Philip John Archard Mental health practitioner, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, Leicester, England
Michelle O’Reilly Associate professor, University of Leicester, College of Social Sciences, Leicester, England
Why you should read this article

• To critically assess parallels between research interviewing and psychotherapeutic practice

• To understand how research interviews can be conceptualised and practised in a way that is informed by principles derived from psychoanalytic therapy

• To recognise some of the limits and possibilities in using interpretive comments and feeding back analyses with a psychoanalytically informed research approach

Background This article focuses on approaches to qualitative research interviewing that draw direct inspiration from psychoanalytic therapy. The reflective discussion piece provides a critical spotlight on this method to promote reflection and ethical application.

Aim To provide clarity regarding the meaning of psychoanalytically informed, psycho-social research and the interpretive nature of qualitative interviews and of therapy, and to reflect on nurse researchers’ partiality for using quasi-dynamic interpretative comments and the sharing of formulations in interviews.

Discussion The authors review relevant literature, and comment on the apprehension and uncertainty researchers may experience with this type of research approach.

Conclusion Researchers should consider how they conduct themselves as interviewers and what to share of the analysis of participants’ accounts based on the specifics of the research, including their or their team’s experience of conducting psychotherapy and their and participants’ expectations about what may be therapeutic about interviews.

Implications for practice Psychoanalytically informed research interviewing should be used in a reflective way by nurse researchers with attention paid to the limitations and possibilities of parallels between psychotherapeutic and research interview dialogue.

Nurse Researcher. 30, 3, 28-35. doi: 10.7748/nr.2022.e1844

Correspondence

philip.archard@nhs.net

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Permission

To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com

For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/write-for-nurse-researcher

Already subscribed? Log in OR Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today Save over 50% on your first 3 months Your subscription package includes: Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests Subscribe RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or