In Goffman's terms, qualitative interviews are social encounters with their own realities. Hence, the 'situational critique' holds that interviews cannot produce knowledge about the world beyond these encounters, and that other methods, ethnography in particular, render lived life more accurately. The situational critique cannot be dismissed; yet interviewing remains an indispensable sociological tool. This paper demonstrates the "value" that situationalism holds for interviewing. We examine seemingly contradictory findings from interview studies of middle-class identity (cultural hierarchies and/or egalitarianism?). We then render these contradictions comprehensible by interpreting data excerpts through 'methodological situationalism': Goffman's theories of interaction order, ritual, and frontstage/backstage. In 'situationalist interviewing,' we suggest that sociologists be attentive to the 'imagined audiences' and 'imagined communities'. These are key to identifying the situations, interaction orders, and cultural repertoires that lie beyond the interview encounter, but to which it refers. In sum, we argue for greater situational awareness among sociologists who must rely on interviews. We also discuss techniques and measures that can facilitate situational awareness. A promise of situational interviewing is that it helps us make sense of contradictions, ambiguities, and disagreements within and between interviews.