A framework for phenomenological mixed methods is proposed, where phenomenology informs both qualitative (first-person, subjective) and quantitative (third-person, objective) data generation, analysis, and interpretation. The authors argue for mutual constraint and enlightenment between these approaches when studying consciousness. Drawing on mixed-methods research and existing examples, they present three cases studying complex social phenomena. A three-fold structure is developed: the phenomenological frame, phenomenologically informed data generation (tier one), and phenomenologically informed analysis and interpretation (tier two). The article maps possibilities, challenges, and common pitfalls for researchers combining phenomenology with qualitative and quantitative methods.
Phenomenological interviews are a valid and reliable source of knowledge, no less trustworthy than quantitative or experimental methods. The paper addresses skeptic objections about introspection, the unreliability of episodic memory, and the inability of interviews to address psychological, cognitive, and biological correlates of experience. It argues that rejecting the methodological and epistemological justification of phenomenological interviews leads to a deep mistrust that undermines scientific discourse by excluding conscious processes as objects of explanation, with serious consequences for the conception of science.