Can we trust the phenomenological interview? Metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological objections

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.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Abstract The paper defends the position that phenomenological interviews can provide a rich source of knowledge and that they are in no principled way less reliable or less valid than quantitative or experimental methods in general. It responds to several skeptic objections such as those raised against introspection, those targeting the unreliability of episodic memory, and those claiming that interviews cannot address the psychological, cognitive and biological correlates of experience. It argues that the skeptic must either heed the methodological and epistemological justification of the phenomenological interview provided, or embrace a more fundamental skepticism, a “deep mistrust”, in which scientific discourse can have no recourse to conscious processes as explananda , with ensuing dire consequences for our conception of science.