Qualitative researchers who conduct in-depth interviews about sensitive topics can often find themselves in an interaction that mimics psychotherapy in some ways. Many researchers, however, are not prepared to navigate such an interaction. In this article, I examine in-depth interviewing and introduce the notion of the affect-responsive interview. Specifically, I explore the various conceptions of in-depth interviewing, interrogate the relationship the interview can create, and examine the ethics of in-depth interviewing. Through examining literature on therapy efficacy and training, I introduce the affect-responsive interview and offer implications for the ways in which we prepare future qualitative researchers.
AhnH.WampoldB. E. (2001). Where oh where are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis of component studies in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 251-257.
2.
AlvessonM. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13-33.
3.
AlvessonM. (2011). Interpreting interviews. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
4.
BergB.LuneH. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
5.
BochnerA. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 266-272.
6.
Dickson-SwiftV.JamesE.KippenS.LiamputtongP. (2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face?Qualitative Research, 7, 327-353.
7.
EllisC. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3-29.
8.
EllisC.KiesingerC.Tillman-HealyL. M. (1997). Interactive interviewing: Talking about emotional experience. In HertzR. (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. 119-149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
FontanaA.FreyJ. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 47-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
FontanaA.FreyJ. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
FreemanM.de MarraisK.PreissleJ.RoulstonK.St PierreE. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25-32.
12.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ.MarvastiA. B.McKinneyK. D. (2012). Introduction: The complexity of the craft. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ.MarvastiA. B.McKinneyK. D. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 1-6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
JohnsonB.ClarkeJ. (2003). Collecting sensitive data: The impact on researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 421-434.
15.
JohnsonJ. M.RowlandsT. (2012). The interpersonal dynamics of in-depth interviewing. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ.MarvastiA. B.McKinneyK. D. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 99-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
KvaleS. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
LillrankA. (2012). Managing the interviewer self. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ.MarvastiA. B.McKinneyK. D. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 281-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minikel-LacocqueJ. (2013). “Racism, College, And The Power of Words: Racial Microaggressions Reconsidered.” American Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 432-465.
20.
Minikel-LacocqueJ. (2015a). “You see the whole tree, not just the stump”: Religious fundamentalism, capital, and public schooling. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(2), 176-197.
21.
Minikel-LacocqueJ. (2015b). Getting College Ready: Latin@ Student Experiences of Race, Access, and Belonging at Predominantly White Universities. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
22.
OwtonH.Allen-CollinsonJ. (2014). Close but not too close: Friendship as method(ology) in ethnographic research encounters. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43, 283-305.
23.
RollsL.RelfM. (2006). Bracketing interviews: Addressing methodological challenges in qualitative interviewing in bereavement and palliative care. Mortality, 11, 286-305.
24.
RoulstonK. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
RoulstonK. (2012). The pedagogy of interviewing. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ.MarvastiA. B.McKinneyK. D. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 61-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
SeidmanI. E. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837-851.
28.
WampoldB. E. (2012). Humanism as a common factor in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 49, 445-449.
29.
WampoldB. E.ImelZ. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
WarrenC. (2012). Interviewing as social interaction. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ.MarvastiA. B.McKinneyK. D. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 129-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
WayA. K.ZwierR. K.TracyS. J. (2015). Dialogic interviewing and flickers of transformation: An examination and delineation of interactional strategies that promote participant self-reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 21, 720-731.
