What qualititive research interviews can and cannot say has become an increasingly contested matter within the social sciences. Prominent scholars as Jonathan Potter and David Silverman adhere that qualitative interviews can not say much about neither inner cognitive processes nor an outer social reality. Their object of study is the micro speech act; what constitutes norms of interaction, how facts are constructed and preferred impressions achieved. Their far-reaching arguments for an anti-essentialist understanding of interview material, bring radical constructionism to the fore. Considering its impact and bold claims, radical constructivism require consideration and response. The position defended in this article claim that interviews may be valid not only considering what is done in a specific speech act. An immaculate representation of inner and outer realities is however out of the question. An interviewer rather embark on a task that involve both distance and relation, as Martin Buber has explained. Topics that are discussed regard culture expressed in interviews, as an instance of social reality, and as a hinderance as well as a positive force between interactors. Moreover, speech act theory and the proposed omni-presence of impression management are contrasted with theory of the self and Martin Buber's writings on being and seeming. Finally, and perhaps most important, qualitative interviews equal means for academia to approach and qualitatively and systematically learn about the circumstances of diverse citizens, which means that definitions of what is true and just may be formulated from a better view.