Open peer commentary on the article “An Analysis Procedure for the Micro-Phenomenological Interview” by Camila Valenzuela-Moguillansky & Alejandra Vásquez-Rosati. Abstract: I raise questions about the use of metaphor in the article as well as the linearity of the microphenomenological analysis process. Is there a way to represent a more accurate and complete overview of this process?

Micro-phenomenology is a method for improving first-person reports of experience. Usually, micro-phenomenology is conducted using a second-person interviewer who guides someone investigating an experience. This has the advantage that the interviews can be done with untrained subjects. However, it is possible to perform micro-phenomenological self-inquiry, a form of self-interview technique, without a second-person interviewer. This has several advantages, such as being more time and cost effective. Questionable, however, is the possibility for untrained subjects to enquire into their own experience using micro-phenomenology. The present study aims to test the reliability of micro-phenomenological self-inquiry with untrained subjects using a guiding document. We replicated an experimental design that has previously been employed to test whether micro-phenomenology increases the reliability of reports. The experiment did not replicate. Reasons for this may be: (1) a methodological weakness of the previous study; (2) that the way the self-inquiry format employed as part of the present study was ineffective; or (3) that micro-phenomenological self-inquiry requires training. These specific possibilities and the idea of testing the reliability of micro-phenomenological reports in general are discussed. We conclude that the self-inquiry format is not sufficient for conducing micro-phenomenological studies and that training is required.