Lily Hallmark- RAWRRRRR 20/20
Unstructured interviews are a method in which sociologists have complete freedom to vary
the interview, it is more of a guided conversation in contrast to a set of structured,
standardised questions like in a structured interview. This means that the interview can freely
adapt the questions as the interview progresses, providing more of an opportunity to gain
valuable, qualitative information about the participant’s experiences or opinions on the
chosen topic of streaming. Because the researcher is able to gain this better insight to the
participant’s ‘verstehen’ or experience, it is a favoured method from interpretivist
sociologists. As item C states, unstructured interviews are ‘often effective in exploring
interviewees’ personal feelings about sensitive subjects’ - which possibly makes them an
appropriate choice of method when investigating streaming.
One strength of using unstructured interviews is the fact that researchers have the ability to
develop a rapport with their respondents, a relationship of trust and understanding with the
interviewee, as a result of the informality and leaninace of an unstructured interview. This is
particularly useful when investigating sensitive topics such as streaming because pupils are
more likely to be resistant and hesitant in discussing their experience with streaming with
educational professionals such as their teachers, so by developing this rapport researchers
may be able to gain more honest and valid information from these pupils. For example, in
Labov’s (1983) study of language amongst black American children - he found that in a
formal, structured setting, the children were more likely to become ‘tongue-tied’ compared to
an informal, unstructured setting where the children opened up to him and spoke freely, thus
providing more honest, valid insights. This rapport and informal setting thus makes it easier
for the researcher to discuss sensitive subjects because this informality may make the
interviewee feel more comfortable when discussing sensitive topics, in this case it being how
the pupils perceive themselves as a result of them being streamed. This is extremely
important to develop as many students in the lower streams have been defined as being
‘less intelligent’ than their peers so it is important to approach this topic with sensitivity, as
streaming may have impacted the peer’s self-image, self-esteem, and their attitudes towards
education. Nevertheless, there are still limitations when it comes to building a rapport with
the students. As Bell (1981) states, the inequalities in the power dynamics between the
interviewer and interviewee may be reflective of the inequalities between a professional and
a pupil in the school hierarchical structure, almost like the researcher is a ‘teacher in
disguise’. For example, Rich (1968) shows that when adults interview children, the child’s
need to please the interviewer will always impact their answer. So, if the pupil does not wish
to discuss their experience of streaming to an educational professional, they may not wish to
share this with someone who is reflective of a teacher’s status. The pupil may not wish to
participate at all, they may lie or exaggerate, or even seek to please when answering
questions, all resulting in untruthful data thus reducing the validity of the data.
A further limitation of using unstructured interviews to investigate streaming is that schools
may be reluctant to allow sociologists to conduct interviews during lesson times because of
the disruptions to learning times that will be caused, also because they object to the concept
the researcher wishes to interview children about. For example, in Field’s (1987) study of
pupils’ experiences of sex and health education in schools had a relevantly high refusal rate
of 29%, mainly because of parents withholding their consent due to the chosen topic.
Because streaming is a particularly sensitive subject for schools as a whole, the
Unstructured interviews are a method in which sociologists have complete freedom to vary
the interview, it is more of a guided conversation in contrast to a set of structured,
standardised questions like in a structured interview. This means that the interview can freely
adapt the questions as the interview progresses, providing more of an opportunity to gain
valuable, qualitative information about the participant’s experiences or opinions on the
chosen topic of streaming. Because the researcher is able to gain this better insight to the
participant’s ‘verstehen’ or experience, it is a favoured method from interpretivist
sociologists. As item C states, unstructured interviews are ‘often effective in exploring
interviewees’ personal feelings about sensitive subjects’ - which possibly makes them an
appropriate choice of method when investigating streaming.
One strength of using unstructured interviews is the fact that researchers have the ability to
develop a rapport with their respondents, a relationship of trust and understanding with the
interviewee, as a result of the informality and leaninace of an unstructured interview. This is
particularly useful when investigating sensitive topics such as streaming because pupils are
more likely to be resistant and hesitant in discussing their experience with streaming with
educational professionals such as their teachers, so by developing this rapport researchers
may be able to gain more honest and valid information from these pupils. For example, in
Labov’s (1983) study of language amongst black American children - he found that in a
formal, structured setting, the children were more likely to become ‘tongue-tied’ compared to
an informal, unstructured setting where the children opened up to him and spoke freely, thus
providing more honest, valid insights. This rapport and informal setting thus makes it easier
for the researcher to discuss sensitive subjects because this informality may make the
interviewee feel more comfortable when discussing sensitive topics, in this case it being how
the pupils perceive themselves as a result of them being streamed. This is extremely
important to develop as many students in the lower streams have been defined as being
‘less intelligent’ than their peers so it is important to approach this topic with sensitivity, as
streaming may have impacted the peer’s self-image, self-esteem, and their attitudes towards
education. Nevertheless, there are still limitations when it comes to building a rapport with
the students. As Bell (1981) states, the inequalities in the power dynamics between the
interviewer and interviewee may be reflective of the inequalities between a professional and
a pupil in the school hierarchical structure, almost like the researcher is a ‘teacher in
disguise’. For example, Rich (1968) shows that when adults interview children, the child’s
need to please the interviewer will always impact their answer. So, if the pupil does not wish
to discuss their experience of streaming to an educational professional, they may not wish to
share this with someone who is reflective of a teacher’s status. The pupil may not wish to
participate at all, they may lie or exaggerate, or even seek to please when answering
questions, all resulting in untruthful data thus reducing the validity of the data.
A further limitation of using unstructured interviews to investigate streaming is that schools
may be reluctant to allow sociologists to conduct interviews during lesson times because of
the disruptions to learning times that will be caused, also because they object to the concept
the researcher wishes to interview children about. For example, in Field’s (1987) study of
pupils’ experiences of sex and health education in schools had a relevantly high refusal rate
of 29%, mainly because of parents withholding their consent due to the chosen topic.
Because streaming is a particularly sensitive subject for schools as a whole, the
