Last Updated on October 16, 2026 by Karl Thompson
Semi-structured interviews are probably the most common primary qualitative research method in the sociology of education, and many studies use them. In this post I explain briefly what they are, then focus on one study that used them with working-class girls in London schools, followed by an evaluation of the methods and how you can use the study in the exam. The summary of the study is adapted from the textbook Sociology Since 2000.
What are semi-structured interviews?
A semi-structured interview has a set of questions or topics the researcher wants to cover, but the interviewer is free to change the order, rephrase questions and ask follow-up questions depending on how the respondent answers. They sit between structured interviews (fixed questions, asked the same way every time) and unstructured interviews (more like a guided conversation).
That gives them a useful balance. They keep enough structure to compare answers across respondents, which helps reliability, while leaving enough flexibility to explore what people mean, which helps validity. HOWEVER, they still take a lot of time, need a skilled interviewer, and are open to interviewer bias and socially desirable answers.
For semi-structured interviews in more depth, and how they compare with other types of interview, see Interviews in Social Research. For interviews in schools more generally, see Using Interviews to Research Education.
Archer, Halsall and Hollingworth (2007): working-class girls and education
Class, Gender, (Hetero)Sexuality and Schooling: Paradoxes Within Working-Class Girls’ Engagement with Education and Post-16 Aspirations by Louise Archer, Anna Halsall and Sumi Hollingworth, published in the British Journal of Sociology of Education (2007).
Context
Working-class girls may not be doing as badly at school as working-class boys, but a significant number still leave school at 16 with few or no qualifications. To explain this, feminists have drawn attention to two processes. First, while at school, working-class girls may resist schooling through a subculture built around a hyper-heterosexual identity, focused on sexuality, dress and appearance, which often leads to conflict with teachers who see this behaviour as deviant. Second, a number of studies suggest that working-class girls’ choices are shaped by the expectation of leaving school at 16 to work locally, settle down in a heterosexual relationship and have children.
Methods
The study was part of a two-year research project with 14 to 16 year olds in London whose schools had identified them as at risk of dropping out of education at 16. The researchers used a multi-method, mainly qualitative approach:
- semi-structured interviews with 89 pupils aged 14 to 16, in six London comprehensive schools serving working-class areas with severe economic and social deprivation. The sample was made up of pupils their schools had identified as at risk of leaving education at 16, and included boys and girls from a range of ethnic backgrounds, although over half were White
- discussion groups with a further 36 pupils
- photographic diaries, completed by eight of the girls, focusing on their everyday activities and interests
- semi-structured interviews with 19 members of staff and a small sample of five parents
Findings
Most of the girls were keen to be seen as “desirable” and “glamorous”. They spent a great deal of time and effort on their hair, make-up and clothes to construct what the researchers called a “sexualised hyper-feminine identity”. The girls saw this “work” as far more important than the academic work the school demanded, and their photo diaries were full of their favourite glamour products.
The girls built their look by combining styles from a range of sources, such as sport, Black culture and global brands: for example, mixing Black urban US styles (notably “bling”) with sportswear such as Nike trainers and tracksuits, and hyper-feminine “sexy” clothes, make-up and hairstyles. This identity gave them a form of cultural power, which they used to resist school rules on uniform, and it brought them status with their peer group and boyfriends.
HOWEVER, this identity often brought them into conflict with the school. Girls were frequently told off for not meeting the school’s standards of appearance, and teachers often challenged them about putting on make-up or doing their hair in lessons.
The interviews with staff suggested that teachers saw the girls’ appearance as the opposite of a “good pupil”. They generally saw working-class girls’ appearance as inappropriately “sexual” and a distraction from learning. Middle-class pupils, by contrast, were seen as “ideal pupils”: high-achieving, hard-working, rule-following and respectable.
The researchers found that peer-group pressure was mainly responsible for this version of working-class femininity. Whether a girl was included in or excluded from her peer group depended on getting her style and appearance right, and most girls wanted to avoid being mocked and called a “tramp” for wearing the “wrong” trainers or clothes. Many said they wanted to leave school and start work to earn the money to keep up with fashion. Boyfriends also had a strong negative effect on girls’ engagement with school: girls with boyfriends had lower aspirations and attainment, and many said they wanted to leave school to live with or marry their boyfriend.
Evaluation of the methods
Strengths
- The study’s main strength is its multi-method approach, gathering a range of qualitative data over a two-year period. Following pupils over time allowed the researchers to identify trends and track how pupils developed in their relationships with teachers and peers.
- The sample appears to be representative of “at risk” pupils in London.
- The depth of the data from both teachers and pupils suggests the researchers managed to gain the trust of both groups. For the pupils, guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality helped.
Limitations
- Further research would be needed to find out whether the findings apply to other parts of the UK, because the cultures and kinds of deprivation found in London may be different from those elsewhere.
- The group discussions produced a lot of qualitative data, but its validity may have been affected by peer pressure and fear of ridicule or exclusion. If the discussions weren’t carefully managed, some pupils may have imposed their interpretation of school on the others.
- Like all interview data, the girls’ and teachers’ accounts are what they chose to tell the researchers. That’s why the photo diaries were useful: they gave the researchers evidence from the girls’ everyday lives that didn’t depend on what they said in an interview.
Using this study in the exam
In research methods and Methods in Context questions, Archer et al is a good example of semi-structured interviews being used with pupils, teachers and parents, and of interviews being combined with other methods to get round their limitations. It also shows the research contexts the mark scheme rewards: who is being researched (vulnerable, “at risk” pupils), where (school), and how sensitive the topic is.
In the education topic, it’s evidence on how social class and gender interact to shape achievement, and on how teachers’ idea of the “ideal pupil” works against working-class girls. For that side of the study, see Gender Identity and Education.
For how to answer the Methods in Context question, see How to Answer Methods in Context Questions, and for the research context of researching pupils, see Researching Pupils in Education.
Signposting
This post has been written for students studying research methods and the sociology of education as part of the AQA’s A-level sociology course.
Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com