定性研究系列——超越方法？与Victoria Clarke博士探讨主题分析

欢迎收听《言之有物》播客，通过更好的沟通提升患者护理水平。欢迎来到《言之有物》播客新一期节目，我是奥利弗·汤普森。首先，我要衷心感谢通过Patreon支持本节目的听众，没有你们就没有这个节目，再次感谢。

Welcome to the Words Matter podcast, enhancing patient care through better communication. Welcome to another episode of Words Matter podcast. I'm Oliver Thompson. So firstly, I wanted to give a huge thanks to those of you that have supported the show via Patreon. I couldn't do this without you, so thanks again.

现在我们进入质性研究系列第四期节目。今天我将与维多利亚·克拉克博士探讨主题分析法。维多利亚是西英格兰大学质性批判心理学副教授，她的教学研究涵盖质性批判心理学、性与性别、家庭关系、外貌与具身化等交叉领域。她与长期合著者弗吉尼亚·布朗共同在质性研究方法特别是主题分析法的开发、阐释和传播中发挥了核心作用。

So we're into the fourth episode of the qualitative research series. And today, I'm speaking with doctor Victoria Clark about thematic analysis. Victoria is an associate professor in qualitative and critical psychology at the University of the West of England. She teaches and conducts research in the intersecting areas of qualitative and critical psychology, sexuality and gender, family and relationships, and appearance and embodiment. And together with her longtime coauthor and collaborator, Virginia Brown, Victoria has been central in developing, explicating, and disseminating qualitative research methods, in particular, thematic analysis.

维多利亚和弗吉尼亚对质性方法论的巨大影响体现在：她们2006年关于TA的原创论文获得超10万次谷歌学术引用，这令人难以置信。维多利亚的著作包括获奖教材《成功的质性研究》及新书《实践指南》（均与弗吉尼亚合著），您可通过出版社Sage官网或节目说明中的链接预订。本期我们将讨论反思性主题分析（TA）的历史——TA介于方法与方法论之间：既有一套明确方法，又在方法概念化与操作化（包括研究价值观和反思性）上具有深度，因此兼具方法论特征。

The immense impact that Victoria and Virginia had on qualitative methodological scholarship is evidenced by the fact that their original 2006 paper on TA has received over a 100,000 Google Scholar citations, which is truly incredible. Victoria's books include the award winning textbook titled Successful Qualities Research and her new book titled A Practical Guide, both of which she coauthored with Virginia. And you can preorder your copy by visiting Sage, the publisher's website, or check out the link in the show notes. So in this episode, we speak about the history of reflexive thematic analysis or TA. Thematic analysis is being method ish, meaning it sits between both method and methodology.

我们谈到TA不绑定特定理论或本体论视角，这实际是赋予研究者理论灵活性的优势而非缺陷；探讨了反思性价值如何在反思性TA中培养；剖析了对TA的主要批评与误解；讨论了令人困扰的'数据饱和'概念及其与实证主义的关联，以及如何回应同行评审要求证明数据饱和终极状态的无理要求（维多利亚相关论文已附在节目说明中）。

For example, it has a well defined set of methods, but also has depth in how these methods are conceptualized and operationalized, including the research values and reflexivity needed to use them, meaning that thematic analysis also has characteristics of a methodology. We talk about that as TA isn't welded to a particular theory or onto epistemological perspective, that this is, in fact, a feature which offers researchers theoretical flexibility and utility rather than a bug, which could limit or bog down those wanting to embark on qualitative inquiry. We talk about reflexivity and how this value is nurtured within reflexive TA, and we discuss some of the main criticisms and misconceptions of TA. We talk about the annoying notion of data saturation and its links to positivism and how to respond to peer reviewers equally annoying requests to demonstrate the definite, final, and ultimate position of data saturation. And Victoria has written a paper about this, and I've linked this in the show notes.

我们探讨了通过呈现参与者人口统计信息，帮助读者将质性研究发现与自身现实对接，判断研究结论在其社会语境中的可迁移性（节目说明中附有珍妮丝·莫尔斯的相关论文）。最后维多利亚分享了她对后质性研究的看法——该学派拒绝系统性、可重复的质性方法（如TA范畴内的方法）。预告下：本系列倒数第二期我将与珍妮·塞切尔博士讨论后质性研究。

We talk about presenting participants' demographic information as a way to help readers of qualitative research locate the findings within their own realities and judge the study's transferability to their individual social contexts. And I've linked some papers by Janice Morse on this topic in the show notes. Finally, Victoria shares her thoughts on post qualitative research, which, amongst other things, rejects systematic and somewhat repeatable qualitative methods, such as those that sit within TA. And to give you a heads up that in the penultimate episode in the series, I'll be speaking with Doctor. Jenny Setchel about post qualitative research.

这又是质性研究系列中令人愉悦的对话。维多利亚为反思性TA发出了有力、热情且论据充分的辩护——这种方法论常被纯粹主义者不公正地贬低。正如她在与弗吉尼亚合著的论文《我能用TA吗？该用TA吗？不该用TA吗？》（节目说明已附链接）中强调的...

So this was just another incredibly enjoyable conversation of the qualitative series. Victoria really puts voice, passion, and argument behind reflexive TA, which I think has at times been unfairly portrayed as a theoretical by methodological purists. As Victoria and Virginia make clear in their paper, can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA?

追求完美的质性方法或许可视为神圣的方法论探索。质性研究的'广教会'特性要求方法与方法论多元主义，以适应研究者不同的课题、情境和资源。现在有请维多利亚·克拉克博士。维多利亚，欢迎来到播客。

Which I've linked in the show notes. The pursuit of the perfect qualitative approach may be seen as a hallowed methods quest. The broad church of qualitative research calls for methods and methodological pluralism to suit the different questions, contexts, and resources that qualitative researchers have. So I bring you doctor Victoria Clark. Victoria, welcome to the podcast.

谢谢。很高兴来到这里。

Thank you. Nice to be here.

所以如果没有你代表主题分析，就不可能有一个高质量的播客系列。那就不算是真正意义上的定性研究播客系列了。因此我很高兴你今天能和我对话。

So there couldn't be a a qualitative podcast series without having you representing thematic analysis. It would be wouldn't really be a qualitative research podcast series. So I'm delighted that you've been able to speak with me today.

非常荣幸能代表自己和金妮来到这里。我要说明她的姓氏发音是'布朗'而非'布劳恩'，包括我在内的大多数人经常念错。这是给所有听过讲座的人的重要提示——我总是会强调如何正确发音她的名字。

Very glad to be here and to represent myself and Ginny. And I'll say that her name is pronounced brown and not brawn, as most people, including myself, mispronounce it regularly. So that's a top tip for anyone who's ever come to a talk. I always mention how to pronounce her name correctly.

好的，布朗。我会把这个发音提示放在节目备注里。或许你可以介绍一下自己，你的学术背景，以及你进入主题分析领域的历程。

Okay, Brown. I'm going put that in the show notes Top as tip. So perhaps you could introduce yourself, your academic background, your journey into thematic analysis.

天啊，从何说起呢？我在1990年代末至2000年代初于拉夫堡大学攻读博士学位。那时拉夫堡在话语心理学特别是话语分析领域堪称卓越中心。

Oh gosh. Where to start? So I did my PhD at Loughborough University in the late 1990s and very early 2000s. And at that point in time, Loughborough was kind of center of excellence. But I suppose it was a center of excellence for discursive psychology and discourse analysis in particular.

因此我的学术训练完全属于批判性定性研究方法体系。当时我并未意识到这点——毕竟在读博时，你会觉得自己所做的一切都是常态，对吧？但那确实是一次方法论层面极其丰富且深入的博士经历。我们花了大量时间探讨方法论问题。

So my training was very much within critical qualitative approaches to research. And I didn't appreciate at the time because if you're doing a PhD, you kind of think whatever you're doing is normal, right? And it's what everyone else is doing. But it was a PhD experience that was very, very methodologically rich and embedded. We spent an awful lot of time talking about methodological issues.

我们周围都是那些长期撰写方法论论文的学者，他们对这些问题充满热情。完成博士学位时，我以为所有人都经历过这样被定性方法论专家包围、激烈辩论的常态。直到接触更广泛的学术界后，才发现这种情况实属罕见——事实上我们拥有这种经历是极其幸运的。金妮和我都对此进行过反思和著述，我们也注意到几乎所有同辈学者都在撰写方法论相关的文献。

And we were surrounded by people who spent an awful lot of their time writing about those issues and so felt very passionately about them. And so when I finished my PhD, thought I'd had a normal PhD experience that everyone spends an awful lot of time surrounded by experts in qualitative methodology, debating vigorously methodological matters. And when I sort of got acquainted with the rest of academia, I discovered that that isn't the case and that was quite exceptional. And in fact, we were incredibly lucky and privileged to have the experience that we And it's something that Ginny and I have both reflected on and written about. And something that we've noticed is that pretty much all of our peers write methodological texts and papers.

显然，这里不仅是方法论学者的温床，也是实证研究者的聚集地。后来我在UE大学获得讲师职位，开始教授定性方法课程，因为我有些相关背景。他们觉得‘太好了，你能教定性方法’，而我也很乐意，没意识到大多数人其实不喜欢教方法课——他们觉得可怕且避之不及。

So it was clearly a breeding ground for methodological scholars as well as people doing empirical research. And then I got a job as a lecturer at UE, started teaching because I had some background in qualitative methods. Was like, Oh yes, you can teach qualitative methods. Which I was very happy to do, not realising that generally people don't like teaching methods. They find it scary and they don't want to do it.

所以只要有人表现出些许热情，大家就会欢呼‘太好了，你来教吧！’当时我们教学生主题分析这类内容，却连一篇像样的参考读物都没有，基本是边教边编。后来金妮在英国UE大学学术休假期间，我们想：为什么不写篇关于主题分析的论文呢？

So if someone comes along with any degree of enthusiasm, it's like, Yay, do it! And teaching things like thematic analysis to students, but without any sort of one piece of reading that we could give them. We were sort of making it up as we were going along. And then Ginny was on sabbatical in The UK at UE. And we thought, well, why don't we write a paper on thematic analysis?

这样就能给学生提供阅读材料了。当时市面上既没有通俗易懂的文献，也没有体现我们质性研究理念的内容——我们注重的不只是技术，更是价值观。不过那时我们还无法清晰表达这点，只是简单把人分为‘懂行的’和‘外行的’。

Because then we can give it to our students. Then they've got something to read because there's nothing really that's written about it that's accessible and that reflects our way of thinking about qualitative research, which is very qualitative. Sort of not just techniques, but also values. But I think at the time we weren't able to articulate that. We were thinking about people who got it and people who didn't get it.

现在回想起来，我们当时挺刻薄武断的。我们俩都是批判性性别学者，早已习惯自己的研究对世界影响甚微，受众仅限于小圈子同好。所以当这篇论文如今获得超10万次谷歌学术引用时，简直难以置信。

And so we were quite rude and judgmental, I think. And so we wrote a paper. We're both critical sexuality and gender scholars. We are used to our work having very little impact on the world, talking to small audiences of like minded people. So to write a paper that now has over a 100,000 Google Scholar citations was just woah.

完全超出预期。我们本意只是写给学生用。记得有次和加拿大来访的朋友在酒吧庆祝论文被引100次，觉得已经不可思议。正如金妮在某次主题演讲所说——我们成了‘偶然的方法论学者’，本意只是为学生阐明主题分析的价值体系和方法。

Not at all what we were expecting or anticipating. We basically wrote it for ourselves to give it to our students. And I can remember sitting in a pub with some friends who were visiting from Canada and talking about the fact the paper had a 100 citations and how amazing that was. So we sort of, I mean, Ginny's talked about a keynote she gave at a conference a few years ago that we became sort of accidental methodological scholars. We kind of wrote this paper for our students to articulate a set of values and a way of doing TA.

没想过会造成如此大的影响。这篇论文意外把我们拽进了方法论学术圈，让我们从批判心理学核心圈子的活跃分子，转变成主流学术空间中讨论质性研究的异类。

We didn't intend it to become this big thing that it's become. So that's sort of taken us by surprise. And we've been pulled into methodological scholarship through writing that one paper. So that's sort of how we got to where we got to. And we've switched from sort of being in the beating heart of critical psychology with lots of other critical psychology scholars to sitting in a sort of more mainstream space and having very different conversations about qualitative research.

过去我们参与的是质性研究资深学者的对话，现在却在探讨最基础的质性研究原则。这种转变始料未及，但作品被广泛阅读的感觉很棒。毕竟我学术生涯前期的作品鲜有人问津，现在能收到‘您的论文对我硕士项目帮助巨大’的邮件，实在令人欣慰。

So we were having conversations that people very embedded in qualitative research have. And now we're having conversations about the first principles of qualitative research. So sort of where we find ourselves now and where we started quite different. But it's immensely rewarding to do work that people read. But given that that wasn't part of my academic career for quite a while, it's nice that people you know, drop you an email to say, oh, that paper was so useful for my master's project.

你会觉得，哇，我做了些事情并且真的帮到了别人。这种感觉真的很棒。

And you're like, wow, I've done something and it's been helpful. And that's really nice.

对我来说，你们两位就是TA领域的格拉泽和斯特劳斯。所以我想问，在你们相遇之前，这个领域是否存在？因为你们的名字已经与TA同义了，但我不清楚这段历史。

So for me, you two are the glazer and strauss of TA. And so what is the so I just your names are synonymous with TA, and I don't know the the history. Did it exist before the two of you found each other?

很难确切说清这段历史，因为它存在的时间实在太长了。就我们目前所知，人们使用这个术语至少有一个世纪了。但不同人对它的理解差异巨大。我们某种程度上见证了这一点，能够追溯它到多个不同学科中'主题分析'这个术语的使用。

It's really hard to tell what the history is because it's been around for a really long time. So as far as we can tell, people have been using the term for at least a century. But what they mean by it varies hugely. So we've sort of seen it. We've been able to sort of trace it back to various different disciplines, the term thematic analysis.

所以它存在已久。我认为最合理的猜测是它从内容分析演变而来。而内容分析的历史本身也很复杂模糊，因为有人认为定性方法一直存在，也有人认为它们是后期发展的产物。我们可以看到内容分析与主题分析之间有着强烈的交织关系，'主题分析'和'主题'这些术语与内容分析的关联由来已久。

So it's been around for a long time. I think the sort of best guess is that it evolved from content analysis. And again, the history of content analysis is sort of complex and murky because some people say there's always been qualitative approaches and other people say actually they were a later kind of evolution. What we can see is there's a strong sort of intertwining of content analysis and thematic analysis. And the term thematic analysis and themes has been used in relation to content analysis for a long time.

因此我们认为它某种程度上是从那种实践形式演变而来。我们找到的最早记录是八十年代的工作，那时人们做的主题分析已经能看出今天方法的雏形。我们还发现了八十年代的案例。到了九十年代，相关流程开始被发表出来，当时出现了许多不同的方法论。

So we think somehow it evolved from that form of practice. I think the earliest we've got is the sort of eighties for work that looks recognisable as what people do today when they do thematic analysis. We found examples going back to the eighties. And then procedures started to be published in the nineties. In the nineties, there were lots of different approaches published.

所以当时不同国家、不同学科的人们发展出了各异的TA方法，它们看起来都很不相同。我认为这正是人们对TA最大的误解之一——把它当作单一方法。实际上我们更认同Foodgarden Pots使用的术语'方法家族'，它是一组具有共性却又可能大相径庭的方法集合，就像家族成员有时也会争吵甚至激烈冲突。

So people in different disciplines in different countries were developing different approaches to TA and they all look quite different. So I think that's one of the big misunderstandings about TA, that it is a method, when in actual fact, we quite like the term that Foodgarden Pots have used, family of methods, in the sense that it's this cluster of methods that have things in common, but can be quite different, unlike families, can fall out and fight viciously at times.

我记得安东尼·布莱恩特在谈到建构主义、经典、女性主义等不同流派的扎根理论时，也用过完全相同的比喻——这些看似迥异的方法背后存在着一套将它们联系起来的共同技术或方法。

I think Anthony Bryant used the exact same metaphor about grounded theory across the spectrum of constructivist, classic, feminist, GT, that there's a set of techniques or methods which bring these commonalities amongst these somewhat disparate or different approaches.

是的，是的。我想我们要深入探讨一下，看看它们有什么共同点？它们都有主题这个概念，但深入分析主题的定义时，会发现对此有不同的理解。它们都有编码这个概念，但深入研究后会发现各自所指的含义不同。

Yeah. Yeah. I think we try to sort of drill down and see, well, what do they have in common? Well, they have this concept of a theme, but then you drill down into what a theme is and there's different understandings of that. They have this concept of coding, but you drill down and they mean different things by that.

似乎普遍认为它是一种方法而非方法论。因此它不像扎根理论、解释现象学分析、话语分析或叙事分析那样内置理论体系，但所有方法都反映研究价值观。如果你开始思考为何提倡某些编码实践，就能发现背后特定的价值观。所以我们认为可以将TA描述为一种'类方法'——它既是方法，又带有某些方法论的特征。

There seems to be general agreement that it's a method rather than a methodology. So it doesn't have theory built in in the same way that grounded theory might or interpretive phenomenological analysis might or discourse analysis or narrative analysis might, but all methods reflect research values. So if you start to think about why certain coding practices are advocated, you can see that underlying that are particular values. So I think we've come to the point of describing a TA as sort of a method ish. Because it's sort of a method, but it sort of has some of the features of a methodology.

但它不是完整的方法论，因为你必须自行引入研究过程中的各种要素。你需要决定指导你使用它的哲学和理论假设是什么。

But it isn't a full methodology because you have to bring in elements to the research process yourself. You have to decide what your philosophical and theoretical assumptions are that guide your use of it.

但我想这正是它的实用价值所在——它能兼容如此多不同的理论视角，或者说认识论（如果你愿意这么说），适应性极强。这就是为什么它能获得十万次引用：无论你是否采用理论视角，都可以使用它。

But I guess for that, that's the utility of it, that it's that it can be informed by so many different theoretical perspectives or, I suppose, epistemologies, if you like, that it it's so adaptable, which is why you've got your 100,000 citations, is that it can be used without no, it can be used with or without any theoretical perspective that you wish to.

没错。这某种程度上既是它的优势也是弱点——因为这意味着人们使用时可能自以为没有理论指导。但显然，我认为理论是我们实践的东西，不是那种抽象、冗长、复杂、供人争论以显示智慧的玩意。理论是我们实际践行的事物。

Yeah. It's sort of its strength and weakness in a because it means that people use it without, well, they think they're using it without theory. But obviously, I mean, like to think of theory as something we practise, something we do. It's not this sort of abstract, long words, very complicated thing that people can argue about and sound very intelligent. Theory are things that we do that we practice.

当我们进行分析时，我们实际上对语言代表什么、语言让我们触及什么做出了特定假设。所以即使没意识到，我们也在践行理论。我认为TA中始终存在理论因素，区别只在于人们是否承认自己做出的理论假设——是明确意识到这些假设，还是无意识地运用着它们。这就是隐患所在：人们可能在未明确考虑理论假设的情况下进行糟糕的实践。

So when we do analysis, we're making particular assumptions about what language represents, what language gives us access to. So we're doing theory even if we aren't aware that we're doing theory. So I think theory is always there in TA. It's just whether or not people are owning the theoretical assumptions that they're making, whether they're just making them without acknowledging or realizing that they're making them. But so that's the sort of downfall that it can be practiced badly without people giving overt consideration to the theoretical assumptions that they're making.

但这也正是它的优势所在——这种灵活性使其能以多种方式应用。让我特别兴奋的是（毕竟我和金妮最近刚写了本关于主题分析的书，希望十月份能顺利出版）——通过大量阅读我们发现：有人将TA与女性主义理论结合，与酷儿理论结合，创造出各种有趣的混合方法；有人将TA与叙事方法结合同时分析主题和叙事结构，还有人结合话语分析方法。这种灵活性让研究者能进行各种创新，我很欣赏其中那种'拼装'特质——在深思熟虑的基础上即兴发挥的创造力，而不是像遵循菜谱般僵化地执行既定步骤。

But then that's also the strength, the flexibility that it can be used in such a wide variety of ways. I mean, things I find really exciting that- because obviously I did- Ginny and I have written a book recently on thematic analysis, which is hopefully coming out in October, all things being well. And we did a lot of reading for that and did a lot of what people have been doing. Seeing people talk about feminist TA was really exciting and queer theory TA and doing lots of really interesting things like people combining TA with narrative approaches to produce these kind of hybrid methods where you're looking at both themes and narrative structure and people combining TA and discursive approaches. So flexibility means people can do all kinds of interesting things with it, which I quite enjoy because it has that sort of bricolage kind of element to it, that creativity of kind of making things up as you go along, but obviously in a very thoughtful and considered kind of way to do what you want to do rather than rigidly following prescriptions like this sort of a recipe book that you have to follow, that you have to get right.

那么是你和弗吉尼亚共同开发了这些方法或方法论吗？还是说你们只是阐释了八十年代就已存在的某些方面？或者你们将这些不同的元素整合起来并加以包装？是否可以说你们只是借鉴了这些看似属于同一体系的不同版本，然后创建了一个更连贯的方法家族单元？

And did you and Virginia develop the methods or the methodology? What was the or did you just explicate aspects that were there from the eighties? So or you brought these different things together and kind of packaged them up. Is it the case that you've just drawn upon these different iterations which seem to belong to this family and created a more cohesive family unit of methods?

我记得。我们在金妮当时住的房子里写的，我们轮流打字和踱步。我记得踱步是因为我们去图书馆找来了所有能找到的提到TA的书，边读边说，哦，他们没搞懂。他们没搞懂。所以我们试图做的是阐明一种TA方法，它具备其他方法的一些特点。

I can remember. We wrote it in the house that Ginny was kind of living in, and we took turns to type and pace. And I can remember pacing because we'd gone to the library and gotten all the books we could find that mentioned TA and reading them and saying, Oh, they don't get it. They don't get it. So what we were trying to do was articulate an approach to TA that had some of the features that other approaches have.

最终形成一组主题，进行一些编码，但这反映了我们所理解的广义定性研究价值观。强调研究者主观性作为研究资源而非需要控制的威胁，包括反思性。即反思实践，思考我们在做什么以及为什么这么做。因此将定性研究价值观置于方法的核心。我们基于教学实践，基于我们告诉学生在主题分析中该怎么做的那种自创方法。

So ending up with a set of themes, doing some coding, but that reflected what we understand to be broadly as qualitative research values. So emphasising researcher subjectivity as a resource for research rather than a kind of threat to be controlled, including reflexivity. So reflecting on a practice, thinking about what it is we're doing and why. So including qualitative research values at the heart of the method. So we built on what we've been doing in teaching, what we've been telling students to do in our sort of made up approach to thematic analysis.

但我们也反思了什么是好的研究实践，什么是我们应该做的。我认为我们一直在反思的是，当我们做X、Y或Z时，实际上在做什么？这样才能真正分解并解释你在做什么。因为我觉得很多定性研究方法论学术都带有某种神秘色彩。有人在推特上用《富家穷路》里的'折进去'做了个很棒的表情包。

But we also had reflection on what we think constitutes good kind of research practice, that what we should be doing. And I think the thing that we're always trying to reflect on is what is it that we're actually doing when we do X, Y or Z? So we can really try and break it down and explain what it is you're doing. Because I think a lot of qualitative research methodological scholarship sort of has a mystical element to it. Someone created a great meme on Twitter using the Schitt's Creek fold it in.

我想是不是'把奶酪折进去'那个？

I think was it fold in the cheese?

对，就是。没错。是的。

Yeah, was. Yeah. There we go. Yeah.

编码就行了。只管编码。只管编码。我觉得这完美捕捉了那种感觉——如果你知道编码是什么，你就会说'只管编码'。但怎么编？

Code it. Just code it. Just code it. Which I think just captures the idea that if you know what coding is, you just say, Well, just code it. How?

我们正试图让这类讨论变得多余，转而思考：这实际上意味着什么？你们究竟在做什么？实际情况是怎样的？我认为这正是我们试图在方法中阐明的问题。那么这具体包含哪些内容呢？

We're trying to make that kind of conversation redundant and think, Well, what does it actually mean? What are you actually doing? What does it actually look like? And so I think that's what we were trying to articulate in our approach. So what does this actually involve?

实际情况会是怎样的？我们一直在反思当初的假设。所以当这篇论文变得广受欢迎后，我们开始意识到：我们本意并非如此。比如在主题开发的第一阶段，我们描述为'寻找主题'，但并非指主题就藏在数据里等着被发现。

What does this actually look like? And we're always reflecting on the assumptions that we made. So as soon as this paper became quite popular and well read, we start to think, we didn't actually mean that. You know, one thing that we we describe the phase, the first phase of theme development is searching for themes. We didn't actually mean that the themes are sort of in the data and you're looking for Yeah.

某种实证主义、客观主义的观点。

Kind of positivist, objectivist view.

确实。但显然它被这样解读了。所以我们正处于重新评估阶段，撰写大量文章来解释我们的假设，澄清那些未充分阐明之处。在最新出版物中，我们甚至重新命名了六个阶段，以更清晰地表达我们的价值观。

Yeah. But obviously it's been interpreted in that way. Right? So that's why we've sort of been in this reappraisal phase where we were writing lots of things, where we've sort of been trying to explain what our assumptions were and where we didn't fully articulate our assumptions. And we've sort of renamed the six phases in our most recent publications to try and articulate more clearly what our values are.

因为有人指责我们是方法论主义者、程序主义者和技术官僚。但我们并非如此。我们试图在'让质性研究更易入门'与'保持研究深度'之间取得平衡——毕竟很多人缺乏系统训练。

I mean, because people accuse us of being methodologists and proceduralists and technocrats and all that. And we're not trying to do that. We're trying to strike a balance between trying to make qualitative research accessible for people. They've got nothing. You haven't got good training.

你们没有我们曾受过的专业训练。所以需要拆解步骤、祛魅解惑，但同时也要强调：别被程序束缚。真正珍贵的是你的反思能力、主观见解和诠释深度——那才是精髓所在。

You haven't had the luxury of the training that we had. Breaking it down, kind of demystifying, explaining what's going on while also arguing that, you know, don't get obsessed with procedures. They're not, you know, they're not the good stuff. The good stuff is your reflexivity, your subjectivity, your interpretation. That's where the good stuff is.

但这个平衡似乎很难把握。我们既要祛魅解惑，又不想陷入程序主义，不知这样说是否清楚。

But that seems to be quite a complex message to carry off. Yeah, we want to demystify, but we don't want to proceduralise, if that makes sense.

那么关于TA视角下的内容或至少其成果呢？扎根理论研究者谈论寻找基本社会过程或构建描述某种心理过程的解释性理论。IPA或现象学家则致力于理解生活体验。TA方法是否同样具有灵活性，使得在成果上也能灵活应对，可以探索所有这些方面？你可以研究生活体验、社会过程或其他内容。

And what about what's within the gaze of TA or at least the outcome? So grounded theorists talk about finding a basic social process or constructing an explanatory theory that describes a kind of psychological process. IPA or phenomenologists look to understand the lived experience. Is it the same is it the case with TA that the flexibility in the methods is the same as the flexibility in outcome that you can look for all of those things? You can either look for lived experience or social processes or something else.

是的。我认为我们反思过的已知限制是，你无法研究我们泛称的语言实践。那些话语心理学家和会话分析者感兴趣的领域，TA无法胜任，因为它不具备所需的技术资源。同样，你也无法进行叙事方法中的某些工作，比如分析叙事结构，因为TA同样缺乏相应的分析工具。

Yes. I mean, I think the sort of known limits that we've reflected on are you can't look at what we sort of gloss as language practice. So the kind of things that discursive psychologists and conversation analysts would be interested in. You can't do that with TA because it doesn't give you the kind of technical resources that you'd need for that. And you can't do some of the work that you can do with narrative approach where you're looking at things like narrative structure, because again, it doesn't give you the resources for doing that.

但就定性方法能做的其他所有事情而言，TA既能做到扎根理论能做的，也能做到IPA能做的，其研究现象的范围非常广泛。因此，这又需要思考一个问题：为什么我选择这种方法而非那种？答案往往并不明确或显而易见。并不存在一种你试图追求的完美方法。

But in terms of all the other things you can do with qualitative methods, you can do things with TA that you can do with grounded theory, you can do with IPA, that it has a really broad reach in terms of the phenomena that it's interested in. So that, again, requires thought and question. Why am I using this approach and not that approach? And there isn't always a clear or obvious answer as to why. There isn't necessarily an ideal one method that you're trying to get at.

所以我认为TA与其他方法存在大量重叠。我们专门写过一篇论文来探讨这个问题并尝试——

So I think there's lots of overlap in TA and other methods. And we've written a paper specifically to address that and try

阐明这一点。是2020年《心理咨询与治疗研究》那篇吗？对，那是篇很棒的论文。

and articulate. That's the 2020 Counselling Psychotherapy Research? Yeah. Yeah, that was a lovely paper.

对，就是那篇标题超长的《我应该，我能够，无论叫什么》。因为我们试图解构一个现象——我经常遇到这种观念：如果学生做现象学研究，就必须用IPA，还得解释为何选择TA。这让我很困惑，因为在IPA出现前，TA早就被用作现象学方法了，它作为现象学方法有着相当长的历史。

Yeah, the should I, could I, whatever it's called. The one with the really long title. Yeah, because we're trying to sort of unpack because I think one thing I encounter an awful lot is the idea that if students are doing phenomenological research, then they should be doing IPA and they need to explain why they've decided to do TA. And I'm floored by that because TA was used as a phenomenological method before IPA sort of came on the scene. So it has a quite long history as a phenomenological method.

所以我不明白为什么做现象学就必须用IPA。这种逻辑在我看来很奇怪。只要你能合理解释研究选择就够了。我们在那篇论文里谈到过所谓'神圣方法追寻'的迷思——认为存在某种完美方法，能击败其他所有方法。但事实并非如此，很多项目本可以采用两三种不同方法来完成。

So I don't understand why IPA is the sort of, you must be doing it if you're doing phenomenology. It's sort of an odd rationale and way of thinking to me. I think as long as you've got a good rationale for what you're doing, that's fine. I don't think you need to I think in that paper we talked about the hallowed method quest, the idea that there is this ideal method that you'll find this perfect one method for your project and you'll defeat all the others and come to this kind of perfect method. But I don't think that's the case, that there are projects where you could have used any one, two, three, four different methods.

你只需要对你所采用的方法有一个合理的解释。而且实际上，不同方法可能看起来非常相似，它们可能导致相似的结果。我并不认为这一定是件坏事。我觉得有时候研究者的思维方式确实不同。

You just need to have a rationale for why you've used the one that you've used. And also that in practice methods can look quite similar. They can lead to similar outcomes. And I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. And I think sometimes researchers think differently.

最近我有个学生在准备VIBA答辩时，我对她说：'你的思维方式真的很像扎根理论学者'。她确实如此——总是用模型和循环的框架思考。我注意到有些人似乎天生就适合特定研究方法。虽然作为方法论研究者这么说可能有些奇怪，但我认为具体采用哪种方法并不那么重要。

So one of my students who had her VIBA recently when we were kind of doing the prep for the VIBA, I said to her, you really think like a grounded theorist. And she does. She thinks in terms of kind of models and cycles. And I think I've noticed that, that some people seem to think in ways that map onto particular methods. I don't think- I mean, this might be an odd thing to say for someone who's associated with a method, but I don't think a particular method matters that much.

关键在于你在研究过程中展现的洞察力，以及你如何处理数据——这些才是真正重要的。

It's the sensibility that you bring to the process and how you're engaging with your data. And those things matter far more.

我要特别推荐那篇论文，它太棒了——我会把链接放在节目说明里。论文探讨了《我该用主题分析吗？》，通过比较反思性主题分析与其他基于模式的质性分析方法，这篇论文非常实用。我之前从没看过有人将主题分析与解释现象学分析、扎根理论、话语分析或内容分析进行系统比较。

So I'm going to just signpost that paper because it was so great that and it's I'll I'll link it in the show notes to can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparative reflexive to mechanalysis and other pattern based qualitative analytical approaches. That's a really useful paper, and I I hadn't seen you or anyone compare TA with IPA or GT or kind of discourse analysis or content analysis.

我记得论文里也提到了这些内容。这些正是我和很多人长期存在的疑问：这些方法在质性研究方法版图中究竟处于什么位置？

I think I think that was in there too. And it was it was they're the questions that probably me and many people have had, but Where do they lie in the kind of landscape of qualitative methodologies?

是的，因为不同方法有着不同的发展历史，它们源自不同学科。随着时间推移，特别是当某种方法变得知名后，这些背景往往被遗忘。学生们接触方法时常常不了解其历史语境，而这其实很重要——它能告诉你这种方法最初试图解决什么问题。比如框架分析法，它最初是为政策研究量身定制的：研究者获得大笔资金，面临具体问题，需要短期内（半年或一年）产出明确结论。

Yeah, I think because methods have different histories, don't they? And they come from different disciplines. And then over time, and particularly if they become well known, that gets lost. And so students come to a method not knowing its history and its context. And I think that that can be quite important because it tells you what people were trying to achieve with that method, what they would, you know, so I always think with framework analysis, for example, developed for such a specific purpose, reply policy research, where they get pots of money, they get this very specific question, They know exactly what they need to find out.

可能是关于某项政策实施障碍的研究。这种方法必须高效、适合团队协作（包括没有质性研究经验的人员）、具有明确结构。但当框架分析脱离其诞生背景后，它就变成了普通方法。其实它的操作流程深深植根于那些初始条件，只有理解这些才能真正掌握这种方法——包括它的功能边界、局限性和前提假设等。

So it might be the barriers to implementing a particular policy successfully. They've got a year or six months to turn around a piece of research. And so they needed a method that worked for that very particular context of it's got to be efficient, it's got to work for a team, it's got to work for a team that includes people that have never done qualitative research, it's got to have some structure to it because we kind of know what we need to know. But then framework gets divorced from that history, those origins, and becomes just another method. But the procedures are so wedded to those origins that you kind of need to understand them to understand the method and what it does and its limitations and its assumptions and so on.

因此，我认为理解方法的历史、起源及其演变过程确实很重要，因为它们揭示了背后的思考逻辑——为何选择这种方式而非那种方式。这始终让我觉得至关重要。所以当我看到像扎根理论这样的方法与其起源脱节时，会感到些许沮丧。要知道，扎根理论最初是为解决社会学中的特定问题而生的，这种特质至今仍体现在其实际操作中。

So I do think it is important to understand something about the history of methods and how they came about and how they've evolved, because they tell you something about what the thinking was behind, you know, why do it this way rather than that way? So that always strikes me as quite important. So I do get a bit frustrated when approaches like grounded theory get divorced from their sort of origins. Like, theory was solving a very specific problem in sociology. And that's still evident in how grounded theory is practised.

但若不了解方法的初衷、历史与起源，我怀疑这正是导致大量研究千篇一律的原因。解释性现象学分析（IPA）在小样本上变得像主题分析（TA），扎根理论也沦为TA的翻版——因为缺乏对方法历史及其目标本质的敏感性。尽管方法本身作为程序并不保证优质成果，但理解方法背后的思想仍至关重要，它能帮助你明确运用该方法时真正追求的目标。

But if you don't understand what it was doing and the history and the origin, I wonder. That's how we end up with lots of research that looks exactly the same. That's how we end up with IPA that looks like TA on small samples, grounded theory that looks like TA, because that sensitivity to the history of the method and what it's trying to achieve is missing. So although methods aren't important in the sense of procedures don't guarantee good outcomes, I think it's nonetheless important to understand something about the thinking behind a method to help you understand what it is you're trying to achieve if you're engaging with it.

我在2020年那篇《我可以吗，我应该吗》论文中注意到，您将其称为反思性主题分析？但早期论文中似乎没有这样描述。这是始终存在的特性但您选择现在强调，还是说方法论本身已发生演变，使其反思性更为凸显？

And one thing I noticed in that that 2020 the the can I, should I paper is that you refer to it as reflexive TA? And I wasn't sure that wasn't you you didn't describe as that in the in the early papers. Is that something that it was always reflexive, but you thought, well, emphasise that? Or you have changed and it's more apparent now in approach?

我认为它始终具备这种特性。这无疑是核心理念的一部分，但我们当时并未充分意识到其独特性——直到2019年我们在《反思反思性主题分析》一文中开始系统梳理这些假设，才真正理解我们的方法与其他多种路径并存的关系。

I think it always was that. That was certainly integral to our thinking, but we weren't aware how integral that was, if that makes sense. We weren't aware that that was a distinctive way of thinking about qualitative research. And so I think with I think the first paper that we started to engage in this kind of process of reflection was called Reflecting on Reflexive TA back in 2019. We started to articulate those assumptions to understand that our approach existed alongside lots of different other approaches.

因为我们目睹——且持续目睹——大量研究者将根本不相容的方法论粗暴混用。那些宣称'我们结合了A方法与B方法'的论文总让我困惑：这究竟是如何实现的？

And because we see, we saw people and we still see people an awful lot kind of mashing up all these different approaches that are extraordinarily incompatible. You know, I see endless papers saying, you know, we combined this and this. I'm like, well, how?

是啊。根据我指导本科生与研究生的经验，学生（尤其是本科生）常因完整扎根理论耗时过长而选择折中方案。他们会声称'结合了TA与GT'，却完全无法说明结合方式——本质上他们并不清楚自己在做什么。

How? Yeah. I'm just going to bring in my own experience as a supervisor for undergrad and postgrad. One of the things that students do, particularly undergrads, is that they can't do full blown grounded theory because it's just too big and takes too much time. So what they end up doing is saying, well, I we you know, we've combined TA with GT, and there's no description about how those two and they they don't know how they combine them.

他们只是觉得'提到GT听起来专业'，再配上TA的技术操作。但您说得对，任何两种方法的结合都必须建立在对其兼容性与衔接逻辑的深刻理解之上。

They just thought I should say GT because that sounds kinda good and TA, the kind of methods and technique. But you're right, the minute you pretty much join those two approaches, whatever it might be, there needs to be an understanding of how those things are joined and if they're joinable or compatible at all.

是的。实际上有一种名为主题编码的混合方法已经为你完成了这项工作。而且它们也各不相同，这更增添了困惑。所以有许多不同版本的主题编码，基本上都在使用扎根理论编码技术进行主题分析，但它们都非常不同。当我们试图梳理所有不同类型的主题分析时，我们把主题编码作为其中之一，但再次强调，它们差异很大。

Yeah. And there is in fact a whole hybrid method called thematic coding that exists that already does that work for you. And they're all different as well, which to add to the confusion. So there's lots of different versions of thematic coding that are basically using grounded theory coding techniques to do thematic analysis, but they're all very different. So when we tried to kind of map out all the different types of TA out there, we had sort of thematic coding as one of them, but again, very different.

所以我认为，当你结合不同方法时，需要理解它们之间的差异以及你如何整合它们。我们在书中谈到，要以‘明知’的态度行事——即带着理论和概念意识去操作，明白这些方法的相似与不同之处，并能向读者阐明。但我认为这对学生来说要求很高，因为他们学习定性研究时要消化太多内容，很自然地会聚焦于技术层面而非更概念化、哲学化的内容，毕竟后者确实令人畏惧。

So yeah, so I think when you're combining different approaches, you need to have an understanding of how they're different and how you're combining them. So we talk about in our book, we talk about being knowing in the sense of you're doing things deliberatively. You're doing things with theoretical and conceptual awareness of how these approaches are similar and how they're different. And you're able to kind of articulate that for readers. But I think that's quite a hard ask, particularly for the students, because they've got so much to kind of take on board when they're learning qualitative research and that understandably they tend to focus on the techniques rather than the more conceptual and philosophical stuff, because that's kind of scary.

我们所有人——包括我自己——都曾在书籍术语表里逃避过。在我们的主题分析专著中设有术语表，而关于后结构主义的定义长期写着‘金妮会来写这个’。

We all sort of, you know, myself included, retreat from in our book glossary. Our TA book, we have a glossary of terms. And for a really long time, the definition of poststructuralism was Ginny will write this.

待完成。

To do.

因为我自己不敢写。所以我想强调，理论之所以可怕是我们造成的，对吧？我们让它变得困难、复杂、艰深。

Because I was too scared to write it myself. So I just want to emphasize that theory is we make it scary, right? We make it difficult. We make it complex. We make it hard.

我认为学术界这个职业容易滋生些许自负、自恋和炫耀心理。而理论正是炫耀和满足学术虚荣的大舞台。如果我们能把理论视为实用的工具，能帮助我们做事，并反思我们的行为和假设，那会好得多。这样或许大家就不会那么害怕，也能更投入其中。

I think academics as a profession are prone to a bit of ego and narcissism and showing off. And I think theory is a big playground for showing off and massaging academic egos. It would be so much better if we could think of theory as something practical that enables us to do things and that what we're reflecting on is what we're doing and what assumptions we're making. And then hopefully it'd be a bit we'd all be a bit less scared by it and we can engage with it more.

你另一个绝活是发长推特串。谁还需要书？我干脆把书废了，直接发重磅推特串算了。你有些关于饱和性或充分性的讨论非常有趣，有个关于参与者人口统计的串也很吸引我——我们是否应该提供这类背景信息？还有个是关于写博士论文的？

So the other thing which you're brilliant at doing is long threads on Twitter. Who needs a book? I'd I'd scrap the book and just, you know, just do great big fat threads of Twitter because you've had some really interesting threads on things like saturation or sufficiency, it was one that caught my eye. One was around participant demographics and whether we should present that kind of background info. There was a third about was it about writing a PhD thesis?

是的。没错。所以有两个问题我特别想和你探讨。一个是关于研究参与者的背景人口统计信息，比如年龄、性别这类数据。因为我知道之前《定性健康研究》期刊曾决定不再发表这些背景人口统计数据。

Was that Yeah. Yep. So two which I definitely want to explore with you. One was the presenting participant background demographics and kind of ages and gender, that kind of stuff. Because I know a while ago, was it qualitative health research, the journal would no longer publish that background demographics.

我记得是Janet Morse的一篇社论，虽然我可能记错。我会尽量在节目笔记里附上链接——我相当确定是她或期刊发表的。不过你能描述一下整个讨论线索吗？包括你的立场和这个议题是如何开始的？

Thought, an editorial by Janet Morse, I thought, I could be wrong. I'll try and link it in the show notes if I I know some I'm pretty sure she did or the journal did. But what was the do you wanna just describe what the thread the whole thread, but what your position was and how it started and

这个议题源于我发现学生和同事们在收集和呈现人口统计数据时表现出的抵触情绪，他们认为这类数据过于敏感、微妙或具有侵入性。但在我看来，心理学领域若不收集这些信息，其核心问题在于：我们长期研究的对象往往是所谓的'典型样本'——白人、中产阶级、异性恋、非残障人士，却将基于这些样本得出的结论泛化为全人类的认知。这使得他们的白人特权和优势地位被隐形化。我认为至少应该承认，当我们讲述某些经历时，这些故事本质上反映的是白人视角。这就是我支持收集人口统计数据的立场。

I mean, it came about from encountering reluctance among students and colleagues for collecting demographic data and presenting that in research and for thinking that that's quite sensitive or delicate or intrusive. But I think the essence of what bothers me about not collecting that information in my discipline of psychology, we have spent a very long time researching what's often referred to as the usual suspects, so people who are white, middle class, straight, non disabled, but presenting the knowledge generated from those participants as knowledge of all people. And so their whiteness, their privilege gets invisibilised and isn't seen. And I think the least we can do is acknowledge when we're telling stories or relating experiences that are about whiteness. And so that's where I come from on the question of collecting demographic data.

那个讨论帖的部分回复让我很惊讶，有人误以为我是将其作为分析变量来讨论，但其实不然。这更多是关于背景信息的语境化。虽然定性研究的质量标准存在诸多问题，但作为思考工具很有价值。比如Eliot Etow提出的'样本情境化'概念。

I was struck by some of the responses to that thread that people were assuming I meant it as an analytic variable, but it isn't necessarily. It's more about contextualising information. In various I mean, I love qualitative quality criteria. Obviously, they have got lots of problems in them, but they're useful with thinking tools. And so Eliot Etow talk about situating the sample.

我特别认同这个观点，因为优秀的方法论章节应该对被研究群体进行丰富的语境描述。在定性研究中，我们需要清楚这些参与者的背景脉络：我能基于这个群体合法地讲述哪些故事？作为白人中产阶级研究者，我始终警惕自己可能因社会化过程而忽视种族因素的关联性。

And I really like that because what you ideally want in a good method or methodology section is some rich contextualisation of who it is you've spoken to in qualitative research. You want a sense of, you know, what's the context of these participants? You know, what stories am I able to legitimately tell about this group of people? And as someone who's white and middle class, I'm always mindful that I'm not always conscious of how and when race is relevant. I don't always see it because I've been socialized not to see it.

因此，不收集种族和民族相关的人口数据，不将其视为相关因素——当然某些情况下确实不适用——但作为常规实践，我认为说明研究对象背景、进行情境化描述至关重要。Lucy Yardley提出的'对语境保持敏感'正是通过这种方式实现，让我们能反思研究结论的局限性。目前学界似乎普遍存在对这种数据收集的抵触。

So to not collect demographic data around race and ethnicity, to not mention that as relevant. I mean, obviously there will be times when it's not appropriate and all the rest of it, but as a general practice, that seems really important to me to be able to say something about who I've spoken to, their context, to situate them, to- Lucy Yardley talks about displaying sensitivity to context. And I think that's one of the ways that you can do that, to be able to reflect on the kind of limitations of the stories that you've told. That to me seems really important. There seems to be a reluctance to collect that data.

我始终无法理解这种抵触的根源。似乎承认种族和民族身份会被视为冒犯，但恰恰相反，我认为回避这个话题才真正有问题。我的推特讨论更多是分享观点——我发现自己对这个问题的思考方式似乎与大多数人不同，这究竟是怎么回事？

And I can't get to the bottom of what that reluctance is about. It's almost as if it's rude to acknowledge race and ethnicity, but I don't think it is. I think it feels problematic to not talk about it. So I sort of have- it was more a- I mean, my Twitter threads are I'm sharing information and sometimes they're- I seem to think about this differently from how other people think about it. So what's going on here?

我遗漏了什么？我忽略了什么？因此，那条线索很大程度上是一种对信息、想法和反思的恳求，因为确实，我似乎与许多人进行质性研究的方式不太合拍。

What am I missing? What am I not seeing? And so that thread was very much a sort of a plea for information and thoughts and reflection because, yeah, I seem to be out of step with a lot of how other people are kind of practicing qualitative research.

但对我来说，掌握这些信息的原因之一——虽然我不了解种族因素——仅是样本的基本人口统计特征，比如职业或背景信息，无论你研究的是什么问题，它能让读者自行判断研究的可迁移性。比如如果七号参与者是34岁的伦敦白人男性（或其他任何背景），这能让你作为读者有所洞察去评估——虽然你并不了解这个人的完整生平，但或许能获得某些信息，让你能更有效利用这些证据，或判断其与你自身现实、实践或工作场景的相关性。

But, I mean, one of the reasons for me to have that information, and I don't know about race, but just the general demographics of the sample, occupation or some background info, whatever the issue that you're researching is, is it allows the reader to begin to locate and judge the transferability themselves. So if participant seven is a 34 year old, I don't know, white male from London or wherever it might be, it gives you some insight as a reader to it to judge, you know, and if yes, you haven't got the whole story of that, the whole kind of biography of that individual, but you've got perhaps some information which potentially lets you make use of that evidence differently or better or judge its salience to your own reality or your own practice or your own work setting.

确实如此。我认为这某种程度上是为了让研究论文显得不那么平面化，试图以某种方式让参与者鲜活起来，传递一些——毕竟像我这样好奇心强的人会觉得质性研究很棒，因为你能接触到拥有你未曾经历的人，深入不同的经验现实，这让我着迷。与参与者的每一次相遇都如此丰富而复杂。

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And I think it's part of trying to, you know, because research papers can seem quite flat and it's part of trying to bring people alive in a way and convey some of the- I mean, one of the- I mean, you're nosy like me, qualitative research is great because you get to meet people who've had experiences that you haven't had. And you get to take a dive into different experiential realities, which I find fascinating. And, you know, the encounter that you have with a participant is so rich and so complex.

有时候这些经历令人难以置信——我最近做的访谈是关于胚胎捐赠的，受访者都通过捐赠胚胎拥有了孩子。每次访谈我都哭了，那些对话太动人了。你该如何呈现这种相遇的丰富性呢？我知道人口统计数据很单薄，但正如你所说，它能让你略微感知这些人是谁、他们的故事是怎样的。

And so at times, incredibly, I mean, the last interviews I did were on embryo donation, where people had had a child through a donated embryo. I cried in every interview I did. They were so moving, those interviews. And how do you sort of bring alive some of that, the richness of that encounter? And I know demographic data is kind of impoverished, but it gives you, like you're saying, it gives you a little sense of who these people were, what their stories were.

我还必须说，我从未遇到过论文评审要求删减人口统计数据。他们总是想要更多信息，总是想了解更多。评审们在这个问题上似乎高度一致：人口统计数据是有价值的，报告这些很重要，这对你收集的数据提供了必要的背景。

And I have to say as well, I've never, never, ever had a reviewer of a paper say, Please remove some of this demographic data. They always want more. They always want to know more. So reviewers seem fairly of one mind on this, that demographic data is a good thing, that it's important to report it, that it's important to contextualize the data that you've collected from people.

是的。我认为珍妮特·莫尔斯的立场是保密性——这显然是期刊的顾虑，我们当然应该也必须尊重。但我在想，如果是在发表研究时，或许可以通过呈现方式确保不会泄露任何人的机密信息——我指的是研究的局部性特征。

Yeah. I think Janet Morse's position was confidentiality. I think that was the journal's concern, I obviously which your course. I you know, we all should respect and we're bound to kind of respect. But I just wonder if if you're publishing, you know, I guess it's the locality of the study that I mean, you can present this information in a way which is gonna be pretty hard to compromise anyone's confidentiality.

正如我们所说，这些并非他们的住址或鞋码这类信息，而是你判断与研究问题或领域相关的基本人口统计特征。

And we're not, like we said, not necessarily talking about their address or their shoe size, but rather some basic general demographics, which you judge to be pertinent to the research problem or or area.

是的。我对匿名化人口统计数据没有异议。在胚胎捐赠研究中我们确实需要这么做，因为那是一个特定人群，你可以做一些调整，比如我在多个研究中做过的那样——改变人们孩子的性别、年龄或数量，因为这些细节对研究本身并不重要，比如有两个男孩还是两个女孩，或者一个7岁和一个11岁的孩子。但这些信息可能会暴露身份。所以你可以匿名化这些细节，在保护参与者匿名性的同时仍提供背景信息。

Yeah. And I don't have a problem with anonymizing demographics. We certainly needed to do that in the embryo donation study because it was such a specific population, that you can do things like, and I've done this on several studies, like change the gender of people's children or change the children's ages or the number of children, because it's not hugely relevant that they have two boys rather than two girls or a seven year old and an 11 year old. It's not important for the research, but it can potentially identify them. So you can anonymize those details and still give contextual information while preserving people's anonymity.

所以我始终认为需要找到一个平衡点。我认为保护参与者匿名性必须是首要考虑。但确实存在变通方法，比如你可以将人口统计数据汇总成表格形式，这样就在某种程度上进行了聚合处理。

So I always think there's always a balance to be struck. And I think participant anonymity has to be the main concern. But yeah, I think there are workarounds. You you can compile the demographic data in a table, so you're kind of aggregating it.

方法

The means

这与那种列出参与者姓名、年龄的表格截然不同。后者可能会带来问题，因为我不止一次在研究中发现：'是的，我认识这个人'——因为提供的信息足以识别身份。所以确实需要谨慎处理。但没错，这里确实需要把握一个平衡。

and- That is very different from a table where you've got participant name, age. That approach can be problematic because I've more than once come across a study where I thought, Yeah, I know them and I know them. Because there's been enough information presented to identify people. So I do think you need to be careful. But yeah, there's definitely a balance to be struck.

另一个在推特上持续发酵的长篇讨论是关于数据饱和、理论饱和或理论充分性的概念。这简直就像一片沼泽——什么时候该停止数据收集分析？评审人怎么说？如何证明达到了饱和点？饱和点真的存在吗？怎么判断已经达到？诸如此类的问题。

And the other big long Twitter thread, which probably people are still contributing to, is this notion of data saturation or theoretical saturation or theoretical sufficiency. I mean, that's just the that's just like a swampy mess of when to stop doing data collection analysis and what do the reviewers say and how do you show whether you've reached a point of saturation? Does the point of saturation even exist? How do you know when you've got it? All those sorts of things.

我真的很不喜欢这个术语。经常有评审人问：'你怎么知道达到了饱和？证明一下。'而事实是你永远不会真正饱和，只能说达到了某种程度的充分性。只是有足够的证据或数据来为你的理论主张提供一个相对有说服力的论证。

And I really don't like it as an as a term. I just often you get reviewers saying, well, how do you know you reached it? Demonstrate it. And the truth is you're never really saturated, that you're only ever kind of sufficient. There's only enough evidence or enough data to to provide a somewhat compelling argument, if you like, for your theoretical claims.

没错。我很喜欢伊恩·戴在他那本关于扎根理论的书中说的——这本书非常精彩，我认为所有做扎根理论研究的人都应该读——他说这是个不幸的隐喻。因为这确实是个糟糕的比喻。它只适用于实证主义研究。一旦研究中引入解释性因素，就不存在有限的意义了。

Yeah. I love Ian Day's phrase in his book on grounded theory, which is just fabulous and I think everyone doing grounded theory should read, that it's an unfortunate metaphor. Because it really is an unfortunate metaphor. It doesn't work for anything other than positivism. Because as soon as you bring interpretation into research, then there's no finite meaning.

总有余地容纳新的理解。反思性主题分析面临饱和问题的主要症结在于，你只有在完成分析后才能知道分析结果。那么，在分析之前，你如何判断数据已经饱和？这是个根本性问题，无法回避——因为许多主题分析方法始于预设主题，研究者明确知道要寻找什么。

There's always room, scope for new understandings. The main problem with saturation for reflexive TA is you don't know what your analysis is until you've done it. So how can you judge that your data is saturated before you've analyzed it? That's the sort of fundamental problem that you can't- there's no workaround for because lots of approaches to TA start with themes. So they know what they're looking for.

编码过程就是将数据归入这些预先确定的主题。

Then coding is a process of allocating the data to these themes you predetermined.

这有点像内容分析，对吧？

That's kind of content analysis kind of, isn't it?

没错，它与内容分析非常接近。因此你可以相对自信地说——某种程度上可以断言——没有新信息出现，因为你大致知道要寻找什么。金妮和我称之为'饱和实验论文'的研究有很多，它们试图量化饱和标准，给出需要多少访谈或焦点小组才能达到饱和的明确指导，但这些研究存在大量问题。而反思性主题分析不同，因为你是通过编码来发展主题的。我们特别强调深度参与的重要性——需要花时间沉浸于数据中，反复思考，暂时搁置后再回来，这样才能获得收集数据时走马观花式倾听绝对无法获得的新理解和洞察。

Yeah. So it is very close to content analysis. So you can say with some confidence, well, you can sort of say with some confidence, there was no new information coming up because you kind of know what you're looking for. And there's lots of what Ginny and I called saturation experiment papers where they try and operationalise saturation and try and give definitive guidance on how many interviews or focus groups are enough to achieve kind of saturation, but there's loads of problems in those. But with Reflective TA, because you're doing your coding and developing your themes from your coding, And we really emphasize the depth of engagement that's important, that it's taking time, spending time with your data, thinking about it, putting it down, going away, having a thought, coming back to it, that gives you kind of new understandings, new insights that you can't possibly know from a sketchy sort of superficial listening to data when you're collecting it.

你凭什么断定没有新信息？因为你尚未进行分析。信息源自解读实践，并非数据固有属性。所以对反思性主题分析而言，这套理论根本行不通。

There's no How do you know there's no new information? Because you haven't analysed it yet. The information comes from interpretation practice. It's not sort of inherent in the data. So for reflexive TA, it just doesn't work.

是的，我们在相关论文中采取的立场正是如此——它确实不适用。既无法补救，也无法修正。

Yeah. I mean, that's the position we took in the paper that we've written about it is, yeah, it just doesn't work. There's no way to retrieve it or redeem it.

你们有没有现成的漂亮反驳模板可以让我直接复制粘贴给审稿人？因为似乎没人告诉过审稿人这个道理——但这个问题几乎每次都会被问到。我经常不得不引用伊恩·戴的'理论充分性'观点来争辩，说明本研究立场就是永远无法确知是否达到饱和。所以当审稿人问'你们达到饱和了吗？'时，你们通常如何回应？

And do you have a really nice, easy rebuttal to reviewers that I can just we can just copy and paste it? Because and no one's told the reviewers that because it's almost always asked about. And and and I often come back and have to argue or put Ian Day's theoretical sufficiency kind of position and and say, well, you know, this is the position of the study is that we we never know whether you reach saturation. This is how it went. So I just wonder what do what do you say when a when a reviewer says, Did you reach saturation?

你是怎么知道自己已经掌握了？怎么确认自己达到了目标？我们大家该说些什么？

How did you know you've got it? How do you know you reached it? What should we all say?

嗯，我有一个相当可靠的策略，但这需要大量的工作。我已经写了一篇论文，还写了一本书来阐述这个问题，我不能违背自己在方法论研究中所说的观点。所以，你看，编写过优质教材和发表过多篇论文后，这些在回应审稿人时非常有用，因为他们会说，这是我采取的立场，我不可能在这篇论文中自相矛盾。但这显然需要巨大的工作量。我听到有人对我说，我已经告诉他们这些了。

Well, I have a fairly solid strategy, but it involves an awful lot of work. And it's I've written a paper, I've written a book about this, and I can't contradict what I say in my methodological scholarship. So, you know, having written a quality textbook and having written various papers, they're very helpful in responding to reviewers because they say, well, you know, this is the position I've taken and I can't possibly contradict myself in this paper. But obviously that's a huge lot of work. And I think, mean, I have heard people say to me, Well, I've told them this.

你知道，我引用了你的论文，或者提到过这个，提到过这些来源，但他们又拿出其他持不同观点的资料。所以我认为，如果审稿人真的决心坚持他们的观点，你能怎么办呢？因为定性研究本身就非常混乱和复杂，总会有一篇论文能支持某个特定观点。虽然我很喜欢——如果我发音不准请见谅——Lara Vapio和同事写的一篇论文，他们探讨了饱和度、主题涌现。

You know, I've cited your paper or I've mentioned this or I've mentioned these sources, but they've come back with other sources that say different. So I think if a reviewer is really determined to hammer home their point of view, you know, what can you do? Because there's all, you know, qualitative research is so messy and so complex. There's always going to be a paper that can kind of support a particular point of view. Although I really like, and I apologize if I'm pronouncing her name incorrectly, Lara Vapio and colleagues wrote a paper where they take saturation, thematic emergence.

另外两个概念我记不清了。成员核查。第四个我也想不起来。他们研究了这些在定性研究中举足轻重的概念，这些被视为理所当然的做法，并展示了它们如何是实证主义遗留的产物——试图在实证主义主导的领域为定性研究建立可信度——以及当我们摆脱实证主义后，这些概念其实没多大价值。

I'm not going to remember the other two concepts. Member checking. I'm not going to remember the fourth one. And they look at these concepts, which are so kind of weighty in qualitative research. They sort of have this status of unquestioned practice, and they show how these are a hangover from positivism of trying to build credibility for qualitative work in fields dominated by positivism and how they don't have much value when we kind of get rid of the positivism.

所以我强烈推荐那篇论文，我觉得它很棒。我可以提供详细信息，题目大概是《摆脱眼镜蛇效应》。我特意抽时间纯粹为了阅读而阅读，不是为了备课或修改论文。我给自己一天时间读了些东西，那篇论文真的很有帮助，

So I'd really recommend that paper. I think it's fantastic. I can give you the details I of think it's called shedding the cobra effect. I treated myself to some reading, not for any purpose, not for writing a lecture, not for revising a paper. I gave myself a day to do some reading and I read that paper and it was so helpful for

纯粹为了乐趣而阅读。这我倒不知道。

reading for pleasure. I didn't know that.

是啊，很疯狂对吧？你会觉得这应该是我们工作的一部分，但事实并非如此。不过那篇论文确实有助于阐明这些概念背后的假设，因为我觉得人们只知道表面，却不了解细节。很多人都知道'哦对，你应该达到饱和'。

Yeah, know. It's insane. You would think it would be part of our jobs, but it's not. But that was really helpful for articulating the assumptions embedded in those concepts, because I think people know the headlines, but they don't know the detail. So lots of people know, oh yes, you should saturate.

这就是定性研究中确定样本量的方法。但他们不了解这个术语的历史渊源、演变过程及其背后的假设。一旦深入探究这些，情况就会显得截然不同——更加复杂、混乱，甚至在某些方面行不通。这又回到了我之前提到的观点：了解历史至关重要。

That's how you determine sample size in qualitative research. But they don't know the history of that term, where it's come from, how it came about, how it's evolved, the assumptions that it makes. And once you start to get into those, things look very different. They look more complex, more messy, and they don't work in some ways. I mean, that again goes back to the point I made earlier about, you know, knowing the history.

如果你知道‘饱和’概念源自扎根理论中的理论饱和，就会明白理论饱和与数据饱和或信息冗余截然不同。它经历了多种演变，围绕理论饱和及其受实证主义影响的讨论也层出不穷。正如我们讨论伊恩·戴提出的‘理论充分性’重构那样，了解这段历史会让认知完全不同。但我始终记得，初学者首先需要...

If you know saturation came from grounded theory, from theoretical saturation, you know that theoretical saturation means something quite different from data saturation or information redundancy. You know that it's evolved in many ways. You know that there are these discussions around theoretical saturation and the influence of positivism on it. And, you know, as we've been talking about Ian Day's reformulation as theoretical sufficiency, if you know all that history, things look quite different. But I'm always mindful, you know, if you're a student starting out, you need

完全没有可靠依据可循。一切都...

There's nothing solid to grip onto. It's all

是啊。就像在问：该从何处入手呢？你懂吧？

Yeah. Yeah. It's like, well, where do you start? You know?

关于成员核查很有意思。作为定性研究，成员核查可以有多种理解方式。但将转录稿或研究发现发送给参与者，邀请他们共同构建研究结果，这种做法完全符合参与式研究的理念。在开始分析或编码前询问‘这些内容是否能代表您的观点？还有补充吗？’——这体现了我对给予参与者充分贡献机会的重视。

And with the member checking, quite interesting because member checking to me would be, I guess you can see it in a few ways, course, being qualitative research. But the idea of sending transcripts out or even with findings, you know, drawing findings with participants and get getting them to participate in this construction would seem totally consistent with the kind of participatory approach, or before you you kind of dive into analysis or coding, to ask them, are you happy that this kind of represents your views? And is there anything else you want to add to it? To me, just seems being very sensitive to wanting to give them every opportunity to contribute to the subsequent findings.

这种方法有其适用场景。但由于我的学术背景是话语心理学和批判心理学，这些方法论并不追求产出能被参与者认可的经验表述。成员核查在此毫无意义——因为你并非要以参与者熟悉的方式呈现其经验，而是运用专业术语分析语言实践。

I mean, it has its place. But I think because my history is sort of discursive psychology and critical psychology, it's sort of in those approaches, you're not aiming to produce analyses that would be recognisable to participants as representations of their experience. So sort of member checking doesn't make sense because you're not trying to represent their experience in ways that might be familiar to them, that might make sense to them. You're using sort of this very technical body of language and terminology to kind of look at language practice. So remember checking doesn't sort of make any sense.

但若将这些假设泛化到定性研究，成员核查仅在你试图呈现参与者可识别的经验时成立。而定性研究往往需要研究者运用自身阐释框架，结果可能超出参与者理解范围。主题分析还需整合多方经验，某些参与者可能难以共鸣。此外还存在实际考量：这是项耗时费力的负担。

But then if you take some of those assumptions and apply them to qualitative research more broadly, member checking only makes sense if you're trying to represent people's experiences in ways they'd recognise. And often you're not doing that in qualitative research because you're bringing your interpretive resources to bear as a researcher, so it might not make sense to participants. And also, when you're doing any kind of thematic work, you're aggregating across experience. And so it might not resonate much with some participants and it might resonate with others. And then there are all the kind of practical issues about, you know, it's a burden, it's a big time commitment.

如果你惹恼了别人怎么办？如果他们生气了怎么办？如果你不同意他们的反馈呢？这，你知道，就变成了一片伦理雷区。所以我确实认为它有存在的必要。

What if you do if you upset people? What if they're angry? What if you disagree with their feedback? It's, you know, it becomes a bit of an ethical minefield. So I think it has a place for sure.

但作为定性研究的默认做法，我不认为它有效或合适，因为它做出的假设并不适用于许多不同的定性研究方法。

But as a default practise for qualitative research, don't think it works or it's appropriate because it makes assumptions that don't map onto lots of different qualitative approaches.

有时伦理委员会会要求这么做，不是吗？他们会说，在最终分析之前，让参与者先审阅并认可转录稿是很重要的。所以这似乎也成了伦理委员会的期望之一。

Sometimes the ethics committees require it, don't they? Would say, you know, it's important for partisans to almost clear, give the green light to the transcript before you end up analysing it. So it seems to have found its way into ethical committees' expectations too.

是的，我认为在健康研究领域尤其强调患者参与，作为患者你会觉得这是好事，对吧？但作为普遍原则——这才是关键——定性研究如此多样，实践形式如此繁多，这些更通用、更宽泛的概念只适用于特定方法。关键在于理解自己在做什么、做出了哪些假设，这个概念是否适用于我正在做的事？有时适用，有时不适用。所以我始终主张定性研究应该更有自觉性、更具反思性，更清楚自己在做什么及为什么做，了解所做之事的历史渊源和使用概念的来源。

Yeah, I think in health research, particularly, there's an emphasis on patient involvement, which I think, you know, as a patient, you think it's a good thing, right? But yeah, as a universal I mean, that's the point really, qualitative research is so diverse, there's so many different forms of practice that these more kind of generic, kind of broader headline concepts only work for very particular approaches. And it's kind of understanding what is it that I'm doing, what assumptions am I making, and does this concept work for me within, you know, what I'm doing? And sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. So I think my big argument would always be for more knowing practice of qualitative research, more reflexivity, more understanding what it is you're doing and why you're doing it, understanding the history of what it is you're doing and where the concepts you're using have come from.

我认为如果我们看到更多自觉的实践，定性研究会做得更好。我们需要更好的培训，更好的方法论学术研究。方法论学者需要更勇于承认自己的假设。我对那些声称'定性研究就是研究体验'的方法论论述感到绝望。

And I think we'll see better qualitative research if we see more knowing practice. We need better training. We need better methodological scholarship. Methodological scholars need to get better at owning their assumptions. I sort of despair of qualitative research that says qualitative methodological scholarship that says things like qualitative research is about the study of experience.

就像，好吧，有些确实是，但并非全部都是。你在这里做了假设，你需要承认这个假设。所以我认为定性研究要进步还需要很多改进。至于如何实现，我不知道。至少我们正在通过写作努力推动。

It's like, well, yeah, some of it is, but not all of it is. You're making an assumption there and you need to own that assumption. So I think there's a lot that needs to happen for qualitative research to get better. And how that's going to happen, I don't know. I mean, we're certainly trying in the things that we write.

当有人问'那么维多利亚，定性研究到底是什么？'时，你会怎么回答？

What do you say when someone says, So, Victoria, what is qualitative research all about?

这确实很难，不是吗？我想我能给出的最好解释是，它关乎意义，关乎对人类意义建构或社会意义建构的兴趣，归根结底是关于意义。因为其中部分涉及经验，但又不完全关乎经验。正是由于这种话语训练，我和金妮始终密切关注质性研究中另一条脉络——那些聚焦语言、话语和叙事的探索，它们与将质性研究框定为关注参与者生活经验的传统范式并不契合。因此对我而言，'意义'似乎是个相当恰当的术语，几乎涵盖了所有不同形式的质性研究实践。

It's really hard, isn't it? I think the best I can say is that it's about meaning, that it's about an interest in meaning, in human meaning making or social meaning making, that it's about meaning. Because some of it's about experience, but it's not all about experience. I think because of that discursive training, Ginny and I were always very mindful of that other strand of qualitative inquiry that focuses on language and discourse and narrative that doesn't fit in with that framing of qualitative research as being about participants and lived experience and so on. So meaning to me seems like a reasonably good term that just about captures all the different forms of qualitative research practice.

关于质性研究的现状与未来走向这个话题，我很想听听您对后质性研究的看法。我计划在本系列尾声与珍妮·塞切尔做一期相关节目，其实直到一两个月前，我对这个领域还知之甚少。经过更多阅读后，它确实让我感到震撼，并引发了一些强烈的心理和情感体验。您深耕质性研究多年，而主题分析法（TA）在质性研究中又无处不在，我特别想聆听您的见解。

So now on that topic of where qualitative research is and where it could go, I'd be interested to have your views on post qualitative inquiry. So I'm doing an episode towards the end of the series with Jenny Sechel on on this, and it's an area that I didn't know too much about actually up until a month or two ago. Having read a bit more about it, it's boggling my mind a bit and creating some kind of strong psychological and emotional experiences. So I'd be really interested to hear you being embedded in quality research for so long, but also really such a I mean, TA is just omnipresent within qual research.

这就像在玩杂耍。而且它

It's a juggle. And it

给我的感觉是——

would strike me that-

正在摧毁其能力范围内的一切。

Destroying everything in its power.

在我看来，后质性研究（PQI）似乎是在批判像TA这样的传统质性研究方法，你们的研究正是其批评的焦点。您如何看待这种批评？是否认为这是针对TA及您与弗吉尼亚合作成果的质疑？

It would strike me that PQI is kind of railing against the qual approaches like TA, that that's the that you're in the kind of sights and the target of criticism. And what you think about that and whether you feel like it is a criticism towards TA and the work that you've been doing with Virginia.

这么说吧，我读过一些后量性研究的文献（虽然不多），带着'这是什么？'的新奇感。真正触动我的是，它所宣称要超越的那种质性研究，与我认知中的质性研究截然不同。文献中描述的编码方式与我的实践毫无相似之处。这其实回到了我早先的观点：我们必须清醒认识自身的历史与学术语境。

I think, I mean, so I've read some post quantitative stuff, not huge amounts, but have that, Oh, what's this? Kind of curiosity where you hear about something new. Really struck me when reading about it is the type of qualitative research that it's kind of post is not a qualitative research I recognise. So the descriptions of coding that I've read are not a coding practise that I have. So mean, I think it goes back to the point I was kind of making earlier is we need to be aware of our history and our context.

我在想，这种方法是否是在充分了解和认识不同背景下定性研究的丰富性与多样性的基础上发展起来的。因为在我看来，它所倡导的很多内容，实际上已经映射到正在进行的定性研究中。从我的话语分析视角来看，这些论述显得非常熟悉且合理。所以它似乎并非后话语分析，从对定性研究的描述来看，更像是后定性内容分析以及某些更实证主义的主题分析形式。

And I wonder whether this approach has been developed with full knowledge and understanding of the richness and diversity of qualitative research in different contexts. Because I think a lot of what it's arguing for, for me, maps onto qualitative research that's already happening, that's already taking place. I mean, it seems very familiar to me with my sort of discourse and analytic kind of hat on, that it makes a lot of sense. So it doesn't seem to be post discourse analysis. The descriptions of qualitative research, it seems to be post and more qualitative content analysis and some more positivist forms of TA.

这似乎是它所针对的那种定性研究版本。确实，这也道出了我的困惑——作为方法论学者，我们真的需要明确自己所持立场，并意识到我们正在选择某种立场。我怀疑后定性是否在用相当狭隘的方式定义什么是定性研究。感觉这有点像在重复发明轮子，因为不同学科早已有人用不同名称和术语在做类似工作。我和金妮正在尝试做的事情之一，就是绘制出各种方法论之间的相似点、重叠处和差异点，以便我们能基于对方法异同的更深入理解展开对话，避免重复造轮子。

That's the version of qualitative, it seems to be post. So yeah, and I guess it speaks to my frustration that as methodological scholars, we really need to kind of own the position we're taking and be aware that we're taking a position. And I wonder whether post qualitative is defining what qualitative is in quite a narrow way. Yeah, I mean, I think that's my It feels like it's ever so slightly reinventing the wheel because there are already people doing that kind of work, in different disciplines with different names and different terminology. So I guess one of my and Ginny's kind of- one of the things we're trying to do is to try and map out where there are similarities, where there are overlaps, where there are differences between different approaches so that we can have conversations that are based on a better understanding of how methods or approaches are similar and different, and that we can stop reinventing the wheel.

因为我认为在方法论学术领域，确实存在对新奇事物的盲目追捧。但有时那些陈旧落灰的东西反而令人振奋，依然能给我们很多启示。就像我之前提到的伊恩·戴的书，我想那是1990年出版的——现在算来已有30年历史，但那本书至今仍让人兴奋。

Because I think there's a real in methodological scholarship, there's a real drive for things that are new and shiny. And sometimes things that are old and dusty are quite exciting, still have plenty to teach us. I mean, like Ian Day's book that I mentioned earlier, I think that's 1990. That's a good, I can't count now, 30 years old. And that book's still exciting.

它依然有趣，依然能给我们非常有用的启示。所以向前推进很重要，但不要忽视过去几十年里那些激动人心的著作。抱歉，这个回答有点杂乱无章。

It's still interesting. It's still got really useful things to tell us. So it's important to move forward, but don't discount all the exciting things that have been written in the last few decades. Sorry, that's a messy and all over the place answer.

不，能听到这些想法很棒。PQI（后定性研究）本身也很新，我认为它仍在自我发展阶段。我其实还没读过PQI的研究论文，不确定你是否见过这类论文，不知道它们是否有方法章节详细描述编码和分析过程。

No, it was great to get those thoughts. It's so new as well, PQI, that it's still kind of developing itself, I think. And I still haven't read, and I haven't actually looked, but I haven't read a PQI research paper. I'm not sure if you've seen one and what it looks like and whether there's a method section and details the the coding and the analysis or whatever that takes place.

没有。听你这么说我才意识到，我读过的都是方法论论述，实际上还没见过具体研究成果。我常常被这种现象触动：人们用各种华丽辞藻包装理论框架，但最终成果却让人感觉'哦，这和那个没什么不同'。我们很擅长给事物披上色彩斑斓的理论外衣，但最终产物往往并不那么激动人心或具有创新性。看来我得把阅读实证案例列入必做清单，看看它们是否真那么新颖独特。

No. I've I've I've as you say that, I realized what I've read is the methodological stuff and I actually haven't seen the product because I'm always struck by you have all this kind of fancy tralla lahring, you know, this is what this is about. And then you get to the end product and you think, Oh, okay, that's not that different from that. So I think we're very good at having a very colourful and exciting theoretical framing of something, but then the end product is not that exciting or different or new or innovative. So yeah, I'll put that on my must read list to look at some empirical examples to see if they are exciting and new and different.

最后，如果要给出两三条建议——虽然听起来有点老套——对于即将开展主题分析研究或更广泛的定性研究的人，比如从量化转向定性，或已在做定性但想更深入方法论的人，你有什么金玉良言可以分享吗？

Finally, if there were two or three tips, just sounds cheesy, two or three pieces of advice perhaps that you would give to anyone that was gonna embark on a TA study or a qualitative approach more generally, maybe moving from quant to qual or already doing qual but wants to immerse themselves in methodology a bit further? Any nuggets or pearls that you would give?

我认为首要的是反思你自己，作为一个人的身份、你的社会定位、你的假设、你的价值观，以及你对研究的思考方式。这实际上，我指的是反思性，对吧？这很难做到，而且永远只能做到部分和不完整。

I think number one is reflect on yourself, who you are as a human being, your social positionings, your assumptions, your values, how you think about research. And that's really, I mean, I'm talking about reflexivity, right? That is hard. It's hard to do. It's only ever going to be partial and incomplete.

你永远不会拥有，作为一个心理学家，我知道我们永远不会完全意识到自己是谁以及我们如何思考。从这一点开始，因为这样你就能持续进行反思和质疑的过程。

You're never going to have, you know, as a psychologist, I know we're never going to have full awareness of who we are and how we think. Start that way because then you're starting as you need to go on with this constant process reflection and questioning.

就像写日记一样，从第一天开始就保持一个反思性日志或研究日记。

So just like a diary, just keeping a reflexivity journal or research diary from day one.

是的，我认为这非常非常有帮助，因为我认为反思性是做好定性研究的关键。它是我们讨论过的所有事情的关键，理解特定方法的历史，理解你所做的假设，理解你对语言的思考方式，这对定性研究显然至关重要。这些都是你可以开始解构和反思的事情。而且它是一个产生想法和灵感的绝佳工具。我最近为我们在写的新版Denzin和Lincoln定性研究手册中关于TA的章节做了一些分析。

Yeah, I think that's really, really helpful because I think reflexivity is the key to good practising qualitative research. It's the key to all the things we've talked about, understanding the history of a particular approach, understanding the assumptions you're making, understanding how you're thinking about language, which is obviously crucial to qualitative research. All those are things you can start to kind of unpack and reflect. And it's such a good tool for having ideas and having kind of inspiration. I did some analysis recently for a chapter that we're writing on TA for the new edition of the Denzin and Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research.

我有点在忙其他事情的时候抽空做，有点手忙脚乱，你知道，当我起床泡茶的时候我在想数据。当我休息做午饭的时候，我也在想数据。在这些思考的时刻，事情逐渐凝聚和整合。所以我认为除了反思之外，时间也很重要。如果你能给自己时间，那真的非常重要。

And I sort of was fitting it in around other things and a bit sort of, you know, frantic and, you know, when I got up and made a cup of tea that I was thinking about the data. And when I took a break to make some lunch, I was thinking about the data. And in those thinking moments, things sort of coalesced and came together. So I think the other thing as well as reflection is time. If you can allow yourself time, that's really important.

显然，如果你在做学生项目，你的时间是有限的。但如果你有一年的时间，不要花六个月来准备你的伦理申请。尽量在前两三个月内完成，因为你希望剩下的时间用来收集数据。你不希望所有事情都在最后几分钟慌乱匆忙中完成。你需要时间来思考你的数据，因为深度和令人兴奋的观察以及超越表面的东西都来自于此。

And obviously, if you're doing a student project, your time is limited. But don't, you know, if you've got a year, don't spend six months putting together your ethics application. Try and get it done in the first two or three months because you want the rest of the year to do your data collection. You don't want everything to happen in a panic and a rush at the last few minutes. You want time to think about your data because that's where depth and exciting observations and stuff that moves beyond the obvious comes from.

所以我认为反思性、时间，以及你需要一些好的资源来指导你。广泛阅读，找到你信任并给你信心的声音。对那些做出非常确定性陈述的人保持警惕。我喜欢那些承认一定临时性和试探性的作者。你知道，我是说，虽然我们与TA有关联，但多年来我学习了许多不同的方法，我从所有这些方法中都学到了很多。

So I think reflexivity, time, and you need some good sources to guide you. Read diversely, widely, and find people whose voices you trust and give you confidence. Be wary of people making very definitive statements. I like authors that acknowledge a bit of provisionality and tentativeness. You know, I mean, And, we're associated with TA, but I've learned about lots of different approaches over the years and I take so much from all of them.

本科时我学习了扎根理论，觉得非常着迷。因为我完全是个书呆子（记不清该用geek还是nerd了），我通读了《扎根理论的发现》以及施特劳斯和科尔宾的全部著作。从中确实能学到很多。

As an undergraduate, was taught grounded theory. I found that really fascinating. Because I was a complete geek or nerd, I never remember which is the right one. You know, I read the whole of the discovery of grounded theory and the whole Strauss and Corwin Birkin. You know, you learn a lot from that.

后来我又接触了话语分析、话语心理学和一点会话分析。突然被要求教叙事研究法时，我完全不懂，只能去自学。所以不要局限于单一方法，各种研究路径都能提供绝妙的建议和技巧。

And then, you know, learn about discourse analysis and discursive psychology and then a bit of conversation analysis. And then I was asked to teach about narrative approaches. I'm like, Oh, I don't know anything about that. So you go off and read about, you know, you learn from lots of different approaches. So I wouldn't get too siloed into one approach or one method because you can pick up fantastic advice and tips from lots of different things.

如果你读过我和金妮的著作就知道，我们讨论的内容非常多元。因为我们从不同学者那里汲取精华，融会贯通到自己的研究中。所以要多读书，广泛涉猎，跨学科阅读也很重要。

I mean, if you read any of my work, mine and Ginny's work, you'll know that we discuss lots of different things because we've kind of, you you pick up gems from lots of different people and that gets worked into what we do. So yeah, read, read basically. Read a lot. Read diversely. Yeah, read across disciplines as well.

虽然我是心理学家，这个学科认同感很强，但我非常重视其他学科的方法论文献。比如护理学就令人惊叹，是质性方法论的宝库。珍妮丝·莫尔斯在《质性健康研究》的编者按简直就是建议、技巧和发人深省观点的金矿。

Because, you know, I'm a psychologist. We have a very strong disciplinary identity, but I value the methodological scholarship I read in other disciplines. Like nursing is amazing. It's such a wonderful source of qualitative methodological scholarship. I mentioned Janice Morse already in her editorials for qualitative health research are just a treasure trove of advice and tips and thought provoking ideas.

以上就是我长篇大论的三点建议。

So yeah, so that's three very long winded pieces of advice.

最近我和加拿大社会学家、民族志学者菲奥娜·韦伯斯特交流，她补充了个好建议：与其只读方法论论文（当然你们应该读TA方法论论文），想学民族志就该读民族志研究。这个原则适用于所有质性研究方法——既要读方法论论文，更要读具体研究案例，看看扎根理论、IPA研究、TA研究或DA研究实际长什么样，用什么语言框架呈现成果。

I recently spoke to Fiona Webster, who's a sociologist and ethnographer in Canada, and she gave another really good tip, just tagging onto your readings, saying rather than reading methodological papers, obviously, people should read your TA myth methodology papers, but read ethnographies if you wanna kinda learn about ethnography. And and I think it would go it would be the same with people wanting to to get to grips with any qualitative approach to read the the studies rather than or in addition to the methodological papers. You know, to read what a grounded theory or an IPA study or a TA study or a DA study, what it kinda looks like, what it sounds like, what it smells like, what the outcome is in terms of findings and the sorts of language which frames those papers.

完全同意。因为方法论构想与实际成果之间常有落差——听起来激动人心，读起来可能枯燥。必须看优秀案例才能明白实践中的样貌。记得当年（在英国心理学会认证更严格前）我读的是社会学与心理学联合荣誉学位。

Yeah, absolutely. Because you I mentioned that sort of gap between the setup and the delivery are often sort of, Oh, this sounds exciting. Oh, this is a bit boring. You'd need to see really good examples of what it kind of looks like in practice. I mean, I remember because I did my back in the day before BPS accreditation was a bit stricter, did sort of joint honors in sociology and psychology.

我阅读了大量民族志来学习这门学科。它们既迷人又极其有趣。正如你所说，通过阅读能某种程度上掌握方法。我还要补充一点，就是找到你研究领域的优秀范例。它们可能主题或学科领域不同，但能为你提供参照依据。

So I read lots of ethnographies to learn about ethnography. And they were they were sort of fascinating and really, really interesting. And as you say, you kind of learn about the method from the reading. And yeah, so I would add to that and say find really good examples of what it is you're trying to do. They might not be about the same topic or in the same area discipline, but they give you something to hold on to.

这就是我所追求的。我确实收集了一些论文精品，它们在某些方面做得非常出色——我把这些视为典范。学生们可能都听烦了，但我总说：读读这篇论文，它完美展现了IPA（解释性现象学分析）的样貌，这才是你们应该努力达到的标准。

This is what I'm aspiring to. And I do. I have a sort of collect kind of gems of papers that do something really well hold on to those as good so, you know, students get fed up from me saying, read this paper. It's such a good example of what IPA looks like. This is what you should be aspiring to.

维多利亚，非常感谢你。

Victoria, thank you so much.

非常感谢邀请我参加。

Thank you very much for having me.

若喜欢本期播客，请访问www.wordsmatter-education.com查看节目注释、资源和博客，并了解关于腰痛与语言沟通的在线课程。我们下次再见。

If you enjoyed this podcast, visit www.wordsmatter-education.com for all the show notes, resources, and blogs, and check out the online course in language and communication in relation to back pain. And I'll see you next time.