Visio Colletiva: The Role of Joint Fantasizing in Qualitative Social Research

Abstract

This study explores joint fantasizing as a valuable methodological tool in qualitative social research, emphasizing its potential to uncover hidden and sensitive content. Traditional methods, like interviews, often fail to capture authentic expressions due to social dynamics and self-presentation concerns. Joint fantasizing, involving collaborative creation of improbable scenarios, offers a unique way to access natural, unguarded dialogues, especially among marginalized groups. By enabling participants to explore complex emotions, values, and identities through absurd, imaginative narratives, it reveals how people negotiate social boundaries and construct self-concepts. Despite its strengths, joint fantasizing poses challenges due to its sporadic occurrence and the need for rapport between researchers and participants. We suggest strategies to enhance its ecological validity, including minimizing researcher influence and using naturalistic or participant-led settings. Ultimately, joint fantasizing provides a powerful means of accessing content that traditional methods might overlook, offering deeper insights into identity and group dynamics.

Introduction

In qualitative social research, eliciting natural expressions of participants’ thoughts, emotions, and perspectives—including hidden, sensitive, or difficult-to-articulate content—remains a persistent methodological challenge. Although widely adopted, traditional methods such as semi-structured interviews are often limited by the artificiality of the interview setting. Even in their most open-ended forms, interviews tend to deviate from natural conversation. Participants frequently moderate their responses due to concerns about self-presentation, social desirability, or potential judgment, despite assurances of anonymity (Briggs, 1986; DeGloma, 2023; Goffman, 1959; Kvale, 2007). These constraints have spurred critiques of the interview as a privileged tool for accessing authentic or unfiltered social experience (Hopf, 2004; Roulston & Cho, 2018).

In response, researchers have increasingly turned to naturally occurring interactional practices, understood as forms of everyday talk that unfold outside researcher-imposed structures and are shaped by participants themselves (Eskildsen, 2019; Garfinkel, 1967; Potter, 2002). Such practices allow for richer ecological validity, capturing not only what is said, but also how it is said, to whom, and in what context (Culpeper & Haugh, 2014; Kecskés, 2018; Terkourafi, 2021). They offer a route to understanding meaning as co-constructed, context-bound, and embedded in relational dynamics.

One such practice, which remains relatively underexamined in the methodological literature, is joint fantasizing: the collaborative creation of improbable or absurd scenarios through interaction (Poppi, 2021; Sinkeviciute, 2024; Stallone & Haugh, 2017). Joint fantasizing occupies a unique position among interactional formats because of its irrealis logic: it emerges through elaborative turns in which participants imagine “as if” worlds that are knowingly fictional, yet socially meaningful. These sequences are often marked by grammatical and semantic cues, such as the use of could, would, or epistemic distancing, which signal the suspension of real-world truth conditions while still enabling strong affective and moral positioning. Unlike joking, role-playing, or daydreaming, joint fantasizing is a sequential, co-constructed phenomenon in which each contribution builds on previous ones, often leading to narrative escalation, symbolic boundary work, or identity positioning.

In this article, we propose joint fantasizing as both a conceptual lens and a methodological tool. Specifically, we explore how this practice can be identified, facilitated, and analyzed in qualitative fieldwork. By examining the conditions under which joint fantasizing occurs, as well as how it functions to surface emotional, moral, and social meanings, we aim to contribute a methodological strategy capable of accessing subtle, sensitive, or otherwise obscured layers of social life. Throughout the paper, we distinguish between closely related concepts—such as absurdity, fantasy escalation, and symbolic boundary negotiation—not as rigid categories but as analytical entry points into the complex social work performed through joint fantasizing.

Harnessing Natural Interaction in Qualitative Social Research

Qualitative social research faces significant challenges in analyzing expressions that are as natural as possible when trying to access content using traditional methodologies. Data derived from semi-structured interviews, likely the most used methodology in qualitative social research, have serious limitations in this regard. Indeed, interviews—even when unstructured or open-ended—are rarely considered a natural form of interaction among people (Briggs, 1986; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Furthermore, interviews—even when conducted in private and with promises of anonymity—often elicit varying degrees of reticence from interviewees when it comes to disclosing content they find uncomfortable (Goffman, 1959; Kvale, 2007). These methodological issues form the basis of numerous critical reviews on the use of qualitative interviews in social research (Hopf, 2004; Oltmann, 2016; Roulston & Cho, 2018).

One approach to capturing natural expression is to examine interactional practices among groups. People organize interactions to systematically and recurrently achieve specific social actions in a recognizable, intelligible, and accountable manner (Garfinkel, 1967; Haddington et al., 2013). According to Eskildsen (2019: 109), an interactional practice is “a co-constructed endeavor that is built sequentially [and multimodally] through occasioned contributions from the participants.” In qualitative social research, the study of interactional practices is primarily undertaken by linguistics, particularly pragmatics. Their focus is not on using interactions as a source of content to infer societal insights (i.e., what is expressed in these communications) but on understanding how these interactions occur, why they occur in a certain way, what their functions are, and how they vary both cross-culturally and inter-culturally (Culpeper & Haugh, 2014; Kecskés, 2018; Terkourafi, 2021). The naturalness of interactional practices—even in their more deliberate, planned, or strategically framed forms, such as those unfolding online or via social media (Yus, 2018, 2019)—can still be considered genuine, as they emerge from everyday communication between participants, rather than being prompted by a researcher. Crucially, these organically developed exchanges often bring to the surface hidden or socially sensitive content that would likely remain inaccessible in more structured, researcher-driven contexts.

As Potter (2002) highlights, naturally-occurring data are those that are not directly elicited by the researcher; instead, they are observed. Every feature of the interaction (e.g., the context, underlying assumptions, linguistic realizations of a given speech event) is talked into being by the participants of the interaction, whereas in elicited data (Heritage, 1984), these features are predetermined by the interview guide designed by the researcher (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007). One key reason for using naturally occurring data is that the researcher may not predict all (or even the most common) situations in which an interactional practice may be produced (Kasper, 2000). Although this reduces the control over what can be analyzed in research, it allows for achieving the naturalness that is necessarily absent in research contexts that rely on interviews.

Consequently, the issue of naturalness underpins the value of analyzing expressions within the context of qualitative social research. Namely, doing so enhances the ecological validity of the analysis. This involves collecting content from more authentic interactions that belong to the individual’s natural social world. One interactional practice that is underused but is valuable for allowing researchers to study broader cultural beliefs and identity construction is “joint fantasizing” (Poppi, 2021). Joint fantasizing allows for the “formation and maintenance of symbolic boundaries, which includes the facilitation of solidarity among people and the negotiation of shared norms and evaluations” (Poppi & Copes, 2024, p. 458). By studying joint fantasizing not solely as an interactional practice but as a way to observe how people draw on cultural narratives to construct identities social scientists can tap into more natural expressions than interviewing alone.

Joint Fantasizing as an Analytic Tool

The strength of naturally occurring data in qualitative research lies in its potential to access layers of meaning—particularly hidden or suppressed content—that participants may not disclose in more structured or monitored settings. Interviews, even those designed to be open and reflexive, are shaped by social dynamics that inhibit candid expression. Participants often manage impressions during interviews, either consciously or unconsciously, curating what they say based on how they wish to be perceived (Kvale, 2007). This concern with self-presentation often leads to the omission or softening of thoughts deemed socially undesirable or inappropriate (Goffman, 1959). Consequently, interviews may yield data that arereflective more of discursive negotiation with the interviewer than of internal states, values, or group logics.

To address these limitations, qualitative researchers have increasingly explored interactional practices that occur in more naturalistic, less researcher-controlled environments. However, many such practices remain underexamined or even unnamed. One particularly rich and under-theorized phenomenon is joint fantasizing. Unlike joking, which often relies on punchlines or ambiguity and may be self-contained, joint fantasizing is open-ended and unfolds cumulatively. Unlike role-playing, it does not involve pre-defined roles or dramatic framing. And unlike improvisation, it is not oriented toward performance or outcome, but emerges organically within informal interaction, often serving relational, identity-building, or critical functions. Far from being frivolous or peripheral, this practice holds significant promise for qualitative inquiry because it enables the emergence of content that would be unlikely to surface through more conventional, linear, or individually anchored methods (see Poppi, 2021; Stallone & Haugh, 2017).

Joint fantasizing is not a newly discovered behavior; rather, it has been observed and described in diverse ways across disciplines. Folk linguistic terms like messing around (Hall, 1974), fooling around or blödeln (Kotthoff, 1999), and shooting the shit (Leary, 1980) reflect common-sense understandings of the practice. More formal concepts include joint pretense, as described by Clark and Van Der Wege (2001, p. 783), who define it as “an activity in which two or more people jointly act as if they were doing something that they are not actually, really, or seriously doing.” Similarly, Vincent and Castelfranchi (1981, p. 755) identify this shared imagination as a form of pretense in which “a fictional or imaginary world, where x is true” is co-created, even though all participants understand that “in the real world… x is false.”

At the heart of joint fantasizing lies the suspension of accountability: the understanding that what is being said is not real, and therefore carries reduced social or moral risk (Haugh, 2013). This imaginative “safe zone” permits the articulation of fears, critiques, frustrations, and desires that may otherwise be silenced by social norms. Stallone and Haugh (2017) argue that such imagined spaces allow for the externalization of difficult or contested meaning, enabling participants to explore social tensions in metaphorical, indirect ways. In doing so, joint fantasizing creates a discursive arena where normative constraints are relaxed, and symbolic experimentation is possible.

Joint fantasizing has appeared in the literature under a variety of overlapping terms, including collaborative play (Davies, 1984), fantasy jamming (Hall, 1974), fantasy humor (Hay, 2001), joint fictionalization (Kotthoff, 1999), collaborative fantasy (Norrick, 2000), and joint fantasy (Bertrand & Priego-Valverde, 2011; Priego-Valverde, 2006). What unites these variants is the emphasis on collaborative co-production: the emergent quality of a jointly constructed narrative in which each contribution depends on, and transforms, the previous one (Kotthoff, 1999; Stallone & Haugh, 2017).

It is precisely this turn-by-turn interactional logic that distinguishes joint fantasizing from superficially similar practices such as brainstorming, storytelling, or daydreaming. Although those practices may also involve imaginative content, they typically lack the sequential reciprocity and improvisational escalation that characterize joint fantasizing. In brainstorming, for example, participants may contribute ideas independently toward a goal. In joint fantasizing, however, the narrative is collectively owned and emergent: participants “chime in” not just to add ideas, but to expand, twist, and escalate the fantasy in unpredictable directions (Bertrand & Priego-Valverde, 2011).

The co-construction of these imaginary scenarios follows recognizable discursive patterns. One is format tying—the reuse of linguistic forms from earlier turns, which contributes to the coherence and playful rhythm of the exchange (Coates, 2007; Goodwin, 2006; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1987). Another is idea association, in which imaginative links are drawn based on absurd or tangential reasoning (Priego-Valverde, 2006). These processes can give the sequence a momentum of its own, as the fantasy expands in ways that are only loosely tethered to the real world but remain coherent within the local logic of the group (Béal & Mullan, 2013).

Identifying episodes of joint fantasizing in naturalistic data involves recognizing specific linguistic cues that signal the departure from real-world plausibility. In many instances, participants use verbs that mark the irrealis mood, such as modals like would, could, might, or constructions like “imagine if” or “let’s say.” These forms indicate that the speaker is not referring to actual events, but rather to hypothetical, fictional, or non-factual possibilities (Norrick, 2000, p. 131). In addition to these grammatical markers, joint fantasizing often emerges through semantic incongruity—when speakers propose or elaborate ideas that clearly conflict with shared knowledge about reality. Despite this awareness, participants continue to elaborate “as if” the scenario were real, engaging in a co-constructed fiction that gains coherence through interaction. This “acting as if” (Hall, 1974, p. 35) reflects a suspension of disbelief, allowing imagined worlds to unfold collaboratively. Although these fantasies are not fully developed narrative structures, they are recognizable by their use of irrealis verb forms, escalating improbability, and their turn-by-turn build-up of jointly imagined content (Kotthoff, 1999; Stallone & Haugh, 2017).

Because of its improvisational and accumulative nature, joint fantasizing tends to escalate in absurdity, often producing surreal or exaggerated outcomes (Dynel, 2011; Poppi, 2021). Although these moments may appear humorous or outlandish, they often serve deeper social functions. One such function is one-upmanship: a playful form of competition in which participants try to outdo one another in wit, absurdity, or insight (Priego-Valverde, 2006). In these contexts, joint fantasizing becomes a stage for the performance of social intelligence or insider knowledge—mechanisms that reinforce group hierarchies or roles (Poppi, 2024a, 2024b; Poppi & Copes, 2024).

In other cases, joint fantasizing is less about competition and more about solidarity. By collaboratively constructing absurd narratives, participants can reinforce shared values or critique those of outsiders (Coates, 2007; Dynel, 2011; Kotthoff, 1999). The practice may involve moral inversion—a deliberate flipping of social norms within the fantasy—which allows the group to articulate otherwise unspeakable sentiments in humorous or exaggerated ways (Priego-Valverde, 2006). Over time, such interactions help define the ethos of the group and contribute to relational alignment and belonging (Davies, 1984; House & Kádár, 2023; Stallone & Haugh, 2017).

Importantly, joint fantasizing can also serve as a vehicle for critique. Through what Kotthoff (2007) calls fictional teasing, participants can embed criticisms or complaints within absurd or ironic frames, diffusing potential conflict while still signaling discontent (Haugh, 2017a; 2017b). Hall (1974) notes that the humor of such exchanges allows criticism to be heard without being directly confronted. At times, the line between play and protest becomes blurry. As Poppi (2021) and Poppi and Copes (2024) have shown, groups may use joint fantasizing to express collective disappointment, alienation, or even fantasies of revenge against a perceived unjust society. In these moments, the imaginary does not mask reality—it reveals it.

In sum, joint fantasizing is not merely a conversational game. It is a social practice with complex interactional, relational, and symbolic dimensions. It allows participants to create shared worlds in which identity, hierarchy, values, and critique are enacted in indirect but potent ways. For qualitative researchers, its value lies precisely in this mix of play and depth, spontaneity and structure, fiction and truth. It reveals not only what people think but how they think—together.

Joint Fantasizing and the Collaborative Nature

Having outlined the characteristics of joint fantasizing, here we highlight its features and functionality within qualitative social research. Joint fantasizing, being an interactional practice, is well established as a source of naturally occurring data ( Poppi, 2021, 2024, 2024b; Sinkeviciute, 2024; Stallone & Haugh, 2017). However, the potential of joint fantasizing to express content that is typically inaccessible in solitary contexts requires further attention.

A key reason for this is its inherently collaborative nature, which enables the co-construction of meaning through shared affective and imaginative engagement. This process is supported by various psychosocial and socio-relational dynamics, as explored in multiple theoretical and empirical studies (see Stallone & Haugh, 2017). For instance, social facilitation theory describes the enhancement of individual performance in the presence of others. When people engage in joint fantasizing with one another, the presence of group members can increase confidence and reduce inhibition, enabling the expression of ideas that might otherwise remain unvoiced. Group settings can stimulate people to perform tasks more effectively and express opinions more freely due to a supportive environment. Similarly, Aiello and Douthitt (2001) note that the presence of others can enhance performance on well-learned tasks and encourage risk-taking behaviors.

In addition to social facilitation, the concept of group polarization plays a significant role in joint fantasizing. Group polarization refers to the tendency of group discussions to lead to more extreme positions than those initially held by individual members. This phenomenon is crucial in joint fantasizing, as it can amplify creative ideas and encourage the exploration of more radical scenarios. Kerr and Tindale (2011) discuss how group interactions can push members toward more extreme and innovative viewpoints, enhancing the depth and breadth of the collective imagination. Isenberg (1986) similarly emphasizes how group discussions often result in a shift towards more extreme positions.

Conformity, the adjustment of one’s beliefs or behaviors to align with group norms, is another essential element in joint fantasizing. The desire to fit in and be accepted by the group can lead people to share thoughts and ideas they might suppress in solitary contexts. Schwarz and Schwarz (2007) examine how group consensus can drive members to express latent thoughts, fostering a richer and more diverse array of content. This idea is further supported by Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis, which provides substantial evidence of the power of group influence on individual behavior.

Complementing the concept of conformity, the social compensation model posits that individuals in group settings may feel less personal responsibility, leading to greater risk-taking and openness in expressing unconventional ideas. Sunstein and Hastie (2015) argue that the diffusion of responsibility in groups can encourage members to voice creative and controversial thoughts without fear of sole accountability. Karau and Williams (1993) explain how the presence of others can sometimes reduce individual effort (social loafing) but also lead to increased effort if the task is seen as meaningful and the individual’s contribution as unique.

Building on the idea of social dynamics, collective risk-taking emerges as another crucial factor in joint fantasizing. Groups provide a safety net that emboldens members to explore and articulate bolder, riskier ideas. Bond and Smith (1996) suggest that the shared responsibility in groups mitigates individual fear of judgment, promoting a freer exchange of ideas. Wallach et al. (1962) further illustrate how group dynamics can influence decision-making toward higher risk.

Finally, the concept of hidden profiles, where crucial information is distributed among group members, is vital in understanding joint fantasizing. Stasser and Titus (2003) discuss how group discussions can reveal previously unshared information, enriching the collective narrative and fostering a more comprehensive exploration of scenarios. Larson et al. (1994) provide additional evidence on how group discussions can surface hidden information.

In summary, the dynamics of joint fantasizing are deeply embedded in the psychosocial and socio-relational interactions within groups. Understanding these dynamics provides valuable insights into how groups can access and express content that remains elusive in solitary contexts, enhancing its potential for qualitative social research. These interactions not only facilitate the sharing of ideas but also amplify and diversify the collective imagination. As such, joint fantasizing is a powerful tool for exploring complex and typically inaccessible content.

Social Value of Fantasies, Absurdities and Escalations

Another characteristic that makes joint fantasizing a powerful tool for accessing hidden content is its basis in constructing improbable or even impossible imagined scenarios or narratives (Stallone & Haugh, 2017). Research shows that creating fantastical scenarios and narratives reveals ideas, values, and stances that are difficult to express otherwise. They allow people to test social boundaries safely as the absurdity of the conversations shield them from sanctions that may emerge from going too far. For example, Baumeister et al. (2007) highlight how imagined narratives can explore psychological and social dynamics that would otherwise remain latent. Their research indicates that constructing imaginary scenarios allows people to articulate desires, fears, and aspirations in a safe and non-judgmental context.

Building on this idea of joint fantasizing as a way to test and reinforce boundaries, Green et al. (2020) emphasize how fictional narratives can facilitate a deeper understanding of cultural and moral values. Their studies suggest that through creating and discussing imagined scenarios, participants can examine and reveal values and norms that govern their daily behavior, often more directly and transparently than in explicit discussions. Moreover, Slater and Rouner (2002) explore the potential of fantastical narratives for attitude change. Their research demonstrates that immersion in imagined stories can lead to a reconsideration of one’s beliefs and attitudes, thereby facilitating self-reflection and personal development. This change is partially attributed to the reactions of others in the exchange. When others add to the joint fantasies it reinforces the ideas and beliefs being expressed. When they stop contributing to the joint fantasy, it highlights that boundaries may have been crossed. Additionally, McLean and Pasupathi (2011) have studied how personal narratives, including imagined ones, influence identity construction (see also Poppi, 2025a, 2025). Their findings indicate that joint fantasizing allows people to explore different versions of themselves and develop new understandings of their identity through interaction and comparison with other group members’ narratives.

Collectively, these studies demonstrate how joint fantasizing, through constructing imagined scenarios and narratives, serves as a powerful means for accessing hidden content. One way they do this is by highlighting people’s values and beliefs by showing the boundaries of acceptability. The absurdity of the content allows actors to back off from going too far based on the reactions of the others. Group dynamics and collective imagination enable exploring ideas and values that might remain unexpressed in more formal or individual contexts. Thus, joint fantasizing emerges not only as a creative practice but also as a valuable tool for overcoming the limitations of certain qualitative social research methods in accessing naturally hidden content.

The Limitations of Joint Fantasizing as a Methodological Tool

We have highlighted the methodological advantages of joint fantasizing, particularly its capacity to uncover naturally occurring data and to bring to light content that is typically difficult to express through more conventional research methods. The spontaneous and organic nature of joint fantasizing makes it a valuable tool for accessing the unfiltered thoughts, emotions, and social dynamics of participants, allowing researchers to gain insights into aspects of human behavior and social interaction that might otherwise remain hidden. Although these advantages are significant, there are also limitations inherent to this method that must be carefully considered.

First, despite its potential, joint fantasizing is not a consistently occurring phenomenon within social interactions. It is an interactional practice that, although recognized for its capacity to reveal deep insights, occurs sporadically and is not easily predictable. For example, Poppi and Copes (2024) found only 17 instances of joint fantasizing in 9 hours of recordings. This sporadic nature poses a challenge for researchers who rely on joint fantasizing as a primary data collection method. In practice, this means that even in settings where joint fantasizing is likely to occur (e.g., among friends in informal settings), there is no assurance that the episodes will be captured or that they will be relevant or directly applicable to the research objectives. The unpredictability of the topics that emerge during joint fantasizing can result in data that, while rich in detail, may not align with the specific theoretical or empirical questions that the study aims to address. This disconnect can limit the usefulness of the data collected, requiring researchers to either adjust their research focus or supplement the data with additional methods to achieve comprehensive coverage of the research topic.

Another significant limitation to relying on joint fantasizing as a tool relates to the relational dynamics between researchers and participants. Joint fantasizing as a research tool requires a certain degree of rapport and familiarity between the researcher and the participants (Stallone & Haugh, 2017). The trust necessary for participants to engage in joint fantasizing with interviewers, particularly when it involves the disclosure of confidential or sensitive content, is not easily established. In many cases, participants may only be willing to engage in joint fantasizing with researchers they know well or with whom they feel a strong connection. This requirement for an established relationship can limit the contexts in which joint fantasizing can be effectively used, as it may not be feasible in all research settings to build the necessary rapport. Consequently, the richness of the data that joint fantasizing can provide is often constrained by the limited range of contexts and participants who are willing or able to engage in this form of interaction.

Enhancing the Likelihood of Eliciting and Capturing Joint Fantasizing

In light of these limitations, we propose a strategy to address, at least partially, the challenges associated with joint fantasizing by suggesting ways to increase the likelihood of capturing or eliciting joint fantasizing in research settings. One effective way to introduce joint fantasizing in a group is to initiate the process with broad, open-ended prompts or hypothetical “what if” questions that invite participants to imagine unlikely or exaggerated situations. These prompts can stem from themes relevant to the participants’ lived experiences, allowing them to respond playfully or critically without feeling overly exposed. For example, questions like “What would happen if…” or exaggerated statements such as “Imagine a world where…” can serve as catalysts. It is important that these prompts are not perceived as formal questions but as contributions to ongoing conversation. When joint fantasizing emerges organically, it often begins with one participant offering a slightly improbable or humorous statement, to which others respond, escalating the scenario through collaborative elaboration. The interviewer can also model this process subtly, by playfully contributing an improbable statement that invites elaboration rather than evaluation.

We recognize that stimulating meaningful joint fantasies is not an easy task; nevertheless, we believe there are ways to do so in certain types of research. Broadly, we propose two styles of data collection that may encourage the elicitation of joint fantasies, including designs with and without researchers being present during data collection.

Researcher Absent Designs

The characteristics of joint fantasizing suggest that this interactional practice can serve as a valuable tool for obtaining natural-occurring data and accessing content that is typically inaccessible through other means. The difficulty in stimulating joint fantasies with researchers present suggest that methods of data collection where researchers are absent may be valuable. Although joint fantasizing has primarily been studied as a practice, there are some studies that have employed it as a method of qualitative social research. Specifically, the studies by Poppi, 2021, 2024, 2024b; Poppi & Copes, 2024 have used joint fantasizing to shed light on how people construct identity and develop symbolic boundaries in interactions.

In Example 1, Poppi (2021), the researcher placed a recording device in a private residence where a group of elderly women gathered for prayer (with their approval), as their physical limitations prevented them from attending church. Following the prayer session, the women engaged in conversation, which marked the beginning of the joint fantasizing practice. They used joint fantasizing to talk about their fear of abandonment and the potential for tragic experiences that they faced in their daily lives, where relatives and loved ones were distant from them. The study involved seven participants (N = 7), all elderly women who regularly gathered in a private home for prayer sessions. The researcher, who had a longstanding relationship with the group, received their consent to place a discreet recording device in the room. No explicit prompts were given; the recording began after the prayer concluded and captured natural conversation. The session ended informally, with the group dispersing at their usual time, without researcher intervention.

Example 1): “My son is abroad and I will die in bed”

- Filomena: Nothing is certain, especially when…

- Concetta: When, well, someone leaves, what can you do?

- Maria: What can you do? You can’t do anything.

- Filomena: So do you want to know what will happen? One day my son will come home and he’ll find me dead in my bedroom, because these things happen in a society where families get split up and fall to pieces.

- [Speaker not clear]: Yes, I’m afraid that’s how it is, but does it surprise you anymore?

- Concetta: No, no.

- Filomena: And what…

- Anna: Of course it doesn’t surprise me! I know how it is!

- Filomena: But you’ve still got your sister and …

- Maria: And if, if…he finds us both dead [Laugh]

- [Everybody laughs]

- Filomena: Then my son might well have a heart attack if he saw me, something like that, poor thing…

- Concetta: These things are…

- Filomena: All these things have been brought about by this sick society but what can you do, that’s how things are.

- Concetta: That’s how things are.

In this excerpt, Filomena constructs an imaginative scenario in which her son, returning from abroad, finds her deceased in bed. This joint fantasizing captures deeply personal fears of isolation and abandonment, which, through the interaction, are transformed into collective and generational concerns shared among the group of elderly women. The dark humor employed in the exchange, particularly when Maria suggests that both she and Filomena might be found dead together, functions not only as a coping mechanism but also as a means of reinforcing emotional reciprocity within the group. The laughter that follows these morbid imaginings reflects a shared understanding and a form of mutual support, highlighting the relational dynamics that bind the participants together. This scene, rich in emotional content, illustrates how joint fantasizing allowed the women to articulate and share their anxieties about aging, loneliness, and societal changes that have led to the fragmentation of families. The humor, though dark, adds depth to the interaction, making it possible for the participants to explore and express these difficult topics in a manner that was both emotionally resonant and socially cohesive. The extract thus exemplifies how joint fantasizing can serve as a powerful tool for expressing complex emotions and societal critiques, enabling the participants to navigate their shared experiences of aging and loss within a supportive community.

To consider another example of how joint fantasizing can capture both personal and collective content, not only on topics that are often hidden but also concerning subjects that are difficult to access, we turn to Example 2 from Poppi and Copes (2024). In this excerpt, the authors reveal the collective identity of a group of men who stole vehicles, demonstrating how they not only represent themselves but also construct their criminal activities in a positive light compared to figures who are accepted and appreciated by society. This example draws from a study involving five participants (N = 5), all men with a history of car theft who met regularly in an informal, peer-led support group. The researcher was not physically present but obtained permission to record the sessions using an unobtrusive audio device placed in the meeting space. No structured prompts were provided; the joint fantasizing emerged spontaneously during a discussion about technological challenges in their activities. The session closed naturally as the group moved on to unrelated topics.

Example 2): “We are the professionals, we don’t need books”

- Alfredo: “To do what we do is the organization.”

- Carlo: “The organization means details and nobody can improvise.”

- Alfredo: “If I could do anything else I would be happy, certainly, because [car theft] is precision work. In fact, it is us and a few others who are good at it.”

- Bruno: “You now imagine that it’s all cameras, and satellites, and cars are computers.”

- INAUDIBLE

- Alfredo: “And everything is technological now.”

- Dante: “Really, everything.”

- INAUDIBLE

- Alfredo: “There are so many desperate people here who can’t even read and write, and we are here. Every day we have to update because every day a new thing comes out. … If tomorrow they put bombs under the seats, that you make a mistake and don’t put the keys in, and you blow up, then I really want to see what happens!

- Bruno: “Eh, we know that already.”

- Carlo: “And it means that we do the same thing even if in addition to the bomb they put cameras all the way into the toilet.”

- Dante: “And, if they also put the camera that takes your selfie and jumps the bomb also comes out the video of you blowing up.”

- Bruno: “Oh, Jesus!”

- INAUDIBLE

- Alfredo: “Oh yes, then they put it on Facebook.”

- Dante: “You know how many likes you can get?”

- Bruno: “Look, if we are still thinking about these things here, it means that we are definitely the best there is because if you steal sheep, sheep those things, it’s not like there is all this technology behind.”

- Alfredo: “That’s the point!”

- Bruno: Right, right.”

- Carlo: “It’s a matter of study, study, and study.”

- Dante: “That’s the point for sure.”

- Carlo: “You always have to update here, because we are not sheep thieves.”

- Alfredo: “What a time, what a time.”

- Dante: “You don’t understand anything anymore, except that if one has to do one thing one has to jump in and do nothing else.”

-INAUDIBLE

- Alfredo: “Look, the point is to be professional. Talent, yes. But you need to be professional. … I am like that. And I explained everything to you, and well, that things have to be prepared well because here we always know what to do.”

- Bruno: “They say here that everyone goes to school, and to university, but then what do these people study, just books?”

- Alfredo: “All graduates are!”

-INAUDIBLE

- INAUDIBLE

- Bruno: “Yes, yes, even the children of the stupid ones.”

- Dante: “All with degrees.”

- Dante: “Everyone here already knows before they are born that they have to be great professors.”

- Bruno: “Everyone!”

- INAUDIBLE

- Dante: “Even before mothers and fathers trumpet they already say that they must spend their lives in books, knowing that their children will know how to do little.”

- Alfredo: “Studying is not for everyone and books are not enough, because you also need a special brain and not only books”

- Bruno: “At least we get our hands on things.”

- Alfredo: “You understand things when you put your hands on things and your head knows what he is doing.”

The core of this interaction centers on joint fantasizing about advancements in automotive security and anti-theft technology, and their abilities to overcome these challenges, which is a common topic among those who see themselves as experienced in car theft (Copes & Cherbonneau, 2006). The men imagine a scenario where increasingly risky target hardening techniques, including hidden explosives beneath car seats that would be triggered if the standard unlocking process fails, are in place. Through this joint fantasizing, the participants portray themselves as highly skilled professionals who must continuously enhance their knowledge to adapt to a technological landscape that threatens their illicit activities. This scenario, infused with a touch of absurdity, not only underscores their unique position as a criminal group targeted by technology but also highlights their distinction from other criminals through their commitment to studying and staying updated.

In addition to showcasing the defining characteristics that shape their professional identity, this joint fantasizing scenario also establishes boundaries that separate them from others who commit crime and from ordinary citizens who pursue formal education. These symbolic boundaries suggest that their mode of learning is inherently superior to conventional methods, as it emphasizes practical application alongside theoretical knowledge. By engaging in this joint fantasizing, the participants are able to articulate not only their personal and collective fears but also their professional pride and identity (see Poppi, 2025a, 2025). This interaction provides a rare insight into how people who operate on the fringes of society construct a positive self-image, despite the illegal nature of their activities, by contrasting their practical expertise with the perceived limitations of conventional education. This example of joint fantasizing reveals the complex dynamics of how people use creative and collaborative storytelling to assert their value and navigate the challenges they face in their unique social contexts.

Taken together, these two examples—one centered on elderly women and the other on men with a history of car theft—demonstrate the versatility of joint fantasizing as a method for surfacing sensitive, complex, and often silenced content. Despite their different demographics, social positions, and themes, both groups engage in playful, co-constructed scenarios that allow them to articulate emotional and social realities otherwise difficult to voice. In the first case, joint fantasizing becomes a tool for transforming fears of abandonment into shared reflection and dark humor, offering emotional containment and solidarity. In the second, it serves as a way to invert moral hierarchies and affirm group identity through exaggerated professional pride. What these cases reveal is not just the capacity of joint fantasizing to uncover hidden content, but its function as a socially embedded practice that helps participants negotiate belonging, critique dominant norms, and experiment with alternate self-narratives in a safe, fictionalized space. This illustrates its methodological power for qualitative research: it is not merely a representational window into beliefs, but a generative, interactional process that actively shapes how identities and social worlds are constructed.

These studies were made possible not only because the researcher had a certain degree of familiarity and even a close relationship with the participants, but more importantly because permission was granted to record these meetings in the most discreet manner possible (i.e., the researcher was not present). The researcher’s absence from the meetings and the discreet presence of the recording device, without the use of visibly intrusive microphones or other instruments, allowed the participants to become accustomed to the recording equipment to the extent that they paid little attention to it. This combination of the researcher’s absence and the subtlety of the recording tools created a research setting that was conducive to allowing this natural interactional practice to emerge organically. The nature of the data that emerged and was subsequently analyzed in these studies merits further consideration.

The methodological advantages of researcher absent data collection, however, come with important ethical concerns—especially in designs where the researcher is not physically present during the interaction. Recording emotionally charged, private, or sensitive conversations raises questions not just about informed consent, but about ongoing consent, situational vulnerability, and participants’ evolving awareness of the recording context. Participants may forget they are being recorded or feel pressured to speak freely due to group dynamics, without fully realizing the future uses of their words. When fantasies include emotionally intense topics—such as abandonment, loss, or criminal behavior—the risk of unintended exposure or later regret increases. The absence of a researcher can also limit the possibility of real-time ethical judgment (e.g., when to stop recording or intervene). These factors demand not only robust consent protocols, but also a commitment to post-recording debriefing, participant-led withdrawal opportunities, and an ethically reflexive approach to both interpretation and representation of the data.

Researcher Present Designs

In research contexts where the researcher is present, joint fantasizing can sometimes be subtly initiated or modeled by the interviewer. This interactional practice often begins when one participant offers a slightly improbable or humorous statement, which others then elaborate, escalating the scenario through co-construction. Researchers may facilitate this process by introducing broad, open-ended prompts—such as hypothetical “what if” questions or exaggerated statements like “imagine a world where…”—that resonate with participants’ lived experiences. These prompts work best when embedded in natural conversation rather than posed as formal questions, allowing participants to respond playfully or critically without feeling overly exposed.

Joint fantasies typically emerge when one person throws out an idea, which becomes the foundation for the others to build on. These foundational statements are typically made by the participants but they can also be made by the interviewers. To stimulate joint fantasizing, the participants would need to feel safe with the interviewer or others interacting to follow up in a way that would not be criticized or judged. This can happen in research settings when the interviewer and participants have formed relationships through multiple interactions. Here we provide examples of designs that encourage the creation of joint fantasizing when the researcher is present during data collection.

One potential strategy to enhance the production of joint fantasizing, while also addressing the potential reluctance that may arise when recording natural conversations with participants unfamiliar with the researcher, involves the researcher actively participating in the communication process. One can imagine a scenario where participants, approached according to typical qualitative social research criteria—such as in group interviews or focus groups (see Gibbs, 2012)—engage with a researcher who, instead of merely asking questions, initiates a conversation or joins an ongoing discussion. The idea of the researcher becoming an active part of the research process aligns with several existing methodologies. Participatory interviews involve participants not only in answering questions but also in defining research topics and interpreting data, which fosters a more open and collaborative dialogue (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Similarly, participatory ethnography requires researchers to immerse themselves within the community they are studying, enabling direct observation and interaction with participants in their everyday environments, thereby enhancing the understanding of social and cultural dynamics (Tedlock, 1991).

Participatory Action Research (PAR) takes this involvement further by making participants co-researchers, who collaborate with the researcher to identify issues, develop solutions, and implement changes, thus ensuring that the research is both participatory and transformative (McIntyre, 2007; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). In in-depth interviews, although typically conducted one-on-one, the aim is to build a close relationship between the researcher and the participant, which allows for more profound responses and a more empathetic understanding of the participant’s experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2011; Seidman, 2006). Similarly, co-creation methods are particularly effective in collaborative research contexts where participants and researchers work together to create products, ideas, or solutions in a shared creative and decision-making process, ensuring that the research output reflects collective input (Sanders & Stappers, 2008).

Longitudinal designs where researchers collect data over multiple sessions may be the most effective at allowing researchers to initiate joint fantasizing. Longitudinal focus groups could be especially effective in this regard. The majority of focus groups involve a one-time interview among like-minded people. However, it is possible for relationships to develop among the members of a focus group when the same group is facilitated over time. For instance, research that brings together women in prison to engage in creative writing or journaling over multi-week sessions can foster friendships and interpersonal connections that are particularly conducive to the emergence of joint fantasies. Building rapport within a group of participants alongside the researcher can create the conditions for participants to initiate joint fantasizing on their own or to respond receptively when prompted.

However, the researcher’s involvement in creating joint fantasizing with participants introduces unique elements of data integrity. This approach goes beyond simply facilitating conversation or participation; it requires the researcher to actively engage in the creative process, co-constructing imaginary scenarios with participants. While the researcher thus becomes part of an interactional practice, their involvement is also aimed at preserving the natural flow of interaction. Instead of directing the conversation or promoting a particular topic or viewpoint, the researcher contributes only to existing discussions, with the goal of building on them, allowing other participants to further develop these contributions. In this way, the researcher participates in an ongoing process or one that will build upon their contributions. Even though the researcher may play a significant role in initiating joint fantasizing, they remain one of several participants.

At this point, one might argue that in cases where the researcher contributes more substantially to the creation of joint fantasizing, the ecological validity and interest in that joint fantasizing could be significantly diminished. To address this, several practical solutions can be considered. One key approach is for researchers to adopt a more facilitative rather than directive role during interactions. Instead of steering the content of the fantasies, they might introduce broad themes or open-ended prompts that invite participants to shape the direction of the conversation organically. This allows the joint fantasizing to develop naturally, with participants having the primary control over how the scenarios unfold, thus reducing the researcher’s influence on the narrative.

Another strategy involves encouraging participants to take the lead in initiating joint fantasizing. This can be achieved by posing hypothetical “what-if” questions, which serve as a springboard for imaginative discussions. Once the initial prompt has been set, researchers can step back and allow participants to carry the conversation forward. This way, the interaction remains rooted in the participants’ own perspectives and creativity, while the researcher plays a minimal role. Embedding the researcher within naturalistic settings where joint fantasizing occurs organically can also enhance ecological validity. By blending into environments like regular social gatherings, community events, or workspaces, researchers can observe and participate in a way that feels less intrusive. In these contexts, the spontaneous nature of joint fantasizing is more likely to emerge, with the researcher present but not actively shaping the direction of the dialogue.

In addition to this, researchers might choose to adopt a more silent or observational role, where they observe from the sidelines, taking notes, and contributing only minimally during ethnographic data collection. Such a role allows the researcher to be present during the joint fantasizing sessions without directing the flow of conversation, maintaining a more passive presence. If needed, subtle, non-directive contributions can help keep the conversation flowing, but they should be used sparingly to avoid influencing the direction of the discussion.

Another effective method is to engage participants as co-facilitators, especially those who are comfortable with or experienced in joint fantasizing. These people can help guide the interaction, taking on the role that might otherwise fall to the researcher. By leveraging the natural peer dynamics within the group, the process becomes more authentic, as the participants are more likely to follow each other’s lead rather than that of an outsider.

Finally, when researchers do introduce scenarios or themes, it is crucial to make space for participants to modify, contradict, or entirely redirect these suggestions. By encouraging participants to alter or challenge the initial ideas, researchers can ensure that their contributions act merely as a springboard, with the final narrative shaped by the group’s collective creativity. This not only maintains the authenticity of the interaction but also allows participants to express their thoughts and values more freely, fostering a richer, more genuine exchange.

Collectively, these strategies offer ways to navigate the delicate balance between researcher involvement and ecological validity. They provide frameworks for researchers to engage in joint fantasizing without overwhelming the natural dynamics of the interaction, ensuring that the data collected remains a true reflection of the participants’ own voices and creativity.

Discussion and Conclusions

It is challenging to identify another qualitative social research method that can effectively access private conversations among people, revealing not only the complex conceptualizations of collective identities but also the nuanced ways in which the relationship between individuals and society is constructed and understood. Joint fantasizing offers a unique methodological approach, allowing researchers to penetrate these otherwise concealed dialogues and providing valuable insights into how people perceive themselves and their roles within the broader social fabric. Through the construction of improbable or fantastical scenarios, participants engage in a form of storytelling that enables them to articulate complex emotions, values, and fears—elements that might otherwise remain hidden or difficult to express in more conventional settings.

One of the key strengths of joint fantasizing lies in its ability to create a safe space for participants to explore boundaries without the immediate risk of judgment or social sanction. The absurdity and creative freedom inherent in these imagined scenarios allow for an exploration of controversial or stigmatized themes, offering a way to navigate the delicate balance between self-presentation and the disclosure of sensitive content. For example, through absurd or exaggerated depictions of criminal behavior, participants can subtly critique societal norms or express pride in their skills, as seen in discussions that reframe illegal activities as acts of professional expertise (Poppi & Copes, 2024). In this way, joint fantasizing can reveal how people construct their identities, often as highly skilled professionals who see themselves as distinct from others who do not share their expertise or moral outlook.

Moreover, joint fantasizing facilitates the articulation of group dynamics, illuminating how collective identities are formed and maintained. In the examples discussed earlier, whether among elderly women or groups of men who steal vehicles, the act of engaging in joint fantasies allowed participants to establish and reinforce group boundaries. They could explore common fears, ambitions, and values, using humor and exaggerated scenarios to navigate their shared identities. For instance, these interactions highlighted how the sense of “us versus them” was created not only in relation to outsiders (e.g., the general public, law enforcement) but also within the group itself, through the differentiation of skills, knowledge, and experiences. Such nuanced understandings are difficult to capture through traditional interview techniques, where participants may be more guarded or restrained in their responses.

The insights gained through joint fantasizing can also provide a deeper understanding of how marginalized groups negotiate their place within society. By participating in creative, collaborative storytelling, participants can reframe their identities, often presenting themselves in ways that counter mainstream stereotypes or societal judgments. For instance, in the case of car thieves, participants could use joint fantasizing to depict themselves as adaptable, innovative, and capable professionals who must constantly update their skills to keep pace with new technological challenges. This not only challenges the simplistic, negative portrayals often associated with their activities but also allows them to assert a sense of pride and agency, despite the illegal nature of their work. Joint fantasizing, therefore, serves as a means of reclaiming control over their narratives, enabling people the means to express alternative versions of their identity and social worth.

However, despite its advantages, joint fantasizing as a methodological tool is not without limitations. Its sporadic and unpredictable nature poses a significant challenge for researchers. Although it can yield rich, nuanced data, there is no guarantee that such episodes will emerge consistently or align with specific research objectives. The difficulty of eliciting joint fantasizing in structured research settings underscores the need for adaptive research designs that can accommodate its unpredictability. This is particularly true in contexts where trust and rapport between researchers and participants are still developing. Without a solid foundation of familiarity, participants may be reluctant to engage in the kind of imaginative, free-flowing dialogue that joint fantasizing requires, limiting the depth and breadth of the data collected.

Another important limitation to consider is developmental. The capacity to engage in joint fantasizing may vary depending on participants’ age, cognitive development, or life stage. For instance, younger children might require scaffolding or prompting to co-construct elaborate fantasies, while older adults may approach the practice differently due to generational differences in communication styles or comfort with imaginative discourse. Similarly, people with limited exposure to dialogic or creative group settings may find it harder to participate in this form of interaction. These variations highlight the need for researchers to be attentive to developmental readiness and cultural norms when attempting to elicit or interpret joint fantasizing.

To address these challenges, researchers must adopt creative and flexible approaches that increase the likelihood of capturing joint fantasizing while minimizing their own influence on the interaction. As discussed, strategies like embedding researchers in naturalistic settings or adopting a more observational role can help preserve the ecological validity of the data. Alternatively, when direct participation is necessary, careful attention must be paid to how researchers introduce themes and scenarios, ensuring that their contributions serve as prompts rather than directives, allowing participants to steer the conversation. Pilot testing and participant-led sessions can also enhance the authenticity of the joint fantasizing, providing researchers with valuable insights without compromising the natural dynamics of the interaction.

In conclusion, joint fantasizing offers a unique and powerful tool for social researchers seeking to access hidden, sensitive, or otherwise difficult-to-express content. It enables participants to navigate complex aspects of their identities, relationships, and societal roles through imaginative and collaborative storytelling. Although there are challenges associated with its use, particularly concerning its unpredictability and the degree of researcher involvement, these can be mitigated through thoughtful and adaptive research design. By embracing the creative potential of joint fantasizing, researchers can gain unparalleled insights into the ways individuals and groups articulate their identities, negotiate social boundaries, and interact with the broader cultural narratives that shape their lives. As a methodological approach, it thus opens up new possibilities for exploring the intricate, often unseen layers of social interaction and identity construction, offering a window into worlds that might otherwise remain inaccessible.