Manuel, I support many of the suggestions made already in this thread in relation to phenomenological interviewing  (Smith, Flowers and Larkin is good) and the hermeneutic processes.  

However, I am a little unclear about how phenomenological interviewing will help you.  Perhaps you could explain what you are trying to do there? You seem to want to explore brain activation patterns during cognitive tasks, presumably engaging both implicit thinking and explicit thinking (Kahneman infers all cognition has implicit elements).  That sounds like a very exciting topic and I can see synergies with theoretical phenomenology particularly with Schutz’s adoption of the concept of schemata as organising structures.

As an aside, I hope to publish something on schema and dual cognitive processes shortly. The strength of the schema concept is that it provides a link between System 1 thinking and System 2 thinking and explains some of the interrelationships.  It can also be used to explain phenomena such as the “mental shotgun” described by Kahneman. It also explains which schemata come to dominate at any one moment in time. In reference to your comment about control, I should say that I prefer the more organic models which don’t imply a need for ‘control’ but see conscious thought emerging from dynamic interplay of implicit processes.  For example

·       Norman, DA & Shallice, T 1986, 'Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behavior ', in Richard Davidson, J., Gary E.  Schwartz and David Shapiro (eds), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 4, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1-18.

·       Huesmann, LR 1998, 'The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior', in Russell G. Geen and Edward Donnerstein (eds), Human Aggression: Theories, research and implications for social policy, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 73-109.

Part of my question about your proposed use of phenomenological interviewing lies in what I believe it can tell you. My reading of the literature on phenomenological interviewing suggests the interviews may have different shapes. Some focus solely on non-directive, open-ended questions asking for descriptions (Smith et al) others encourage expressive methods of interviewing, eliciting art, poetry etc. that reflect lived experience (e.g. Janet Waters https://www.capilanou.ca/psychology/student-resources/research-guidelines/Phenomenological-Research-Guidelines/).

If you are trying to tease out some of the differences between System 1 and System 2 then using question-based interview may be a viable strategy. However, if you wish to explore underling cognitive processes using phenomenological interviewing there is an issue you might wish to consider.

I see a contradiction in the literature on phenomenological interviewing (one that goes back to Husserl himself) between the focus on lived experience and the idea that reflection is the means of obtaining data on lived experience.  If you accept there is a qualitative difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking you will understand my concern. Reflection is inherently System 2 thinking but experience is largely System 1 thinking.

Madelaine’s suggestion about ‘Think Aloud’ approaches will provide some useful data.  They are particularly useful in testing questionnaires but in my experience they largely capture only System 2 thinking and there is much System 1 thinking that is not revealed (see also)

·       Wilson, TdC & Nisbett, RE 1978, 'The Accuracy of Verbal Reports About the Effects of Stimuli on Evaluations and Behavior', Social Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 118-31.

·       Nisbett, RE & Wilson, TD 1977, 'Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes', Psychol Rev, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 231-59.

Some writers (below) provide defences for talk aloud methods but I am not sure either defence works for a project that attempts to elicit implicit understandings, especially if you are working with people who are not trained in meditation.

·       Sudman, Bradburn and Schwarz (1996) Thinking about Answers

·       Petitmengin, C (2006), 'Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness', Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 229-69.

I prefer expressive methods because they are more closely linked to System 1 thinking. See for example

• Jenkins, N, Bloor, M, Fischer, JAN, Berney, LEE & Neale, J 2010, 'Putting it in context: the use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing', Qualitative Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 175-98.

I suggest they are much more likely to elicit cognitive processes that share some of the characteristics of the lived experience (see attached).  However, we do need to recognise that any interview situation is removed from the situation of interest and carries its own freight of context and demands on the participant. 

Conference Paper Understanding the subjective: eliciting hidden meaning

Interesting question. InsyAllah I will explain in detail soon

Dear Zol Bahri Razali I will wait for your comments

There are a number of different approaches to phenomenology, some of which are closer to traditional qualitative research (e.g., Smith's Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis) and others of which take a distinctively different direction (e.g., van Manen's Hermeneutic Phenomenology).

So, one thing you will need to do is clarify how the phenomenological portion of your research will contribute to the project as a whole. That will help you determine which variety of phenomenology is best for your purposes.

Dear Professor Morgan, first let me say thanks to you for helping me.

About the request about taking a philosophical stance relating to phenomenology in order to enable you in giving me a deeper advice I'm envisioning my phenomenological approach as a description of the experiences of the subjects that will be making some cognitive task and simultaneously I will be gathering neurological data about them (i.e. EEG). Then I tend to favour Husserl's first approach to phenomenology instead of interpretative approaches (i.e. Heidegger's way)

If you are interested in a Husserlian approach then you should consult Giorgi (2009) or Moustakas (1994). Both will give you a good idea of the research process.

Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

As for the research itself, I fail to understand what you are going for. Do you want to know the lived-experience of participating in a lab cognitive task? Do you want to conduct an interview after the task? Do you want to know how they experience the task itself? And if so, how do you think of integrating the neurological with the phenomenological?

I agree with the suggestion of Giorgi (2009) above. I have a book coming out at the end of this year that also tries to offer some ideas about this, and I am happy to share a copy with you. The title is Folk Phenomenology: Education, Study, and the Human Person (forthcoming, Pickwick Publications). 

There are several ways to find out about subjects' thoughts in the course of a decision making process. The phenomenological perspective does not offer a specific method.

I recommend a more focused approach:  "The problem-centered interview" by Andreas Witzel & Herwig Reiter. London: Sage 2012

Dear Professor Stein thanks for recommend me the two texts in order to grasp  Husserlian Approach I will try to get both.

I apologize to confuse you about my research but I have to say that you understand the features very well. I am working from dual system theory of brain as Kahneman’s claim in decision-making area. I have a little background on system theory and I strongly believe that those two systems aren’t independent and I will try to modelling that interdependence in a formal way in order to experimental validation of the models.

I will deal with my research – on the methodological issue – using the neuro-phenomenology approach introduced by Varela. In this approach I will gather complementary data from two sources: Phenomenological Experiences and Neurological Data.

In this vein it is possible to answering yes to all your questions because I will give to my participants some cognitive tasks that are supposed to elicit each of the systems and both of the systems in order to gathering neurological data with EEG. Then I want to know how were the experiences during the tasks interviewing the participants after doing them.

Then I will make a three-way contrast, first the neurological data about brain activity with the narratives of the experiences, second the neurological data with the tasks performances, and third the narratives of the experiences with the tasks performances.

I think is a very novel approach to the decision-making subject and as I a true believer that research in decision-making always will be useful I am very eager about my research project. I hope that I explain better myself in this opportunity and I will be looking forward in order to get more valuable feedback and opinions from you.

Thanks again for your time and interest,

Manuel

Dear Sam I will be very glad if you could send me a draft version of your book until It could be buyed by Amazon or some similar service. Thanks for share your knowledge about the issue in order to help me

Manuel

Dear Professor Heinz I appreciate so much your advice I will try to get the book that you recommend me. I got few minutes ago an article published by Witzel in the volume one of the open access journal "Forum: Qualitative Social Research" that I attached to this answer.

Dear Manual,

your project is exciting. I am a fun of studies that attempt to merge hard-science stance (third-person perspective) with subjective stances (first-person perspective).

Regarding the method, in the above discussion you find very helpful reference to Amedeo Giorgi's (2009) work. However the method may be challenging to use for it requires long long time for the analysis and the interview may not be easy to be led. This is my experience with it.

There is out there another work you could be interested in looking at:

Living Outside Mental Illness. Qualitative studies of recovery in Schizofrenia by Larry Davidson (2003). 

I just emplyed this method for my master thesis and beside having had a lot of fun I could actually gather relevanr experienced-based narratives. If you are interested I can forward you the methodology of my work just to familiarize with Davidson's(2003) method.

Finally, considering your research aim I would suggest you to explore Thompson (2007).

Looking forward to see more of this kind of research out there...

Kindly,

Matteo

Thanks Mateo for your support. I will be very glad if you could send me the full reference of Davidson and Thompson in order to try to get them, but for sure It will be very special to me is you could send me your work. My e-mail adress is [email protected]

I have found this article helpful:  Claire Petitmengin. (2006).  Describing one's subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness.  Phenom Cogn Sci 5:229-269. Some good practical advice.

Estimado Manuel José : acabo de publicar un capitulo sobre entrevistas cualitativas en un libro de Investigación Cualitativa en Enfermería. Como yo hago solamente investigación fenomenológica , tiene mi sesgo .te adjunto ese capitulo. No obstante, no basta con leer al respecto. Estoy de acuerdo con Matteo di Placido en que es una técnica compleja, que requiere de habilidades que solo se desarrollan entrenando con un experto.  me parece mas sabio que sigas su consejo y te olvides de la fenomenología por ahora, en que debes sacar tu tesis y en ese sentido menos es más. O sea te recomiendo que termines tu tesis para obtener tu grado y después investiga triangulando todo lo que quieras, con financiamiento y la posibilidad de contratar expertos.  Saludos. Soledad

Dear Manuel,

I'm using Elicitation interview (or Explicitation interview). This method was created by Pierre Vermersch in France for acceding subjective experience in real situations. The theoretical framework is 'psychophenomenology' that is developped by the same author, based on Jean Piaget and Husserl previous work. This package would be useful for you. I'm using this in elite sport field with coaches or for studying subjectivity of elite rugby players in match. But also for decision-making in medicine (surgery). Moreover you can read Claire Petitmangin papers; she is studying subjective experience of people before epilepsy crisis.

Regards

alain mouchet

Thank Nicole, I have downloaded the article and I will read with interest.

Muchas gracias por tu contribución y consejos María Soledad. Mucho de lo que entiendo y he aprendido sobre investigación cualitativa proviene de la enfermería, considero que ustedes se han acercado con mucha seriedad y éxito a estos mecanismos de investigación. Leeré con mucha atención el capítulo que tuviste la amabilidad de hacerme llegar y luego te haré llegar mis comentarios al respecto. Con respecto a renunciar al aspecto fenomenológico agradezco que me hayan llamado la atención respecto a esa posibilidad pero como buen capricornio voy a seguir avanzando un poco más antes de darme por vencido, ya que el enfoque de Varela me sedujo a un punto que  me sentiría menos pleno si no lo intento al menos. Confío que con toda la ayuda que una red tan prodigiosa como ResearchGate me ha estado proporcionando podré al menos tener más claro el asunto pero ya se que tomaré precauciones en cuanto a su alcance en mi proyecto para que no quede atado a ello, ni frustado en caso de no poder lograrlo o no poder financiar ayuda profesional al respecto.

Un gran abrazo y mis mejores deseos

Dear Alain, thanks a lot for your advice. Could you send me more information about where to read Vermersch's Approach or your own work?

Dear Manuel,

There are some references in French and English!

Regards

Alain

Mouchet, A. (2005a). Subjectivity in the articulation between strategy and tactics in team sports: example in rugby. Italian Journal of Sport Sciences, 12, 24-33.

Mouchet A. (2005b). Modélisation de la complexité des décisions tactiques en rugby. eJRIEPS, 7, 3-19.

Mouchet A. (2008). La subjectivité dans les décisions tactiques des joueurs experts en rugby. eJRIEPS, 14, 96-116.

Mouchet, A. (2013b). L’expérience subjective en sport : éclairage psycho-phénoménologique de l’attention. Sciences et Motricité, 81, 5-15.

Mouchet, A. (2014). L’entretien d’explicitation : usages diversifiés en recherche et formation, Paris : L’Harmattan coll. Action et savoir.

Mouchet, A. (2014b). Subjectivity as a resource for improving players’ decision-making in team sport. In R. L. Light, R.L., J. Quay, S. Harvey, & A. Mooney (Eds.), Contemporary developments in games teaching (pp. 149-166). London & New York: Routledge.

Mouchet, A., Vermersch, P., & Bouthier D. (2011). Méthodologie d’accès à l’expérience subjective : entretien composite et vidéo. Savoirs, 27, 87-105.

Mouchet, A., Harvey, S., & Light, R. (2013). Match coaching: communications with players during the game. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2012.761683.

Light, R., Harvey, S., & Mouchet, A. (2012). Improving ‘at-action’ decision-making in team sports through a holistic coaching approach, Sport, Education and Society, April, 1-18, DOI:10.1080/13573322.2012.665803.

Jarrett, K., Mouchet, A., Harvey, S., Scott, C. et Light, R. (2015). Using elicitation interview within a phenomenographic framework: Developing the breadth of research designs associated with game based approaches, Agora.

Maurel, M. 2009. The explicitation interview. Examples and applications. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16, no. 10-12: 58–89.

Petitmangin, C. (2006) Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5(3-4), 229–269

Petitmengin, C. (2009b). Editorial introduction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(10–12), 7–19.

Petitmengin, C. (Ed). (2011). Ten years’ viewing from within: Further debate. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(2).

Petitmengin, C. (2011). Describing the experience of describing? The blind spot of introspection. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(1), 44–62.

Petitmengin, C., & Bitbol, M. (2009). The validity of first-person descriptions as authenticity and coherence. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(10–12),

363–404.

Petitmengin, C., Bitbol, M., Nissou, J. M., Pachoud, B., Curalucci, C., Cermolacce, M., et al (2009). Listening from within. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(10–

12), 252–284.

Petitmengin, C., Navarro, V., & Le Van Quyen, M. (2007). Anticipating seizure: Pre-reflective experience at the center of neuro-phenomenology. Consciousness

and Cognition, 16, 746–764.

Vermersch, P. (1999b). Introspection as practice. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2-3), 17-42.

Vermersch, P. (2009). Describing the practice of introspection. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(10–12), 20–57.

Alain I do not have words to express how gratefully I am regarding all the information that you have facilitated to me. I hope to keep you in touch in order to get some feedback once I familiarize with that material.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Having done some interviewing for a phenomenological research paper, I value

Kvale's Interviews.  Amedeo Giorgi is also excellent as to phenomenological research  methodology, applicable to all types of human science investigations.

Brinkmann, Svend, and Steinar Kvale. 2015. InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage.

 http://www.amazon.com/InterViews-Learning-Qualitative-Research-Interviewing/dp/1452275726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434720868&sr=8-1&keywords=kvale%2C+interviews

Giorgi, A. (1997) The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Research.  28,2. 26 p.

Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, Pa: Duquesne University Press.

Dear William I found your recommendations very useful. Thanks a lot!

I am not familiar with a neurophemomenological approach but I have published a paper using an interpretative phenomenological approach (IPA) (Smith 1996).  This methodology recognises the interpretative role of the researcher throughout the research process.  I remember that it was difficult to find published papers with specific detailed interview methods.  I would like to share some valuable practical advice.  In addition to the recommended references I found a useful tool for me were research interview tutorial sessions on youtube by Professor Graham R Gibbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRgBS2JmXU

I think the importance of research interviewing is underestimated as how and what questions you ask will determine the answers you get which directly affects your data.  Phenomenological enquiry is a practical skill based on a solid theoretical underpinning.  It is a skill which you can cultivate and I would definitely recommend you do a few pilot  interviews with colleagues/friends so that you can cultivate the art of listening - literally like listening to somebody's story.  I would recommend that you audio record your interviews versus taking notes - even though the transcribing is time consuming. Phenomenological interviewing is an an inductive approach versus a reductive approach so beware of leading questions..  I think you will enjoy the experience. 

Here are a few practical points that you need to remember.

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/qualitative/intervie.htm

Good luck!

I am not familiar with a neurophemomenological approach but I have published a paper using an interpretative phenomenological approach (IPA) (Smith 1996).  This methodology recognises the interpretative role of the researcher throughout the research process.  I remember that it was difficult to find published papers with specific detailed interview methods.  I would like to share some valuable practical advice.  In addition to the recommended references I found a useful tool for me were research interview tutorial sessions on youtube by Professor Graham R Gibbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRgBS2JmXU

I think the importance of research interviewing is underestimated as how and what questions you ask will determine the answers you get which directly affects your data.  Phenomenological enquiry is a practical skill based on a solid theoretical underpinning.  It is a skill which you can cultivate and I would definitely recommend you do a few pilot  interviews with colleagues/friends so that you can cultivate the art of listening - literally like listening to somebody's story.  I would recommend that you audio record your interviews versus taking notes - even though the transcribing is time consuming. Phenomenological interviewing is an an inductive approach versus a reductive approach so beware of leading questions..  I think you will enjoy the experience. 

Here are a few practical points that you need to remember.

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/qualitative/intervie.htm

Good luck!

Dear Roberta your ideas are very important to me I appreciate so much your advice, I expect to keep in touch once I grasp better the phenomenological interviewing

Dear Manuel

The tacit-knowledge engineering method I use produces a systems-based, qualifying and qualitative result of not only an individual, but a select group of participants.

I suppose the method enables us to deal with exponential complexity. The technical method has been accepted as reasonable science by the IEEE.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281150322_Last-Mile_Knowledge_Engineering_Quest_for_the_Holy_Grail_An_emergence-based_approach_to_complex_systems_engineering_%28forward_reverse_and_re-engineering%29?ev=prf_pub

However, your question made me realize that I never explicitly shared the interviewing process I used when employing this method. It is most specific and would probably qualify as phenomenological interviewing.

I'd be happy to share it, but I'l need some time to write it all down into words as a "recipe" of a "guide" of sorts.

In all use cases, the method and its application have proven most effective for deabstracting "unseen" knowledge into an acceptable, scientific construct - as a systems model.

Regards,

Rob

Conference Paper Last-Mile Knowledge Engineering: Quest for the Holy Grail? A...

Dear Robert I just downloaded the slides of your presentation at PICMET because I am absolutely sure that your engineering approach will match with me for the most obvious reasons. I hope that you get some time to write how are the interviews within your approach because I'm pretty sure that it will be useful not only for me but for many others engineers with qualitative interview needs.

Thanks a lot

Dear Manuel

Thank you for your interest and encouragement. Besides the ontological standard for the method, I think the interviewing process further utilizes a research framework. This framework is not addressed within the method itself. For example, ambiguity, autonomy, jurisdiction, mandate, seniority, federation, subjectivity, objectivity, relativity, etc., are terms (in the sense of interviewing aspects), which would find themselves being qualified within the research framework. 

The interviewing process would be skilled enough to navigate these aspects of the participant contexts.

In general practitioners seemingly forget that to interview the human mind we need to first establish a suitable language for interviewing. This is a language of mindshare and alignment. Once all participants communicate with the same language, it becomes possible to extract significant meaning and high value from the content. 

In this case, the primary language employed is one of soft systems, which may exercise the option to find supportfrom hard-systems information (as qualitative facts).  The result is a hybridized soft-hard system, with certain soft bias expressed in scalable hard-systemic terms. What we have effectively done is reliably engineer the deabstraction of 'type' of knowledge into a standard, compound-functional construct.

The purpose of the interviewing technique is to manage the life cycle of the content (as maturing knowledge) into a qualified, compound-functional form. Some aspects of knowledge dealt with are obsolescence and maturity. This has relevance for validity, reliability, trust, integrity, completeness, and meaningfulness.

I'll share more ideas as they become clearer.

Regards 

Thanks Robert I will look forward eager wainting for more of your excelents ideas.

Are you going to be interviewing subjects on the experience of carrying out cognitive tasks?  I'm not totally clear on the experience you want to elicit through the interviews.  If that is what you are interested in doing, you might want to look at a technique called Thinking Aloud.  Simply put you would ask subjects to tell you aloud while they are doing the task what they are thinking.  You can tape record their thoughts.  It might give you more immediate information that asking for recall in an interview.

http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Tech44/

Thanks Madelaine for your time and feedback. You figure it out I will ask to participants to do some cognitive tasks and simultaneosly gathering neurological data. I was thinking in elicit the experience doing the task, paticularly the decision-making acivities. Your suggestion make a very good point about timing. I will read the material that you kindly attached in order to evaluate the experimental conditions that let me gather data "alive" and about memories also.

Best wishes

Dear Manuel,

I think I'm out of date with this reaction. Actually I'm not researcher in academic field and I'm not the expert at all. I was interested in your question cause I did my master thesis with using phenomenological approach in analysis of the interview. I used the approach developed by professor Sages from Lund University called Meaning Constitution Analysis. I must say that for my purposes that was really inspiring method, but I'm not sure if it would be useful for the purposes of your research. It's time consuming not for the collecting data, but for their analysis. Anyhow good luck with your work!

Here are some links:

Roger B. Sages, University of Lund, Sweden, [email protected]

Meaning Constitution Analysis: A Phenomenological Approach to Research in Human Sciences - article accessed online

He supervised some student's thesis that were using this method and you can access them online: authors are Hanni Maria Erkkilä, Anna Wypustek, Ellen Beronius & Sofia Lagerlöf Haraldsson etc.

Dear Lenka I appreciate so much your contribution, Sure I will look for the references that you recommend me because I have Lund in a very high estime on the basis of their academic quality and pertinence.

Thanks a lot

Another good link is the book Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis by Jonathan A. Smith, Paul Flowers and Michael Larkin (2009). It really does simplify phenomenology. With regard to interview guidance, there is very little out there on that and this has been acknowledged by the academic community in peer journals. If I do come across anything relevant I will get back to you as I am using phenomenological interviews for my research in intellectual disability imminently.

Regards

Sheila

Thanks Sheila I will look forward for your new opinions and I will try to get the book that you recommended me.

Hello Manuel,

In regard to undertaking focus groups or interviews from a hermeneutic perspective, the Smith et al collection is of assistance (one of my graduate students referred to this book for his successful thesis). There is also an associated online discussion group which you can locate via Google which offers much debate and guidance. I have conducted many 'hermeneutic focus groups' with others, and our way of doing so is only one route of many. You can find an initial discussion at Media Consumption in Malaysia. I have attached - I hope - an extract provided by Sainsbury!

Regards,

Tony Wilson

Dear Tony I appreciate so much your recommendations. I download the attachment and will read it carefully if something comes up I will contact you back for some guidance. I will seek for the Google Discussion Group.

Thanks a lot and best wishes,

Manuel

Manuel, I support many of the suggestions made already in this thread in relation to phenomenological interviewing  (Smith, Flowers and Larkin is good) and the hermeneutic processes.  

However, I am a little unclear about how phenomenological interviewing will help you.  Perhaps you could explain what you are trying to do there? You seem to want to explore brain activation patterns during cognitive tasks, presumably engaging both implicit thinking and explicit thinking (Kahneman infers all cognition has implicit elements).  That sounds like a very exciting topic and I can see synergies with theoretical phenomenology particularly with Schutz’s adoption of the concept of schemata as organising structures.

As an aside, I hope to publish something on schema and dual cognitive processes shortly. The strength of the schema concept is that it provides a link between System 1 thinking and System 2 thinking and explains some of the interrelationships.  It can also be used to explain phenomena such as the “mental shotgun” described by Kahneman. It also explains which schemata come to dominate at any one moment in time. In reference to your comment about control, I should say that I prefer the more organic models which don’t imply a need for ‘control’ but see conscious thought emerging from dynamic interplay of implicit processes.  For example

·       Norman, DA & Shallice, T 1986, 'Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behavior ', in Richard Davidson, J., Gary E.  Schwartz and David Shapiro (eds), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 4, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1-18.

·       Huesmann, LR 1998, 'The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior', in Russell G. Geen and Edward Donnerstein (eds), Human Aggression: Theories, research and implications for social policy, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 73-109.

Part of my question about your proposed use of phenomenological interviewing lies in what I believe it can tell you. My reading of the literature on phenomenological interviewing suggests the interviews may have different shapes. Some focus solely on non-directive, open-ended questions asking for descriptions (Smith et al) others encourage expressive methods of interviewing, eliciting art, poetry etc. that reflect lived experience (e.g. Janet Waters https://www.capilanou.ca/psychology/student-resources/research-guidelines/Phenomenological-Research-Guidelines/).

If you are trying to tease out some of the differences between System 1 and System 2 then using question-based interview may be a viable strategy. However, if you wish to explore underling cognitive processes using phenomenological interviewing there is an issue you might wish to consider.

I see a contradiction in the literature on phenomenological interviewing (one that goes back to Husserl himself) between the focus on lived experience and the idea that reflection is the means of obtaining data on lived experience.  If you accept there is a qualitative difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking you will understand my concern. Reflection is inherently System 2 thinking but experience is largely System 1 thinking.

Madelaine’s suggestion about ‘Think Aloud’ approaches will provide some useful data.  They are particularly useful in testing questionnaires but in my experience they largely capture only System 2 thinking and there is much System 1 thinking that is not revealed (see also)

·       Wilson, TdC & Nisbett, RE 1978, 'The Accuracy of Verbal Reports About the Effects of Stimuli on Evaluations and Behavior', Social Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 118-31.

·       Nisbett, RE & Wilson, TD 1977, 'Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes', Psychol Rev, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 231-59.

Some writers (below) provide defences for talk aloud methods but I am not sure either defence works for a project that attempts to elicit implicit understandings, especially if you are working with people who are not trained in meditation.

·       Sudman, Bradburn and Schwarz (1996) Thinking about Answers

·       Petitmengin, C (2006), 'Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness', Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 229-69.

I prefer expressive methods because they are more closely linked to System 1 thinking. See for example

• Jenkins, N, Bloor, M, Fischer, JAN, Berney, LEE & Neale, J 2010, 'Putting it in context: the use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing', Qualitative Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 175-98.

I suggest they are much more likely to elicit cognitive processes that share some of the characteristics of the lived experience (see attached).  However, we do need to recognise that any interview situation is removed from the situation of interest and carries its own freight of context and demands on the participant. 

Conference Paper Understanding the subjective: eliciting hidden meaning

David your contribution to this thread is simply awesome I am so sorry that I can't up vote it multiple times. I agree with you in terms of the existence of some of incompatibilities between some kind of interviews and the nature of system1/2 thinking and it could mean that it is plausible to plan different types of interview eliciting answers associated with each system use.

All your advice is savvy and I will reflect about your points later and come back with more feedback in some that could be a very fruitful conversation.

Thanks a lot

Manuel, that's very kind of you.  Look forward to further discussion.

Maybe this can be of help.

 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24413767

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01431.x/pdf

http://www.methodspace.com/profiles/blogs/in-depth-interview-in

http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/88/372

Or;

Deep swimming and murky waters: Phenomenological

interviewing - reflections from the field

by David King

https://www.google.com.pr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEoQFjAFOApqFQoTCOjEpZ7r-8gCFQbhJgodlDQFHQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticle.sciencepublishinggroup.com%2Fpdf%2F10.11648.j.edu.20140303.18.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEa0ZGRPOG2aMXq0_EGfOc5thLuiA&bvm=bv.106923889,d.eWE

 Hello Manuel

Asking about phenomenology is like asking how long is a piece of string. In my opinion descriptive phenomenology remains the most methodologically rigorous. I prefer the work of Giorgi, Kvale and Brinkmann and Seidman. Smith's IPA approach has been under particular scrutiny for it's nebulous approach and especially by Giorgi. If it helps I have attached a copy of a paper I published last year. Good luck

Article A Method of Phenomenological Interviewing