Abstract
In 2003, Alvesson articulated some of the problems associated with the truth-reporting model (TRM) of interviews in which researchers conclude that interviewee accounts can be regarded as reliable and objective statements of ‘truth’. However, despite his call for the TRM to be rejected and his plea for more critical and reflexive approaches to the analysis of interviews, the TRM remains a well-used and influential approach to analysing interviews in management and organization studies. Deriving from a review project of published interview research in our field, this paper has a three-fold aim: (1) to identify four epistemic practices that management and organization researchers use to address the ‘truth-reporting’ issue, which we call ‘blinkering’, ‘mitigating’, ‘slipping’ and ‘picking and mixing’ take stock of the various ways that have approached the TRM, identifying ; (2) to discuss the epistemological problems which, from a social constructionist perspective, accompany each of these four practices; and (3) to offer suggestions for reflexive practices grounded in the social constructionist paradigm which could help to address these epistemic problems and contribute to a post-TRM ‘turn’ in qualitative interview research in our field.