Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art (fullness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 303–323. Intimate Justice Sara I. McClelland Departments of Psychology and Women’s Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Introduction Intimate justice is a theoretical framework that links experiences of inequity in the sociopolitical domain with how individuals imagine and evalu- ate the quality of their sexual and relational expe- riences. Developed initially to guide research on sexual satisfaction (McClelland, 2010, 2011), intimate justice encourages researchers to ques- tion how social conditions, such as racial and gender-based stereotypes (Fasula, Carry, & Miller, 2012) and sexual stigma (Herek, 2007), impact what individuals feel they deserve in their intimate lives. In addition to theorizing the impact of social conditions on deservingness, intimate justice encourages a critical engagement with research methods. Specifically, intimate jus- tice argues that research on individuals’ evalua- tions of their lives – and specifically their levels of satisfaction, well-being, and happiness – should be assessed using measures and methods that always consider both potential group differ- ences and the social conditions that may influ- ence these appraisals. For example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans- gender (LGBT) men and women contend with social stigmas related to their sexuality and sexual behaviors and are not afforded the same sexual rights in the political domain as heterosex- uals. Other examples of relationships potentially affected by dynamics of disadvantage might include undocumented women in intimate rela- tionships with US citizens, as well as men and women with histories of violence or sexual abuse, just to name a few. Given these and other contexts in which sexual relationships and activities occur, individuals’ sexual expectations may signifi- cantly vary from, for example, peers who face fewer limits on their sexual rights (e.g., Diamond & Lucas, 2004). Intimate justice asks researchers to methodologically consider how biographies and structural contexts move under the skin and into the bedroom, influencing how individuals think, feel, and experience their intimate lives. In other words, individuals’ expectations for sex- ual fulfillment precede satisfaction ratings (see Fig. 1). Notably for psychologists who are inter- ested in satisfaction scores, these varied criteria and the role of expectations remain unmeasured in conventional satisfaction research designs. Without a framework of intimate justice, researchers risk misrepresenting self-report rat- ings as if the scale anchors were the same, thus missing potential research and/or intervention opportunities. McClelland (2010) argued that it is not enough to examine whether sexual out- comes are distributed equally; we must also inquire as to the nature of the benchmarks being used and the history of the groups and individuals being assessed—and, with this information Sexual satisfaction BEHAVIORAL RELATIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL APPRAISAL Intimate Justice, Fig. 1 Ecological model illustrating social and psychological antecedents of sexual satisfac- tion appraisals I 1010 Intimate Justice McClelland, S.I. (2014). Intimate Justice. In Teo, T. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. (pp. 1010-1013). London: Springer Reference.