Premium
First‐person access to decision‐making using micro‐phenomenological self‐inquiry
Author(s) -
Sparby Terje,
Lumma AnnaLena,
Edelhäuser Friedrich,
Glaser Rosa,
Schnitzler Luis,
Weger Ulrich W.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.743
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1467-9450
pISSN - 0036-5564
DOI - 10.1111/sjop.12766
Subject(s) - phenomenology (philosophy) , psychology , interview , interpretative phenomenological analysis , reliability (semiconductor) , phenomenological method , replicate , social psychology , epistemology , qualitative research , social science , philosophy , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , sociology , political science , law , statistics , mathematics
Micro‐phenomenology is a method for improving first‐person reports of experience. Usually, micro‐phenomenology is conducted using a second‐person interviewer who guides someone investigating an experience. This has the advantage that the interviews can be done with untrained subjects. However, it is possible to perform micro‐phenomenological self‐inquiry, a form of self‐interview technique, without a second‐person interviewer. This has several advantages, such as being more time and cost effective. Questionable, however, is the possibility for untrained subjects to enquire into their own experience using micro‐phenomenology. The present study aims to test the reliability of micro‐phenomenological self‐inquiry with untrained subjects using a guiding document. We replicated an experimental design that has previously been employed to test whether micro‐phenomenology increases the reliability of reports. The experiment did not replicate. Reasons for this may be: (1) a methodological weakness of the previous study; (2) that the way the self‐inquiry format employed as part of the present study was ineffective; or (3) that micro‐phenomenological self‐inquiry requires training. These specific possibilities and the idea of testing the reliability of micro‐phenomenological reports in general are discussed. We conclude that the self‐inquiry format is not sufficient for conducing micro‐phenomenological studies and that training is required.