JSPR

Article

Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships
Qualitative research 2014, Vol. 31(4) 482–489
ª The Author(s) 2014
interviews: Assessing Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

the therapeutic value DOI: 10.1177/0265407514522892

spr.sagepub.com

and challenges

Kelly R. Rossetto
Department of Communication, Boston College, USA

Abstract
This essay explores a question crucial to the role of qualitative researchers: Is there
therapeutic value in the research interview process? I use interviewees’ responses to
participating in in-depth interviews, along with a discussion of theoretical and empirical
research, to build and evidence an argument that the qualitative research interview
(QRI) process can be therapeutic and should be acknowledged as such. Challenges to
researchers and ideas for strengthening the value of QRIs are discussed.

Keywords
In-depth interviews, qualitative research, qualitative research interviews

Researchers across disciplines have pondered this question: What is the value of our
research? Two journals, Communication Monographs (2009, 2010) and Journal of
Applied Communication Research (2009), recently published a joint forum with
researchers’ reflections on whether or not communication research has made a differ-
ence. Their conclusions have implications for all social science disciplines. Some
claimed that researchers make a difference via translational research (i.e., making results
available to others) and through offering guidance, advice, or interventions (Frey, 2009;
Hummert, 2009; Seeger, 2009). These perspectives are focused on the content and
outcomes of research as well as how what we learn through research can produce
societal, institutional, relational, and personal change.

Corresponding author:
Kelly R. Rossetto, Department of Communication, Boston College, Maloney Hall #519, Chestnut Hill,
MA 02467, USA.
Email: rossetto@bc.edu
Rossetto 483

I am interested in a third perspective offered on how research, specifically qualitative

relational research, can make a difference. How does the research process, ‘‘when honed
toward thoughtful reflection from participants’’ (Manning, 2010, p. 439), produce pos-
itive change in the lives of others? In other words, is there value in taking part in
relational research as well as learning from it? This view of making a difference relies
on understanding qualitative approaches to research and is more localized, as it focuses
on a select sample of participants. Yet it is still imperative to consider the potential
benefits of the qualitative research process for participants if we are to fully understand
the value of our research and conduct it responsibly.

Qualitative research interviews versus clinical interviews

Qualitative research interviews (QRIs) involve gathering information and facts (Targum,
2011; Weiss, 1994), eliciting stories (Birch & Miller, 2000; Romanoff, 2001), and
learning about meanings, emotions, experiences, and relationships (Weiss, 1994) that
cannot easily be observed (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). Interviewers engage in active,
supportive listening that involves paraphrasing and probing to develop rapport and
encourage in-depth discussion (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). These qualities are similar to
clinical interviews and therapy sessions that also highlight rapport building, openness
(Egan, 1994; Targum, 2011; Weiss, 1994), and shared understanding (Egan, 1994;
MacKinnon, Michels, & Buckley, 2009).
However, QRIs differ from clinical interviews in substantial ways. First, QRIs are
intended to gather information rather than help participants; they do not offer advice
(Weiss, 1994) or treatment plans (Targum, 2011). Also, qualitative researchers hear
about events, situations, and information relevant to participants and the study, as
opposed to discussing internal states and processing previous sources of these states in
therapy (Weiss, 1994). Finally, the relationship between the interviewee and the
therapist or researcher is different. Therapists become authority figures, responsible for
life changes (Ferrara, 1994) and improvement (Weiss, 1994); they seek to enable
affective experiencing, cognitive mastery, and behavioral regulation (Karasu, 1986).
Qualitative research interviewers are more equal partners in an intersubjective story-
telling experience (Haynes, 2006; Weiss, 1994) and participate in the ‘‘joint con-
struction of meaning’’ (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002, p. 17).

Therapeutic value in qualitative research interviews

Despite differences between therapy and research interviews, and considering the
similarities in approach and outcomes, I argue that participating in QRIs can be inher-
ently therapeutic. Moreover, qualitative researchers must acknowledge this therapeutic
possibility because it can and should affect participants’ reactions, interviewers’
approaches, and how researchers can make a difference in people’s lives.
Similar to clinical interviews, the QRI context is a space for sharing stories, which can
provide rich information for researchers and serve a healing meaning-making function
for participants (Gale, 1992). Talking to another person can be cathartic (Hutchinson,
Wilson, & Wilson, 1994; Weiss, 1994), as it encourages emotional release and can make
484 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(4)

people feel better (Kottler, 1991). This is similar to the therapeutic value of writing (e.g.,
Pennebaker, 1997, 2004). Sharing information, stories, and experiences can also raise
self-awareness (Hutchinson et al., 1994; Weiss, 1994), help individuals better understand
their situations (Birch & Miller, 2000; MacKinnon et al., 2009), find a sense of purpose
(Hutchinson et al., 1994), and even change their thinking patterns (Pennebaker, 1997).
This organization of thoughts can incite new perspectives (Egan, 1994), promote resolu-
tions (Birch & Miller, 2000), and act as an agent for change (Romanoff, 2001). The QRI
is not therapy, but it is therapeutic in that it offers a space for catharsis through sharing.
As Varallo, Berlin Ray, and Hartman Ellis claim, ‘‘Speaking does much more than trans-
fer information from the interviewee to the interviewer; it has the potential to transform
the interviewee’’ (1998, p. 261).

Participant perspectives on qualitative research interviews

The therapeutic value of QRIs became apparent to me after conducting interviews with
military wives on their experiences with spousal deployment. After multiple respondents
provided unsolicited reactions to participating in interviews, I sought reactions from all
participants. Similar to other researchers (e.g., Birch & Miller, 2000; Haynes, 2006),
post-interview responses allowed me to directly witness the therapeutic potential of my
research. Sharing the following interview excerpts allows me to illustrate, from partici-
pants’ perspectives, the claims I have made regarding the therapeutic value of qualitative
interviews and research:

Participant #19: I had a great time talking with you today, sorry for getting so
emotional, I think it may have been a bit therapeutic though. It isn’t every day
someone wants to sit down with me and let me spill the beans on how the deployments
have affected me. Thank you for being so understanding with everything I was talking
about.

Participant #14: I found it therapeutic to talk to a neutral third party about what I was
feeling since my husband had just left only 2 months before. . . . It was a good
experience.

Participant #18: I felt relieved after talking to you because I felt like you were open to
hearing me and I didn’t have to feel bad I was wasting a friend’s time venting for an
hour.
These participants’ reactions alone reinforce my argument that QRIs have therapeutic
value and offer participants an outlet to reflect on experiences and share feelings with a
neutral, interested party. Importantly, participants qualified this process as positive,
therapeutic, and relieving. Some also felt they gained self-awareness and could help
themselves and others through participating:

Participant #23: I was happy to be able to give you and whomever might read your
dissertation an insight of how life really is. Doing the interview made me think more
about how I have reacted to certain situations being without my husband. I am more
Rossetto 485

aware of what and how I do things regarding my kids and being their only available
parent. I learned that I needed to find a way to deal with the stresses.

Participant #24: Answering questions makes you think about things a little more in
depth. I was kind of excited to share my experience because I think a lot of people
have such a negative perspective on deployment . . . I thought it was a good expe-
rience to analyze yourself in a way. I know I realized that I’m actually growing a lot
more over this deployment, and our relationship (me and my husband) is developing
in a different way.

One participant even highlighted how the interview may have acted as an agent for
change:

Participant #18: I thought about how therapy might be very important in my healing
process and in overcoming any resentment I have. I still haven’t seen a therapist and
I don’t know that I’ve fully let go of my resentment. After the phone conversation,
I thought several times about and found myself curious about what your conclusions
were after all of your interviews and if you found anything that could be helpful to me
and other Army wives in the future in the case that we have to do another one of these
deployments.

The interview promoted consideration of behavioral change for this participant (e.g.,
therapy and letting go of resentment). It also made her think about how she could learn
more to help herself and others improve future experiences. This is akin to transfor-
mative effects for incest survivors who participated in interviews and expressed hope
that their participation could help others and produce change beyond the self (Varallo
et al., 1998).
This evidence does not suggest QRIs are a panacea. Although I did not receive
negative responses from participants, it could be that those who did not offer feedback
experienced the interview as innocuous or even suffered negative reactions. These
possibilities, along with other indicators of negative reactions to research, should be
investigated in order to minimize participant harm. Harmful reactions to QRIs might
include regret, exhaustion (Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998), painful memories (Dyregrov,
2004; Weiss, 1994), negative emotions and/or distress (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Newman
& Kaloupek, 2004), or destructive behavior (Newman & Kaloupek, 2004). However,
similar to investigations of reactions to interviews on sensitive topics and with vulner-
able populations (e.g., Newman & Kaloupek, 2004), I received positive feedback—
focused on the therapeutic and reflective functions of participation. These reactions
prompted me to further consider the role of my research in others’ lives and contemplate
this alternative perspective on the value of QRIs more generally.

The researcher’s role in promoting therapeutic value

Glesne and Peshkin state, ‘‘Although researchers do not wittingly assume the role of
therapist, they nonetheless fashion an interview process that can be strikingly ther-
apeutic’’ (1992, p. 123). I argue that the therapeutic outcomes of the interview process
486 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(4)

are based on the roles and strategies of the qualitative researcher. Although natural and
perhaps unavoidable, they need to be recognized—particularly when working with
vulnerable populations.
Many clients say that understanding (Egan, 1994), warmth, and caring (Kottler, 1991)
can be the most helpful aspects of therapy. Researchers can promote similar therapeutic
effects. Acting as a nonjudgmental (Ferrara, 1994; Kottler, 1991), neutral (Weiss, 1994),
empathic, respectful, and active listener (Egan, 1994; Haynes, 2006), who does not
interrupt or offer advice (Targum, 2011; Weiss, 1994), can foster openness and heighten
the therapeutic potential of the QRI process. Empathy and reassurance, both important to
therapy, are shown through back-channel cues (e.g., ‘‘mmhm’’), paraphrasing, probing
(Egan, 1994; Ferrara, 1994), and developing rapport (MacKinnon et al., 2009)—all skills
for conducting QRIs (Baxter & Babbie, 2003; Targum, 2011). Consequently, even when
maintaining neutrality, researchers might show empathy and reassurance, which can be
supportive to participants and produce fuller sources of insight that are valuable to the
research results (Haynes, 2006).
It might be accurate that QRI goals differ from therapeutic interview goals. Quali-
tative interviewers seek to understand human behavior, elicit information and meaning,
and learn from participants; therapists champion change and aim to educate and help the
client (Romanoff, 2001; Weiss, 1994). However, the process of reaching these goals may
be similar, leading to similar therapeutic results. Through the QRI process, we try to
build rapport with, listen to, and understand our participants. In doing so, we can offer an
open, neutral space for in-depth reflection and interaction that may promote positive psy-
chological change (Birch & Miller, 2000) while also strengthening the validity of our
data. If we embrace this process and potential, even when it proves difficult, we will
strengthen our skills as empathic learners of others’ experiences and co-constructors
of their stories. Consequently, I believe we will go beyond offering therapeutic value
to our participants and improve the capacity for translational research based on the rich,
personal information we uncover.

Challenges for qualitative researchers

Although QRIs may naturally be therapeutic for participants, and offer rich data, this
quality can pose challenges to interviewers. As researchers encourage sensitive dis-
closures, role confusion may occur (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputton,
2006; Weiss, 1994). Participants could mistake the interview as therapy and, as such, the
interviewer as a therapist. Researchers must carefully maintain boundaries to protect the
researcher–participant relationship and ethical obligations to do no harm (Birch &
Miller, 2000; Dickson-Swift et al., 2006; Haynes, 2006). Boundaries can be achieved
through minimizing personal disclosure, debriefing (Dickson-Swift et al., 2006), recog-
nizing distress signals (Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998), drawing back when responses
become negative (Haynes, 2006), and being direct about the research relationship.
Because researchers are not trained counselors, they might experience emotional vulner-
ability, guilt, fatigue, and burnout (Dickson-Swift et al., 2006). The researcher’s role is
listener, learner, and observer, not counselor or therapist. A list of local counseling
resources should be available for participants to highlight this distinction.
Rossetto 487

Final considerations
In contrast to Targum’s view that ‘‘every effort to restrict clinical benefit accrued during
the interview process is warranted’’ (2011, p. 43), I argue that we must maneuver
carefully through the QRI process and our actions, knowing we may be the impetus of
positive change for participants who share their experiences with us. We need to con-
sider, acknowledge, and develop the therapeutic value of QRIs, and other interview
approaches, even if this creates difficulties. For example, interactive interviews often
involve reciprocal sharing between the researcher and researched (Ellis, Kiesinger, &
Tillmann-Healy, 1997), and reflexive interviews ‘‘transform information into shared
experiences’’ that can have effects on people (Denzin, 2001, p. 24). These qualities
might heighten emotional and therapeutic dimensions, introduce further boundary ambi-
guity, or produce varied reactions to the interview process. I invite researchers working
from different approaches to ask similar questions regarding the value of their research
process. Different perspectives will help further our understanding of the therapeutic
potential of interviewing and the challenges that come with it.
Not every interview will be therapeutic. As research interviewers, we may reside
within a spectrum between information collectors, empathic listeners, and subjectively
embedded and affected story builders. Wherever we find ourselves, we are ethically
responsible to recognize the change that can occur through our inquiries in order to best
serve our participants and produce valid, representative interpretations of our data.
Evaluating the therapeutic value of qualitative research has been a fruitful process for
me. I hope that in sharing my perspective others will also consider their methodological
approaches and further strengthen the inherent benefits and buffer the potential chal-
lenges associated with their own research.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2003). The basics of communication research. Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
Birch, M., & Miller, T. (2000). Inviting intimacy: The interview as therapeutic opportunity. Inter-
national Journal of Social Research and Methodology, 3, 189–202. doi:10.1080/
13645570050083689
Corbin, J., & Morse, J. M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and
risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 335–354. doi:10.1177/
1077800403009003001
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative
Research, 1, 23–46. doi:10.1177/146879410100100102
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputton, P. (2006). Blurring boundaries in qua-
litative health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 853–871. doi:10.
1177/1049732306287526
488 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31(4)

Dyregrov, K. (2004). Bereaved parents’ experience of research participation. Social Science &
Medicine, 58, 391–400. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00205-3
Egan, G. (1994). The skilled helper: A problem-management approach to helping. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ellis, C., Kiesinger, C. E., & Tillmann-Healy, L. M. (1997). Interactive interviewing: Talking
about emotional experience. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. 119–149). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ferrara, K. W. (1994). Therapeutic ways with words. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Frey, L. R. (2009). What a difference more difference-making communication scholarship might
make: Making a difference from and through communication research. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 37, 205–214. doi:10.1080/00909880902792321
Gale, J. (1992). When research interviews are more therapeutic than therapy interviews. The
Qualitative Report, 1. Retrieved August 15, 2013, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/
QR1-4/gale.html
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Gubrium, J. E., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). From the individual interview to the interview society. In
J. E. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method
(pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haynes, K. (2006). A therapeutic journey? Reflections on the effects of research on researcher and
participants. Qualitative Research in Organization and Management: An International Jour-
nal, 1, 204–221. doi:10.1108/17465640610718798
Hummert, M. L. (2009). Not just preaching to the choir: Communication scholarship does
make a difference. Journal of Applied Communication, 37, 215–224. doi:10.1080/
00909880902792313
Hutchinson, S. A., Wilson, M. E., & Wilson, H. S. (1994). Benefits of participating in research
interviews. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26, 161–164.
Karasu, T. B. (1986). The specificity versus nonspecificity dilemma: Toward identifying therapeu-
tic change agents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 687–695.
Kavanaugh, K., & Ayres, L. (1998). ‘‘Not as bad as it could have been’’: Assessing and mitigating
harm during research on sensitive topics. Research in Nursing and Health, 21, 91–97. doi:10.
1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199802)21:1<91::AID-NUR10>3.0.CO;2-C
Kottler, J. A. (1991). The compleat therapist. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MacKinnon, R. A., Michels, R., & Buckley, P. J (2009). The psychiatric interview in clinical prac-
tice (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Manning, J. (2010). There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside you: Communication
research as interventive practice. Communication Monographs, 77, 437–439. doi:10.1080/
03637751.2010.520019
Newman, E., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2004). The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused
research studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 383–394. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000048951.
02568.3a
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Writing to heal: A guided journal for recovering from trauma and emo-
tional upheaval. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
Rossetto 489

Romanoff, B. D. (2001). Research as therapy: The power of narrative to effect change. In R. A.

Neimeyer (Ed.), Meaning reconstruction & the experience of loss (pp. 245–257). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10397-013
Seeger, M. (2009). Does communication research make a difference: Reconsidering the impact of
our work. Communication Monographs, 76, 1–19. doi:10.1080/03637750802684006
Targum, S. D. (2011). The distinction between clinical and research interviews in psychiatry. Inno-
vations in Clinical Neuroscience, 8, 40–44. Retrieved August 15, 2013, from http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074196/
Varallo, S. M., Berlin Ray, E., & Hartman Ellis, B. (1998). Speaking of incest: The research inter-
view as social justice. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 254–271. doi:10.1080/
00909889809365504
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York, NY: Free Press.