is worth 20 marks, sits as the penultimate question on the paper, and is assessed against all three Assessment Objectives with an unusually heavy AO2 (application) weighting — roughly half the marks reward the explicit, sustained linking of methods knowledge to the named education topic and the Item. Interviews are among the most frequently examined methods because the contrast between their high validity and low reliability maps so cleanly onto the positivism–interpretivism debate. This lesson trains you to specify the type of interview, evaluate it through PET for a named education topic, and tie every point to the Item — the precise behaviour the mark scheme credits.
Methods in Context is the most synoptic question on Paper 1, and interviews draw the three strands together tightly:
The single most important move in an interviews answer is to specify the type, because their PET profiles diverge sharply. A point that is true of unstructured interviews is often false of structured ones.
| Type | What it is | Data | Theoretical home |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structured interview | Pre-set questions, fixed order, read from a schedule | Mainly quantitative | Positivist (reliability, comparability) |
| Semi-structured interview | Prepared questions plus freedom to probe and follow up | Mixed | Pragmatic / either tradition |
| Unstructured interview | A guided conversation around a theme; no fixed wording | Qualitative | Interpretivist (validity, verstehen) |
| Group interview / focus group | Several participants together; researcher facilitates interaction | Qualitative | Interpretivist; useful for peer dynamics |
Key Definition: Unstructured interview — an interview conducted without a fixed set of questions, allowing the conversation to develop naturally; the interviewer holds a general theme but is free to pursue what emerges. Also called an informal or in-depth interview.
Key Definition: Interviewer effect — the tendency for the interviewer's own characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, class, perceived authority) and conduct (tone, expression, leading questions) to shape the responses given. In schools this is sharpened because an adult questioner can be read by pupils as a teacher figure.
Practical issues concern whether the interview can actually be done inside a school. Access must be negotiated through layered gatekeepers — head teacher, then the teacher who must release a pupil from a lesson — and heads are often reluctant to lose teaching time for research with no direct benefit to the school. Time is the defining constraint: a single unstructured interview may run 30–60 minutes plus transcription, which collides head-on with 50–60 minute lessons, term-time-only windows and exam seasons; structured interviews fit the school day far more comfortably. Location is scarce — schools are busy and noisy, a quiet private room is hard to find, and a child interviewed in an office may be intimidated while a corridor offers no privacy. Safeguarding requires that a researcher is rarely alone with a child, so a second adult may need to be present — which itself dampens candour. And the characteristics of the group matter enormously: young children have short attention spans and limited vocabulary for abstract questions; EAL pupils may struggle with idiom; teenagers may be monosyllabic with an unfamiliar adult.
Because most education topics centre on children — a vulnerable group — the ethical bar is high. Informed consent is doubly complicated: pupils may not grasp what participation involves, and parental consent is usually required, which excludes the children of non-responding parents. Power dynamics are acute: a pupil interviewed by an adult may experience it as a quasi-interrogation by a teacher and answer compliantly or defensively, so consent that looks voluntary may be coerced by the setting. Sensitive topics (bullying, bereavement, racism, family breakdown, academic failure) can cause distress, and unlike a questionnaire the face-to-face encounter can re-traumatise — though it also lets a skilled interviewer notice distress and stop. Confidentiality collides with safeguarding: if a pupil discloses abuse or self-harm, the researcher's duty to report overrides any promise of confidentiality, so participants must be told at the outset that confidentiality has limits.
Theoretically, the interview's signature strength is validity. Unstructured and semi-structured interviews let participants speak in their own words and let the researcher probe beneath surface answers, yielding the rich, meaning-centred data interpretivists seek and the verstehen — empathetic understanding — that a tick-box can never reach. Flexibility allows the unexpected to surface (a pupil mentions an incident of teacher racism; the researcher pursues it). But the cost is reliability: every unstructured interview is a unique encounter, impossible to replicate, which positivists reject as unscientific. Representativeness is weak because depth limits sample size — twenty interviews in one school cannot speak for the nation. And interviewer bias / social desirability threatens validity from the other side: teachers may understate labelling to look professional; pupils may overstate commitment to school or underreport deviance.
Key Definition: Verstehen — a German term for empathetic understanding. Interpretivists argue research should grasp the meanings and motives behind action, not merely describe behaviour from the outside; the in-depth interview is their characteristic tool.
| PET strand | Structured interview in the school | Unstructured interview in the school |
|---|---|---|
| Practical | Quick (15–20 min), fits a lesson; minimal training | Long (30–60+ min), hard to timetable; needs skill, transcription |
| Ethical | Formality may feel like a test, deterring pupils | Rapport eases disclosure but can blur professional boundaries with minors |
| Theoretical | Reliable, comparable, low validity (fixed wording) | High validity and verstehen, low reliability and representativeness |
The reason interviews need their own Methods in Context treatment, rather than generic praise for validity, is that schools warp the interview relationship in specific ways.
Example: Paul Willis's Learning to Labour (1977) combined participant observation with group interviews to understand "the lads'" anti-school subculture. The group format suited a culture that was collective and performed for peers — but Willis needed sustained immersion first to win the trust of a group suspicious of authority; a formal one-off interview by an unfamiliar adult would have met bravado, not candour.
Example: Louise Archer and Becky Francis (2007) used semi-structured interviews with British Chinese pupils and their parents to explore achievement and identity, allowing participants to frame experience in their own words. The researchers had to build trust carefully, especially with younger participants — illustrating both the validity payoff and the rapport labour that interviews in education demand.
Evaluation in Methods in Context is never a separate paragraph; it is a habit of weighing each point for the specific topic in the Item. The recurring questions are:
The mark of a Top-band evaluation is that it resolves these tensions for the named topic rather than listing them, and often lands on a conditional judgement (suitable in principle for this meaning-centred topic, but constrained by social desirability, hence pair with observation).
Item C
Sociologists are interested in why some girls underachieve in particular subjects, such as physics and computing, even when their results in other subjects are strong. Girls may be reluctant to admit that they avoid these subjects because they see them as "for boys", and their reasons are often bound up with friendships, teachers' comments and a sense of what is normal for someone like them. Such feelings are personal and may be hard for girls to put into words, especially to an unfamiliar adult.
Applying material from Item C and your knowledge of research methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of using unstructured interviews to investigate girls' subject choices. (20 marks)
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.