It cannot be ruled out that the respondents' answers were affected partly by the fact that the questions concerned personal topics, and partly because the power relationship was unequal and that I myself did not give much back during the conversations themselves. However, the impression of the material is that the interviewees have on the whole been able to be open about their thoughts and thoughts.
Understanding can be both an asset and an obstacle. I myself have been familiar with this area for a long time and these experiences have been both backgrounds and motives for the work. An underlying hypothesis has been that the psychological dimension in relation to this modern spirituality is complex and that the study should result in a continuum. This underlying hypothesis or idea may of course also have served as a preconceived notion, but perhaps a more benign one after all than if the attitude to the phenomenon had been unilaterally dismissive or affirmative in advance.
That the recognition of these existential conditions (Werbart, 1996, 2000) should correlate with the individual's ability to have a good life can be questioned and it would possibly have been appropriate with more references to try to substantiate this based on psychoanalytic sources. The attitude may seem hegemonic, for which psychoanalysis as a whole has been blamed (Langemar, 2005). However, these terms were judged to own a kind of "face value" that could be sufficient for this study.
Subsuming interview data under these seven domains can be perceived as overly arbitrary or harsh control. Why these domains and why not fewer or more? Here I chose as a starting point for a deductive approach two quotes by experienced psychoanalysts whose compilations were assumed to do the subject justice based on this particular theoretical paradigm. Reading of other literature (Freud, 1927/2008; Kunst, 2014) concerning the existential conditions of man from a psychoanalytic perspective did not provide sufficient reason to reconsider this approach.
Furthermore, some answers could have fit under more than one such domain. The reflections made from the interview material can be perceived as well speculative. Proposals and statements often do not rise above a "guilt by association" level. The requirement of scientificity for a psychology degree work is hereby put to the test. However, the results and discussion part should be seen as tentative, theory-stimulating or in any case with the hope that it will be able to function that way. Such an approach can be valuable in the mapping of an area that is still relatively unexplored, at least from a psychoanalytic or psychodynamic perspective.