BY: Dr. Alison Woolley, Dr. Allen Jorgenson, & Dr. Steve Taylor | September 22, 2025
Interviews are a common resource for those researching theology and psychology. It is tempting to approach the interview in a utilitarian way, as a method for gathering data by asking questions. Yet in real time, we as researchers experienced interruptive moments in our semi-structured interviews. At times, our participants were disrupted by our questions. At other times, our participants challenged us to rethink our theory and our practice.
As theologians, we might consider these interruptions as spiritual. Practical theologian, Nicola Slee wrote that ‘the research process itself forms and shapes us as women of faith, ... challenges us to dig deep within our own spiritual resources [...] teaches us how to discern the sacred [...] and enables us to grow in spiritual stature and wisdom’.[1] Theologically, semi-structured interviews can interrupt us and our participants in ways that offer new insights.
How might psychology help us understand these interruptive moments? Interdisciplinary research exposed us to new psychological insights. Self Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, is an empirically-driven psychological meta-theory that uses its six sub-theories to investigate human motivation across the continuum. Since the mid-1980s it has amassed a significant body of research into what drives our behaviour and propels us into action; how differences in motivation impact on personality, development and wellbeing; and how our behaviour is regulated across the different domains of our lives. Previously applied in areas like psychological dysfunction and wellbeing, we find it also applies to semi-structured interviews.
SDT claims that humanity’s three basic psychological needs are competence, relatedness and autonomy. Within SDT, competence is about feeling effective and capable. It shows up in our natural curiosity, our drive to learn, and our desire to do things well in areas of life that matter to us. Relatedness refers to feeling connected to others. We experience it when we feel cared for, have a sense of belonging, and feel that we matter to and contribute to the lives of those around us. Autonomy means being able to direct our own actions and experiences in ways that feel freely chosen and true to ourselves, enabling us take part in activities with whole-hearted interest and commitment.[2] SDT proposes that when these three basic psychological needs are supported, our wellbeing is optimised; when thwarted, our wellbeing decreases.
When our basic psychological needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy are supported, we are more likely to internalize values and goals, developing motivation that is self-endorsed and autonomous, and therefore act with more autonomous forms of motivation. And when we are more autonomously motivated, we tend to engage in behaviours that increase the likelihood of satisfying all our basic psychological needs. As a result, SDT understands autonomous motivation and basic need satisfaction to be mutually reinforcing processes that underpin our psychological wellbeing. How much do psychological needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy in us and our participants illuminate those interruptive moments we experienced?
Allen’s Experience
I (Allen) resonated with the phenomenon of competence among my participants. An important component in my cross-training project, entitled Ageing in a Liminal Time, has been the qualitative interviews. I love doing these and find them stimulating. There is both a science and an art to semi-structured interviews, and when they go well, they can be quite illuminating. I have been struck, however, by the way in which some of the interviews have been interruptive for some of the participants. In speaking with people about their anticipation of retirement, or their recent experience of being retired, a few have been stopped in their tracks as a phrase fell from their mouth that was utterly unexpected. Sometimes a question caused them to reframe their expectation or experience of retiring, and I could see the wheels turning in their head. One participant anticipating retirement noted, at the end of the interview, that the conversation has “helped me to put some thoughts together that I probably wasn't prepared to put together.”
I recall my own experience of an illuminative and generative moment a few years ago, when I was being interviewed by a PhD student. The researcher asked me a well-formed question and a thought coalesced in my response that I had not previously considered. This experience of the interview took me by surprise. As I reflect on qualitative research, it strikes me that the very experience of being interviewed affirms the participant as one who is competent in the area under discussion. This creates space for generative insight and heightened self-awareness. Sometimes, this opens vistas not previously pondered for both the interviewer and the participant and makes the interview arresting and liberating for both parties to the conversation.
Alison’s Experience
I (Alison) resonated with the phenomenon of relatedness and the researcher. My study investigates the impact of a project I run that offers additional one-to-one and peer group support to women doctoral students. Listening back to recorded conversations between self-chosen pairs of participants, at which I wasn’t present, has revealed specific examples of ways that they have been supported – or thwarted – by the project which might not have emerged if I had gathered data in a traditional interview. Data gathering conversations become interruptive for researchers.
In listening to the recordings, I was struck by the role of relationships—between the participants, and their individual relationships with me—in the quality of engagement and what was explored. Dialogue was deeper, more revealing, and flowed with the ease of familiarity when pairings were between women from the same peer support group, whereas conversation between pairs from different groups tended towards being formal, a little stilted, and with either a more superficial level of discussion or being dominated by one voice. But what surprised me most was that women who knew each other well felt safe enough to name small changes in their one-to-one Zoom sessions with me that could improve their support. One participant, for example, said she’d feel more at ease if I sat in a space with a background that revealed more about me. Pondering what I initially felt as a challenge to my competency helped me to realise that this participant needed me to reveal more of myself and my interests. This resulted in a richer rapport between us as the participant felt comfortable and connected enough to share more deeply areas of life in which she needed additional support.
Steve’s Experience
I (Steve) resonated with the phenomenon of autonomy in the structuring of interviews. My project investigates the social impact of spiritual practices. I recruited participants willing to share a spiritual practice over four or eight week periods. I used surveys, observation, journals and either focus groups or interviews to explore the social impact of sharing in a spiritual practice.
As I prepared to interview, I wrestled with when and how to introduce my research question. Too early in the interview risked alerting participants to my theoretical interests and potentially influencing their responses. Too late and I ran the risk of not allowing the participant sufficient time to offer their insights. Particularly when interviews occurred during a lunch break or between work meetings.
Invariably, explaining the research question became an interruptive moment. After I explained my research question and the psychological theory shaping my study, all of my interview participants expanded on their reflections. They realised they had more knowledge they wanted to share. Information illuminated their lived experience. My final question often resulted in the longest answer. - “So any thoughts, questions, reflections on the research process having heard that explanation?” I had withheld information not wanting to influence how my participants experienced spiritual practices. Yet knowledge enabled them to connect their lived experience with my research question. I left the interviews pondering how information is interruptive in ways that deepen insight, generate new connections and increase the autonomy of a participant’s lived experience.
***
Interdisciplinary research involves not only exposure to new theories, like SDT. Interdisciplinary research also involves the sharing of practice, like semi-structured interviews. Our informal reflection on the interruptive moments and the shifts that result, in researchers, participants and interviews, is illuminated by our theological convictions and exploration of new psychological insights. We realise that interview interactions in research are informed by competence, relatedness and autonomy. Qualitative research can be a mutual task which supports the wellbeing of participants. Interviews are a space which can deepen the spiritual encounter with self and other. Art and science, theory and practice, craft and faith, converge in interruptive ways in semi-structured interviews.
[1] Nicola Slee, ‘Feminist qualitative research as spiritual practice: Reflections on the process of doing qualitative research’, in Nicola Slee, Fran Prter and Anne Phillips, eds, The Faith of Women and Girls (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 14-24, these quotes 14 & 15.
[2] Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, Self Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness (New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2017), 10-11.
