<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article article-type="research-article" xml:lang="English" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">journalspress</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>JournalsPress</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<publisher><publisher-name>JournalsPress</publisher-name></publisher>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://journalspress.com/journal-seo-export/jats/65909.xml" />
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">65909</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>What is &#8216;storytelling science&#8217; of self-correcting storytelling interviewing?</article-title>
</title-group>
<self-uri content-type="html" xlink:href="https://journalspress.com/what-is-storytelling-science-of-self-correcting-storytelling-interviewing-2/" />
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec>
<title>Full Text</title>
<p>The Hawthorne Studies were transformed, when in July of 1929, after 1600 interviews, they halted the project, and changed their interviewing method from semi-structured and structured interviews they had called the &#039;direct approach to questioning&#039; to the new &#039;indirect approach&#039; in which people told their accounts and stories, without interruption, without the interviewer trying to herd the [storyteller] back so some a priori topics and sub-topics (Roethlisberger, Dickson, Wright, &amp;amp; Pforzheimer: 1939: 203). The indirect approach to what we (Boje &amp;amp; Rosile, 2019 in this book) now call &#039;conversational storytelling&#039; was found to produce less social desirability effects. Instead of semi-structured interviews, the psychologists and psychoanalysts recommended a purposive conversation.</p>
</sec>
</body>
</article>