The paper surveys numerous methods that claim to work with subjective experience, such as IPA, DES, micro phenomenology, and neurophenomenology, and notes the difficulty in identifying their specificities and differences. It argues that when working empirically with others' experience through interviews, one engages in a '2nd person method,' and observes that all but one paper in the special issue describe such methods, which involve engaging someone else about his or her experience.
Micro-phenomenology, an interview and analysis method for investigating subjective experience, can be turned on itself to reveal quality criteria. In a pilot series of five interviews, experienced micro-phenomenology researchers recalled one successful and one challenging instance of using the method. An auto-ethnographic dialogue between the authors illustrates the planning, conducting, and analysis of these interviews. An unexpected finding emerged: researchers judge the quality of an interview partly based on a sense of connection or contact between interviewer and interviewee. The article discusses this finding in relation to the method's means and intentions and suggests directions for future research.