质性研究系列 - 现象学描述还是诠释？与两位现象学家的对话 - Kathleen Galvin教授与Pirjo Vuoskoski博士

欢迎收听《言语的力量》播客，通过更好的沟通提升患者护理。欢迎来到《言语的力量》播客新一期节目，我是奥利弗·汤普森。首先我要再次感谢所有通过Patreon支持本播客的听众，你们的支持对我们至关重要，正是这些支持让节目得以持续更新。

Welcome to the Words Matter podcast, enhancing patient care through better communication. Welcome to another episode of the Words Matter podcast. I'm Oliver Thompson. Again, I want to start by thanking all of you that are supporting the podcast via Patreon. It's hugely appreciated and really keeps the episodes flowing.

我们已进入质性研究方法系列的第六期，在高空俯瞰不同方法论的同时，偶尔降落以深入理解它们的哲学理念、理论和具体方法。今天令我兴奋的是，我们不仅邀请了一位，而是两位现象学家，为我们全面展现现象学及其在质性研究中的应用。凯瑟琳·高尔文是英国布莱顿大学护理实践教授，她的研究涵盖现象学、哲学、质性研究、健康领域的人文艺术以及行动研究。她当前的研究项目探索人们对各类健康问题的体验，并运用现象学导向的哲学，开发了一套创新的护理实践理论框架，包括对福祉、痛苦及人性化医疗服务新理论视角的贡献。

So we've reached episode six of the qualitative research series, flying high above the different methodologies and occasionally landing to get a deeper sense of their philosophies, theories, and methods. And today, I'm excited to speak with not just one, but two phenomenologists to give us a really rich view of phenomenology and its application to qualitative research. Kathleen Galvin is a professor of nursing practice at the University of Brighton in The UK, and her work spans phenomenology, philosophy, qualitative research, the arts and humanities in health, and action research. Her current research program explores people's experiences of a range of health issues, and using phenomenological orientated philosophy, has developed a novel theoretical framework for caring practices. This includes contributions to new theoretical perspectives on well-being, suffering, and humanizing approaches to human services.

皮里奥·福斯科斯基博士是芬兰尤韦斯库莱大学健康科学与物理治疗师范教育高级讲师，她在质性研究、现象学与物理治疗的交叉领域从事教学与研究。皮迪奥特别关注物理治疗教育及医疗情境中的体验现象和现象学对学习、教学与评估的贡献。方法论上，她专注于应用胡塞尔式的描述性先验现象学。目前她正进行一项关于同伴学习、指导与实践评估生活体验的现象学研究。

Doctor Pirio Fuskoski is a senior lecturer in health sciences and physiotherapy teacher education at the University of Juve Skule in Finland. She teaches and conducts research in the intersecting areas of qualitative research, phenomenology, and physiotherapy. Pidio is particularly interested in experiential phenomena and phenomenological contributions in regards to learning, teaching, and assessment in physiotherapy, educational, and health care context. Methodologically, her particular interest is applied Hercelian descriptive pre transcendental phenomenology. Pidio is currently working on phenomenological research that attends the lived experiences of peer learning and mentoring and practice based assessment.

除了节目中提到的凯瑟琳·高尔文教授和基蒂·萨多克博士，皮利尔即将共同主编《国际质性方法期刊》特刊，该特刊将借鉴并致敬哲学思想对多元现象学研究视角的基础性贡献。本期我们将现象学作为哲学理论、方法及质性研究方法论进行探讨，讨论现象学之父埃德蒙德·胡塞尔的认识论方案与其学生马丁·海德格尔提出的本体论方法之区别。凯瑟琳和皮利奥分享了他们对诠释学与描述性现象学研究这两种质性研究路径的见解，探讨了生活世界与现象学研究的关系，以及现象学研究的本质特征。

And alongside professor Kathleen Galvin and doctor Kitty Suddock, who we mentioned in the episode, Pillier will shortly be co editing a special edition in the International Journal of Qualitative Methods that draws upon and honors the foundational contribution of philosophical thinking to a range of diverse phenomenological research perspectives. So in this episode, we speak about phenomenology as both a philosophical theory, method, and also a qualitative research methodology. We talk about the father of phenomenology, Ebben Hasrul, and distinguish between his epistemological project and the ontological approach offered by a student, Martin Heidegger. And Kathleen and Pilio share their views on the different perspective phenomenological qualitative research approaches, namely hermeneutic and descriptive phenomenological research. We talk about the idea of the life world in relation to phenomenological research, and we talk about what makes phenomenological research phenomenological.

我们讨论了现象学作为质性研究框架如何指导数据生成、抽样和分析等方法，探讨了'悬置'的概念与实践。最后，凯瑟琳和皮迪奥为开展现象学研究及将其融入实践提供了实用建议。我已将节目中讨论的重要书籍和论文链接放在节目说明中。能聆听两位资深学者以如此深厚的学识探讨现象学真是莫大享受——对话先是深入现象学的哲学底蕴，继而回归到将这些重要思想定位到质性研究实践的层面。

We talk about how phenomenology, when used as a framework for qualitative research, informs the methods such as data generation, sampling, and data analysis, And we talk about the concept and practice of bracketing. Finally, Kathleen and Pidio offer some helpful advice about both embarking on phenomenological research, but also incorporating phenomenology into our practice. And I've linked the key books and papers that we talk about in the episode in the show notes. So this was an absolute treat to witness two experienced interlocutors share their deep knowledge of phenomenology with such an experience. The conversation begins by digging quite deep into some of the rich philosophy of phenomenology, but surfaces again midway to locate these important ideas to the practice of qualitative research.

现在有请凯瑟琳·高尔文教授和皮迪奥·沃斯科夫斯基博士。凯特、皮迪奥，欢迎来到播客。

So I bring you Professor Kathleen Galvin and doctor Pidio Vorskovsky. Kate Pidio, welcome to the podcast.

谢谢，非常期待这次对话。

Thank you. Looking forward to it.

谢谢。很高兴来到这里。

Thank you. Happy to be here.

所以这是定性研究系列中备受期待的一集，也是我期待已久的一期节目。我曾在不同播客中与临床医生和研究者浅谈过现象学，主要涉及疼痛和持续性疼痛。因此能花些时间深入探讨现象学哲学及其与定性研究的关联，真是太好了。非常感谢你今天能来参加。

So this is an eagerly anticipated episode of the qualitative research series, and it's an episode I've been really looking forward to. I've of tiptoed around phenomenology on different podcast episodes with clinicians and researchers, mostly related to, I suppose, pain and persistent pain. So it's great to be able to spend some time immersing one's toe in the philosophy and as it relates to qualitative research. So thank you so much for joining me today.

谢谢邀请我们。能来这里非常荣幸。

Thank you for having us. It's great to be here.

那么或许我们可以先请各位简要介绍一下自己目前的学术背景，以及你们是如何走上现象学研究之路的。

So perhaps we could start by each of you just giving us a summary of your current academic background and your kind of journey into phenomenology.

我先开始吧。我是一名护理学教授。我对现象学的探索源于我对人们在各种状况、情境或疾病中所经历事物的深度与细节的兴趣。在实践中，我们始终在处理某些重大却鲜少被讨论的议题，这些特别适合用现象学视角来审视——正是这些引领我走上这条路。比如患病、生活崩塌，或在重症监护等死亡近在咫尺的工作场景中。

I'll start, okay. So I'm a professor of nursing. And my journey to phenomenology has really been guided by my interest in the depths and details of what people go through in different conditions or situations or illnesses, And also within practice, how there are some big things that we are dealing with all of the time that aren't talked about very much that lend themselves very much to kind of phenomenological view. And that's what brought me along this road. So things like falling ill, you know, your life falling away, work in contexts where death is sometimes very, very close in critical care or in other settings.

人们因不同境遇被迫脱离原有生活，重建新生。作为护士，我从职业初期就对这类实践问题充满兴趣。这与现象学仅一步之遥，希望经过讨论大家会更明白。其实我最初是量化研究者，因为早期接受的科研训练全是量化方法。但后来我对大型研究只能揭示复杂实践议题中微小碎片的局限性感到沮丧。

People being wrenched away from the lives that they had and building up a new life because of different conditions. So these things in practice as a nurse, I've always been very interested in from the beginning. And it's not very far from those to phenomenology, which hopefully by the end of our discussion, that will make a little bit more sense. I actually started out as a quantitative researcher because all the research training was quantitative when I started out. And I became frustrated by the limits of, you know, doing a big study and then a little, little tiny, tiny splinter of what might be revealed from it in some of these complex topics as well, messy world of practice.

这促使我寻找其他方法，于是发现了质性研究。我尝试过质性研究的不同路径，但最终爱上了现象学——这就是我的学术旅程。如今我已坚定地扎根于此领域。

That led me to looking for something else and I found qualitative research and, you know, have worked in different approaches in qualitative research. But I kind of fell in love with phenomenology, and that was my path to it. And and now I am firmly here in it.

我必须说，护理专业在定性研究方法的发展上确实走在前列，无论是扎根理论、主题分析还是现象学。有趣的是，护理专业在质量方法论的传播、接受和发展中竟扮演了如此重要的角色。

I must say that the nursing profession has pretty much led the way in terms of developing qualitative research methods, whether it's grounded theory or thematic analysis or phenomenology. It's curious that the nursing profession has really had such a primary role in the dissemination and acceptance and the development of quality methodologies.

是的，我认为确实如此。实践需求催生了方法论。我记得有学者说过，这些方法能触及其他方法无法触及的领域，这很自然。现象学领域的一些泰斗也认可了护理专业对推动定性研究和现象学发展所做的贡献。这样一个学科确实做出了贡献吗？

Yeah, I think that's true. I think the practice demands methodologies. I can't remember the authors, said that can reach the parts that other methods can't reach, and that has been natural. Also some of the great doyens in phenomenology have also recognised the contribution that nursing has made in progressing qualitative research and phenomenology in the field. Has such a discipline made a contribution?

所以，我认为这是事实。

So, think that's true.

那么皮蒂亚呢？

And Pitya?

是的。我是从略微不同的学科背景进入现象学领域的。我原本是物理治疗师，后来成为物理治疗教师。目前我在尤瓦斯库拉大学负责物理治疗师范教育工作。

Yes. So, I'm coming into phenomenology from a slightly different disciplinary perspective. By background, I am a physiotherapist. And then I later became a teacher in physiotherapy. And currently, my position is at University of Juvascula in physiotherapy teacher education.

我与现象学的结缘始于撰写硕士论文时期。但那时我已经是物理治疗教师，所以研究兴趣更多集中在教学法层面。我热衷于探索问题导向式物理治疗教育中的学习体验，当时结合了解释学和现象学方法，不过做得并不理想。

And my journey to phenomenology began with doing my master s thesis. But already that time, I was working as a physiotherapy teacher. So, research interest was more on the pedagogical aspect and I was keen to explore the lived experiences of learning and did that in the context of problem based learning physiotherapy education. And at that time, I was combining hermeneutics and phenomenology. But I don't think I did a very good job that time.

十年后我在芬兰和澳大利亚两所大学完成了教育学博士学位。期间在澳大利亚沉浸式研读现象学文献一年，从哲学和方法论层面系统学习现象学。这深刻影响了我的研究方向和兴趣，博士课题也从学生学习转向了学生评估体验研究。

But ten years later, did my PhD and that was in education. I did it in two universities in Finland and in Australia. And I spent one year in Australia to really immersing myself to phenomenological texts and learning about phenomenology as philosophy and as a methodology. And that kind of had a big impact on my research motives and interests. I also did my PhD, from student learning had changed to student assessment experiences.

但我也越发着迷于胡塞尔哲学所支撑的描述性现象学立场。是的，那对我而言是个重大转折点。自那时起，我便深深被这种描述性立场吸引。攻读博士期间，我总听到'你无法进行还原，无法进行悬置'之类的论调——这类争论至今仍在持续。

But I also became more fascinated with the descriptive phenomenological stance underpinned by Hussle s philosophy. And yeah, that kind of was a big turning point for myself. And since then, I have really been very very fascinated by the descriptive stance. During the time I did my PhD, I was hearing all the time that you can't do reduction, you can't do bracketing, etc, etc. That kind of debate is still ongoing.

但我真切感受到挑战却成功做到了。此后，我指导了众多关于人们生活体验的现象学研究，涉及医疗保健、物理治疗、职业治疗等领域。还有幸与凯特合作，共同指导了两名学生。我的研究工作主要涉及教育及临床背景下各类主题的现象学研究，但我尤其享受指导研究生完成硕士和博士论文的过程。

But I felt really challenged but was able to do that. So, then, I have then supervised numerous phenomenological studies related to people's lived experiences also in the context of healthcare or in physiotherapy, occupational therapy, etc. And I also have had the privilege to be able to do a collaboration with Kate and supervising actually two students together. In research, my work mostly relates to phenomenological research on a variety of topics both in the context of education and clinical context. But I do enjoy a lot of supervising the postgraduate student researchers doing their masters and doing their doctoral dissertations.

幸运的是，他们大多聚焦现象学研究，这确实令人愉悦。

And luckily, most of them have focused on phenomenology. So that really has been enjoyable.

现在或许是个好时机，让我提一下你们共同署名的那篇论文——我记得是由你们的学生皮迪奥主导的？凯特，也可能是你的学生基蒂·萨迪克？

And it might be a good point just now for me to signpost the paper that you were both featured on, which was a paper led by, I think, your student Pidio, or maybe it was yours as well, Kate, Kitty Suddick.

皮迪奥的学生？

Pidio student?

对，是的。我正要...

Yeah. Yes. I'll just

我得记着要链接她近期那篇关于诠释现象学的论文，看她如何在博士研究中实践这些哲学理念。对我而言，这是篇极具启发性的文章，帮助我初步理解这些概念。问题在于我们从何处切入？正如我和皮迪奥讨论过的，本系列虽聚焦定性研究理论与方法，但现象学既是独立哲学体系，也被用作定性研究方法的框架。

I'll just gonna make a mental note for me to to link her relatively recent paper on hermeneutic phenomenology and how she can operationalize the the philosophy in her PhD. But so for me, it was a really useful paper to to read and and to begin to get my head around some of these some of these notions. I suppose the question is where do we start? You know, where is a good entry point? And as Pidio and I have discussed that the focus of the series is obviously in qualitative research methodologies and theories, but phenomenology is both a philosophy in its own right, but has been used to frame and to develop qualitative research methods.

是的，确实如此。

Yes. Indeed.

因此我认为，鉴于哲学的广度、深度以及多年来哲学领域内那些举足轻重的大人物和推动者，如果我们从哲学入手，你们两位会建议我们从哪里开始探讨它的起源呢？

So I think if we start with the philosophy, given its breadth and its depth and its the big kind of names and movers and shakers within the philosophy over the years, where would you both suggest a good place for us to start with where it started?

我想佩里奥和我都会说从现象学之父埃德蒙德·胡塞尔开始，对吧？要知道，他的著作距今已有100多年历史了。我认为他在1916年发表的《欧洲科学的危机》是个关键，但此前也有其他文本。他真正指出的——可以说他为我们提供了'生活世界'这个概念——佩里奥，或许我们可以从'生活世界'切入。这个比喻就像我们是游在水中的金鱼，而水就是生活世界，是我们日常中未曾留意的经验事件的连续性，是我们进行现象学探究的前反思基础，也是人类存在的共享部分。生活世界包含我们视为理所当然的所有人类关系。胡塞尔以此为根基让现象学得以发展。随后他真正指向的——我认为这仍是现象学最核心的理念——是事物如何向我们显现（现象），以及该事物的本质或其'所是性'。

I think Perio and I would both say with the father of phenomenology, Edmund Tusserl, wouldn't we, And, you know, the work is well over 100 years old now. I think The Crisis of the European Sciences he published in 1916, but there were texts before that as well. And what he was really point well, he gave us the life world, if you like, if I could start with the life world, Purio, maybe, that this is the analogy or the metaphor is like we are like the goldfish swimming in the water, and the water is the life world, the seamlessness of experiential happenings that we don't really notice as we get on about our business, the pre reflective world that is the ground for our phenomenological inquiry, that is the shared part of human existence as well, but that there are the life world is all the relations that we take for granted as humans. And so, he really gave us that as a foundation from which phenomenology has grown. And then he really pointed to, and I think this is the absolute still central idea in phenomenology, that how things appear to us, the phenomenon, and the whatness of that thing or its quiddity.

是什么让树成为树？让愤怒成为愤怒？让失去成为失去？其本质特征或'所是性'究竟是什么？

What makes a tree a tree? What makes anger anger? What makes loss? What makes it so? What are the essential features or the whatness of that?

这就是现象学的起点。随着它跨入不同学科领域——是的，我们讨论过健康问题——但在心理学、教育学等诸多学科中都有不同发展。本期播客听众如果对现象学历史感兴趣，可能会对斯皮格伯格的著作感兴趣，他研究了整个现象学运动。当然，胡塞尔的学生马丁·海德格尔将其认识论项目转向了本体论项目。

So that's where it begins. And as it's moved through different disciplines as well, yes, we've talked about health, haven't we? But in many disciplines, psychology, education, and so on, there have been different developments. But I think listeners to this podcast might, if they're interested in the history of phenomenology, might be interested in Spiegelberg's work where he's looked at the whole movement. And then, of course, Husserl's student was Martin Heidegger, who Husserl's project was an epistemological project about knowledge, and Martin Heidegger's project was an ontological project.

但在大陆哲学运动中其他学者那里，尽管各有特色且存在分歧与争论，仍有许多连续性。比如伽达默尔、列维纳斯，以及一些女性学者如埃迪特·施泰因等。佩里奥，你想就此补充几句吗？

But then the other scholars in the continental philosophy movement, there are lots of continuities, even though they're very distinct, and there's discontinuities and debates as well. So, Gadamer and Levinas, and some of the females too, Edith Stein and others. Do you want to add, Pierio, a little bit around that?

是的，我可能还是要强调：必须承认胡塞尔开启的哲学运动和视角首先是哲学探索。而现象学同时是一种研究方法论——今天我们更多会聚焦这方面。这容易造成混淆，因为胡塞尔确实提出了现象学方法，但其目的始终是为现象学哲学服务。正如凯特提到的，我认为讨论胡塞尔时最关键的是：我们无法不提及'意识'来谈论他。

Yeah, I would probably want to highlight still that, you know, that one has to acknowledge that the philosophical movement and the perspective that HASL started was a philosophical endeavor. And phenomenology is also a research methodology. I think our focus today will be more on that side. Because this creates a bit of a confusion because Hussle also presented a method, a phenomenological method, but his purpose was all the time to develop it for the purposes of phenomenological philosophy. And as Kate already mentioned, I think the key point when talking about Hustle, we cannot talk about him without mentioning consciousness.

根据胡塞尔的观点，我们需要退后一步，审视世间所有可能作为意识现象被体验的对象。他的哲学试图从经历这些体验的自觉者视角出发，理解任何能够通过意识被感知的事物。我认为这是最初需要理解和认识的最重要起点。凯特也提到，现象学主要关注的是对象呈现的方式而非其本质。胡塞尔的目标在于阐明任何可能的对象是以何种方式作为既定事实呈现给意识的。

And according to Hustle, we need to step back and examine all objects whatsoever in the world we might experience as phenomena to consciousness. And his philosophy seeks to understand anything at all that can be experienced through the consciousness from the perspective of the conscious person undergoing the experience. I think that is the of the most important starting point to understand and realize at the beginning. And also, Kate was referring to, that phenomenology is primarily interested in how rather than the what of objects. And Husserl's aim that was to clarify how or in what way any possible object presented itself as given to consciousness.

对胡塞尔而言，这始终是一项描述性工程。

This was always a descriptive project to Husserl.

那么人们是如何思考树木、愤怒和失去的？我想问的是，当时对CAR Ts理论的回应是什么？人们确实一直在思考树木、愤怒和失去。但胡塞尔及后来的海德格尔提出的这个特殊论点究竟有何不同之处？

So how were people thinking about trees and anger and loss? So what was the, you know, I suppose I suppose, CAR Ts, you know, what was the response to? What were they responding to? So people were always thinking about trees and anger and loss. But what was so different about this particular argument that Hussle and subsequently Heidegger had?

我们可以长时间讨论，但关键是要不把事物视为理所当然，而是退后一步重新审视。另一位现象学家梅洛-庞蒂说过，现象学就是重新观察世界。我认为没有比这更好的解释了——退后一步，回归事物本身，重新审视，因为我们生活在这种被视为理所当然、未经理论命名的无缝体验中。这正是重新观察的途径。

We could talk a long time, but I think to not take for granted, it is to take a step back and to look again. I mean, Merleau Ponty, another phenomenologist, said that phenomenology is to relook at the world. I think you can't get better than that. It's to take a step back, to go back to the matters, and to look again, because we live in this taken for granted seamlessness that is pre theoretical before we even name it. And this is a way to look again.

这是我能给出的最佳解释。正如胡塞尔所说，要回归事物本身，但必须退后一步，重新审视事物显现的方式。

That's the best way I can describe it. As Husserl said, to get back to the matters, but it is to take a step back and relook as to how something appears.

还要补充的是，我们需要放慢正在经历的体验并进行反思。比如当我们看见这棵树或一把椅子时——这是他著名的例子之一——在日常生活中，我们不会以自然态度去质疑椅子是否真实存在，或是否完整存在，实际上我们只看到椅子的某个角度，却依然将其体验为完整的椅子。我认为这正关联到现象学方法的关键，即便应用于定性研究时，你也必须退后、放慢节奏，将意识行为与意识对象区分开来，放慢思考你实际在体验什么。比如你以为自己透过窗户看到人影，隐约觉得看到了，但不确定是人还是模特，于是你退后再次观察，停下来更缓慢地思考。

And also, would add that to slow down experience that we are going through, to reflect it. And for example, when we see this tree or when we see a chair, I think that's one of his famous examples that when we look at a chair, don't in our natural attitude, we don't in everyday life experience, we don't stop questioning that it really exists as it exists or that there is a whole chair, we are actually only looking at one angle of the chair, we still kind of experience it as a chair. And I think that is also the crucial point that relates to the phenomenological method, even when applied to qualitative research, that you have to step back and slow down and kind of keep your act of consciousness and the object of consciousness separately, that you slow down and think of what you are actually experiencing. If you think that you are walking through a window, that you see a human character in the window, and you kind of did see that character, but you wasn't quite sure if that was a person or if it was a mannequin, and then you step back and look at it again and kind of stop and think about it more slowly.

然后你意识到：没错，那确实是个模特，不是真人。在这个例子中，你的意识已经把握了你所体验对象的意义。

And then you realize that yes, actually, it was a mannequin. It wasn t a human being. So, in that kind of example, your consciousness has already grasped the meaning of the object that you experienced.

我认为我们进展得非常快。皮里奥所描述的正是现象学方法论的核心——现象学态度。是的，就是要从我们不加反思地与世界相处的自然态度中主动抽离，退后一步，进入真正重新审视显现之物的现象学态度。虽然我们举的是简单例子，但你可以通过这套程序分析复杂的人类体验，试图勾勒出构成该体验的核心特征及其所有变体。因此在历史长河中，不同学科的杰出学者基于这些哲学思想发展出各种程序，被我们实践学科从业者吸收为研究方法。

And I think we're moving really quickly. What Pirio is describing is what is central in the methodology of phenomenology as a method, is the phenomenological attitude. Yeah, is to move, actively move from our natural attitude, which is our everyday way of getting on with the world unreflectively, and taking a step back and moving into the phenomenological attitude of really looking again at what is appearing to us. And we're giving simple examples, but you can do this through the procedures with complex human experiences to try and delineate their central characteristics of what makes that experience that experience and what all its variations are. So, in history then, through different disciplines, some great scholars developed procedures building on these philosophical ideas that those of us in the practice disciplines have grasped onto as method.

但世界各地都有哲学家通过现象学反思进行现象学哲学研究，这是可行的。而在实践学科领域，我们采纳了诸多忠实于这些哲学思想的质性研究程序与方法论。简而言之这就是发展脉络。其中关键人物包括心理学界的阿玛迪奥·吉奥吉，当然还有其他学者。

But there are philosophers all over the world doing phenomenological philosophy through phenomenological reflection, and that is possible. But in the practice disciplines, we have embraced various qualitative procedures and methodologies that are faithful to these philosophical ideas. And that in a nutshell is kind of the history. One of the key ones being Amadeo Giorgi in psychology, but there are others.

或许需要说明的是，当胡塞尔启发后世哲学家时，他们进一步发展了他的核心主题。但在这一过程中，他们的研究目标与侧重点其实略有不同，常常偏离胡塞尔最初的现象学构想。这某种程度上催生了现象学哲学的多个版本，也导致当今质性研究中存在对现象学方法的不同诠释。不过我认为，我和凯特还是需要探讨一下这些差异。

And maybe it needs to be mentioned that as Hassel Woke was inspiring other philosophers after him, they kind of developed his key themes further. But while doing it, they did actually have slightly different aims and emphasis in their work and then quite often deviated from Husser s original conception of phenomenology. That kind of created several versions of phenomenological philosophy. And that has also had an impact on that we actually nowadays have different types of interpretations of the phenomenological method when implemented into qualitative research. But still, I think we both, with Kate, we do need to discuss a bit about the differences.

但同时，我们也珍视所有这些现象学方法论与路径之间的共通之处。

But also, we do appreciate the commonalities that all those methodologies and approaches in phenomenology are sharing.

那么我们以胡塞尔和海德格尔为起点，能否再稍微展开谈谈这些差异？凯特你提到胡塞尔关注认识论，而海德格尔关注存在论。这些不同立场或现象学焦点会产生哪些影响？

So we started with Husserl and then Heidegger, and maybe just expand a bit on about those differences. So, Kate, you said Husserl was concerned with epistemology, and Heidegger was concerned with ontology. So what are the implications of those different positions or foci of phenomenology?

我想我们提及这点是因为重大争议往往围绕于此。初涉现象学的学者们有时几乎被划分为两个阵营——追随胡塞尔的描述性现象学或追随海德格尔的诠释性现象学。我和普里奥都认为这种划分过于简单化，被过分强调，实际情况要复杂得多。我们的立场是：构成现象学本质的是方法论层面必须具备的几个关键要素，包括现象学态度、还原、直觉、反思、丰富描述、对生活世界的调谐等等。

I suppose we're mentioning it because the big debates, contentious debates, circle round and round this and scholars coming into phenomenology, they're, you know, almost sometimes get divided into two camps, whether it's descriptive phenomenology following Husserl or hermeneutic phenomenology following Heidegger. And Purio and I both agree that this is far too simplistic, that this division has been overemphasized and it's more complex than that. What our position would be is that what makes phenomenology phenomenology are a few essential things that have to be in there when we're talking at methods level, which include the phenomenological attitude, reduction, intuition, reflection, rich description, attunement to the life world and so on.

而他们两者都关注意义及其区分。我认为这才是关键领域。

And they both are concerned with meanings and their discriminations. That's the key, I think, area.

确实如此。在描述性与诠释性现象学之间的激烈辩论中消耗了大量热情与能量。但我们想强调的是，真正重要的是达成对现象普遍结构的描述，或是研究者解释与客观现象之间的视域融合，而非这些分歧。毕竟，每位大陆哲学流派的学者都沿着自己的路径发展——海德格尔关注存在，梅洛-庞蒂侧重具身性，列维纳斯研究面容与伦理维度。自然存在巨大差异，但他们共享某些我们讨论不足的共同根源，我们总是更强调那些分歧点。

Absolutely. And a lot of heat and energy is used in these great debates between the descriptive and hermeneutic. But what we would argue is that what we want to arrive at is a description of the general structure of a phenomenon, or a fusion of horizons of the phenomenon between the researchers interpretation and what's out there, that are more important than these discontinuities. Because of course, each scholar in continental philosophy movement went on their own path to prioritize and emphasize whatever they were interested in Heidegger was interested in being, Merleau Ponce interested in embodiment, Levenas interested in the face and the ethical dimension. So, naturally, there are huge distinctions, but they all share some common roots, that we don't talk enough about the common roots, we talk more about all the discontinuities.

没错，正如我先前提到的，当考虑将现象学作为人文科学研究方法论时，无论是诠释派还是描述派，其核心都在于意识行为与意识对象之间确立的意义关系。虽然胡塞尔与海德格尔的哲学体系对这些关系的命名略有不同，但关注的仍是意义关联。胡塞尔提出的方法与通常关联于诠释现象学的方法存在差异，后者更强调诠释性态度。不过本质上，它们都涉及意识行为与其对象在不同经验时刻中呈现的关系。

Yeah, and already as a starting point, as I was already referring to that, when you are going to apply, considering to apply phenomenology as a research methodology to human science or human scientific purposes, In both stances, in the interpretive and descriptive, the meanings are considered the established relations between the act of consciousness and the object of consciousness. And they are slightly differently named in both philosophies of, for example, Hasell and Heidegger. But it is still the meaning relationship that they are interested in. And the method that Hussle presented is slightly different from what is usually related to hermeneutic phenomenology and highlighting the kind of hermeneutic approach to or adoption of an hermeneutic phenomenological attitude, which is slightly different. But still, it's the established relations between acts of consciousness and its objects which are present to our consciousness in different moments of the experience or stream.

这种方法将具体化为如何操作化地检验质性研究中的经验对象特征——正如凯特提到的生活世界现象。需要牢记的是，若论及描述性与诠释性立场，二者都宣称其合法性基于现象学科学哲学。

And then the method will be kind of operationalizing how it can be examined when applied to qualitative research that we want to examine the qualitative aspects of experiential objects and the phenomena of light world as Kate already mentioned. So, think that is important to keep in mind that both stances, if we want to talk about descriptive and interpretive stances, claim their legitimation based on phenomenological philosophy of science.

那么或许此刻，我们不妨先聚焦不同的诠释性立场，暂时搁置描述性立场。作为刚进入该领域的研究者或学生，该如何选择立场？哪些问题更适合不同进路？特别是应用于质性研究时，诠释性或描述性现象学研究框架会分别产生怎样的成果？

So maybe at that point, just hang on to those different hermeneutic interpretive stance and just set aside the descriptive stance. And and as a researcher or as a student or someone entering into this this field, how do you know which one to take? What sorts of questions might be better suited for the different positions or approaches? And what's the sort of and I'm referring to the the application of this position to qualitative research. What comes from these different studies or these different framed qualitative studies, whether it's a hermeneutic or a descriptive phenomenological study?

我和凯特在这个问题上可能有不同见解——当然我们很欢迎这种分歧。我的基本观点是：描述性与诠释性现象学的差异主要体现在单一意义与多重意义的区分，以及研究者采用不同进路的动机。如同所有研究，方法论选择应由研究兴趣和问题驱动，而非相反。比如描述现象学家的动机在于阐明意义变体中的同一性，而诠释研究者则更关注被调查经验的多样性与丰富性。

I think we might slightly think differently here also with Kate. And you know, we are happy to think differently. But my kind of starting point would be that the difference in the phenomenological stances of descriptive and interpretive phenomenology mainly concerns the difference between the univocal and multiple meanings and then the motive and interest of the researcher behind the two approaches. Like in any research, the research interest and the research question should guide the choice of methodology and method and not vice versa. So that, for example, the motivation for me as a descriptive phenomenologist is to articulate the relationship of the variations of meanings into the sense of identity implied in them or when the interpretive researcher would be motivated emphasize the variation and the diversity and the richness of the lived through experiences under investigation.

虽然两者都可能始于个体经验描述，并得出相似结果。但以描述现象学家为例，我们会使用稍异的术语——分析的主要成果是对现象结构的描述，其依据是意义的精确性而非诠释学看重的意义合理性（后者更开放于重新诠释）。与描述立场相关的意义精确性要求，正是我的出发点。凯特，你想补充吗？

But they both might start with individual experiences, individual descriptions of experiences, And they might both end up with slightly similar results. But to me, it s also uses slightly different terminology in describing, for example, as a descriptive phenomenologist. The main result of the analysis would be the description of the structure of the phenomenon under investigation and accounting for the phenomenon based on precision of meanings and not the plausibility of meaning, like, is kind of related to interpretation, which is more open to reinterpretation. And the precision of meanings kind of associated with the fulfilment of demand linked with the descriptive stance would be my starting point. I don't know if, Kate, you want to hop in and

我同意佩里奥的观点。作为新手研究者，我们常观察到一种误解：有人认为描述性现象学因某些目标难以达成而过于困难。实际上描述性现象学有着清晰的步骤体系，能严谨地引导初学者保持现象学研究的本质特征。诠释学同样能做到这点，但需要研究者做出更多选择——这对新手可能更具挑战性。表面上看诠释学结构较弱，但我认为清晰的结构框架很有价值。

Yeah, I would agree with Perio. And I think as a researcher starting out, sometimes what we both observed is that perhaps there is an assumption that descriptive phenomenology is too hard to pursue, because some things might not be able to be achieved compared to hermeneutic. And I think what we would both say is that descriptive phenomenology has got some very clear procedures and stages that can guide a novice in phenomenology in a very good way rigorously, and look after the bit to make the phenomenological work phenomenological. Hermeneutic can do that as well, but there are more choices to be made that might be more difficult as a novice would be my advice on that. There is perhaps, at first sight, less structure, but I think structure is a good thing.

正如皮里奥所说，我们的目标是尝试对两者进行特征描述，试图界定这一现象。这在很大程度上取决于你所观察的现象本身，它可能最终指引你做出决定。但我们不希望研究者基于‘无法触及本质’或‘悬置过于困难’这类观念来做决定，因为已有大量研究表明情况并非如此。这需要基于实际现象或研究问题，做出更复杂的决策过程。问题。

And as Pirio says, we're aiming to try and characterise in both of them, we're trying to characterise the phenomenon. And it very much depends on what the phenomenon is that you're looking at that might guide you ultimately to make that decision. But what we wouldn't want researchers to do is make the decision based on ideas that you can't reach an essence or bracketing is too hard to do, because there's plenty of studies where that's not the case. It needs to be a more sophisticated decision making process based on the actual phenomenon or research question. Question.

皮里奥，你想补充什么吗？

Do you want to add to that, Pirio?

是的，这也与研究者的动机和兴趣相关。例如，假设一位医疗健康研究者有兴趣理解某个具体现象——无论这现象是关于医护人员的生活世界，还是他们的患者或客户，或是他们共同参与的治疗互动，任何与医疗实践相关的内容。研究者选择描述性立场的动机在于，他承认自己希望为这一现象的现象学本质和理念知识做出贡献，这与解释性立场的目的和模式略有不同。凯特，你同意吗？

Yeah, also related to the motive and the interest of the researcher that, for example, let's say a healthcare researcher who would be interested in understanding a specific phenomenon, whatever that might be in the life world, for example, of the healthcare professional or their patient or client or or the therapeutic encounters that they are both involved, whatever that might be related to the healthcare practice. The module of researcher to choose the descriptive stance would be that one would acknowledge that I want to contribute to the phenomenological essential and idetic knowledge of that phenomenon which is slightly different from the purpose and model of the interpretive stance. Would you agree with that, Kate?

是的，我同意这个观点。

Yes, I would agree with that. Yeah.

所以我只是想从实践角度理解这两种立场之间的实际差异，研究者会如何思考，他们的研究问题或访谈指南上可能出现的那类访谈问题的形成方式是否有区别，或者是否有其他分析方法被优先考虑。

So I m just trying to get a a practical sense of the practical differences between these two positions and how the researcher might think and whether there's any difference in how their research questions are developed or these sorts of interview questions which might appear on an interview guide, or if there's any given to another method of analysis.

如果我没记错的话，这样提出的问题本身不会有太大不同。比如凯蒂的研究中，问题类似于‘中风幸存者和医护人员如何在急性中风病房中有意义地生活？’是这样吗？这体现了一种更偏向诠释学和解释性的研究立场。而回想我自己的博士研究，我探讨的是‘临床实习评估如何作为物理治疗学生经历的有意义体验呈现出来’。在这个意义上，我认为我更多强调的并非问题本身——尽管那可能是核心问题。

The question proposed as such would not be that different, if I do remember correctly, for example, for Kitty, there was something like, how is being on acute stroke unit meaningfully lived by stroke survivors and health professionals? Was it something like that? And that was a kind of more hermeneutic and interpretive stance that she applied in her research. While for example, if I think back to my own PhD study that I was looking at how assessment related to clinical placement was present to physiotherapy students as a lived through meaningful experience. So, in that sense, I think I probably highlighted more not in the question but that was probably the main question.

但我从教育现象学的视角进行研究，并强调需要同时采用现象学态度和学科态度。因此，虽然我对数据中可能浮现的内容保持开放，但我的研究动机和兴趣引导我着重关注他们经历的教育意义——尽管我没有剔除任何数据，我沉浸于所有数据并进行了全面分析。因为我的研究兴趣在于评估体验的教育意义。就此而言，我认为凯蒂的研究中并未以类似方式突出学科视角。

But I was looking at it from an educational phenomenological perspective and highlighted that both phenomenological attitudes and disciplinary attitudes need to be adopted. So, that what I m looking at, I m probably not that open to whatever might emerge from the data. But I was guided by my research motive and interest to look at the even though I didn't get rid of any of the data, I was immersed with all the data, analysed all the data. But I was looking for the educational significance they were living through because my research interest was to look at the educational significance of the assessment experiences. So, in that sense, I think the disciplinary approach was not highlighted in a similar sense in Kitty's work.

是的，另一个例子是探讨农村地区老年人对'行动力'的理解。所有文献都强调交通与人——即老年人需要在乡村环境中移动，或因无法移动而陷入孤立。通过描述性现象学研究方法，询问老年人关于其行动体验的多样性，Les Toddress和我得以揭示该情境下行动力的本质。通过现象学态度的还原，我们发现若不理解'渴望居住或停留某处'的意义，就无法真正理解行动力，而交通只是这幅大画卷中的一小部分——从仅能活动于家中一室的老人，到能自由出行的老人皆是如此。因此我们采用描述性方法，正是为了回答研究问题：在该语境中，行动力究竟意味着什么。

Yeah, and another example, looking at the meaning of mobility for older people living in a rural setting. All of the literature emphasises transport and people, you know, older people needing to move around or being isolated because they can't move around in rural area. So a descriptive phenomenological study of the meaning of mobility, asking older people about their mobility experiences in all its variations, and then the commonalities in that as well, through a descriptive approach, allowed Les Toddress and I to describe what mobility is in that context. And through the reduction in phenomenological attitude, what we were able to describe was how you couldn't understand mobility without understanding the meaning of wanting to reside or be in a place or stay in a place, and that transport was only a little part of this huge big picture about what mobility was to older people, including what mobility meant to older people who lived in one room of their house, all the way through to older people at the other end of the spectrum who could travel to wherever they wanted. So that lent itself to a descriptive we wanted to have a descriptive approach because of the research question to try and describe what mobility was in that context.

而Kitty的研究——关于中风患者在卒中单元的经历——虽然研究规模不同（并非问题更大），但你能看出区别吗？比较一下Purio以教育为重点的研究问题、行动力的意义探究，与卒中单元幸存者体验研究，这种差异会指引你选择相应方法论。我想对新手研究者说的是：你们确实需要像自行车辅助轮那样的支撑——比如Georgi等人提出的生活世界方法或程序性方法，这些都是非常实用的入门途径。

Whereas Kitty is, you know, the experience of being a stroke survivor on the stroke unit is a much bigger kind of it's not a bigger question, but you can see the difference. Can you see the difference between Purio's study with the educational emphasis in the question, the meaning of mobility, and what it is like as a stroke survivor in a stroke unit? That kind of will point you to the methodology as well. But what I would say to novice researchers is you do need some stabilizers like on the bicycle or some training wheels, and a life world approach, or a procedural approach, as given by Georgi or some of the others, is very helpful place to begin, just on pragmatic kind of practical step.

关于最终成果的呈现——当我描述'学生评估中具有教育意义的体验'的结构时，同时也阐述了构成该结构的最本质、不变的核心意义。这些内容被浓缩成一段文字，将海量数据精炼呈现。之后作为描述主义者，你要以这个结构和关键恒常意义为基础展开讨论，更细致地探究统一结构下的实证变异。于是在讨论章节，你开始结合自身数据探讨这些衍生问题。

So, when you were asking also the end result, so as I was describing the structure of the lived through educationally meaningful experience in student assessment, I also described, when describing the structure, the most invariant key meanings that constitute or form that comprise the structure. So, after that, because that is kind of, you know, the structure was a bit like one paragraph. So, all the huge amount of data was reduced into that piece of text. So, obviously, after that, you start the discussion as a descriptivist with your structure and the key invariant meanings and you want to look more closely at the empirical variations of that unifying structure. So, then you kind of start in the discussion chapter, the discussion about these ramifications with your own data.

此外，基于教育学学科视角，我还考察了这些实证变异对教育意义的影响。这是重要区别之一——可以说我是纯粹主义者，始终坚持纯粹描述性现象学立场，从始至终都未像解释主义者那样讨论研究发现，始终恪守数据本身界限。

Also, the educational, disciplinary interest, I was also looking at the implications of the empirical variation as the variation in the educational meaning of those. So, that is kind of one of the big differences as well that if because I can be called the purist in that sense. Wanted to stick with my thesis that you know the pure descriptive phenomenological stance from the very beginning until the end. I never discussed with my findings in a similar sense that one would discuss as an interpretivist with the findings. So, I didn't go beyond the data.

因此，若你希望全程保持胡塞尔式研究路径，我认为现象学家在描述性研究后转向存在论解释并无不妥。但我的研究动机决定了我不会这样做。坦白说，这也是个测试——我的博士论文能否以这种形式被接受？结果它在两个国家都获得了认可。

So, that is kind of when you want to keep with your Husserlian approach from the very beginning until the end. So, I don't think as a phenomenologist that it would be wrong to do an existential turn or interpretation after describing the results as a descriptive phenomenologist. But I just wasn t my motivation and interest was not to do that. And also, it was a bit of a test, to be honest, that is my PhD thesis dissertation going to be accepted as such? And it was in two countries.

所以这是可行的。

So, you can do that.

补充Piura的例子，瑞典学者Karn Dahlberg的《生活世界研究：反思性生活世界研究》也是典型范例。这些论文首先如Perio所述，用简短段落勾勒现象结构，继而展开所有变异形态，帮助读者理解恒常部分。这就是整体与局部相互对话的过程。Karn Dahlberg及其团队关于孤独感的研究，既提供了孤独的本质描述，又呈现了数据中发现的各类变异形态。

Just to add to Piura's example, there's other examples that I can think of that also guided very strongly in this way. And that's by a Swedish scholar, Karn Dahlberg, and Life World Research, Reflective Life World Research. And some of those papers, first of all, delineate the structure of the phenomenon, as Perio has described, in a very short paragraph, but then unfold all the variations to help the reader make sense of that invariant part. So that's the whole and the parts in dialogue with one another. So, Carne Dahlberg and some of her researchers have done a paper on the meaning of loneliness, with an essential description of what loneliness is, and then the variations from the data that they had.

另一个例子是关于被诊断为糖尿病的经历。其中有一个关于该现象不变特征的重要总结，以及通过展开过程展现的变体，即从数据中构成该现象的要素。我认为这些对初学者来说是非常有用的范例，因为这就是你最终想要达到的结果——理解是什么让孤独成为孤独，以及它如何在这个样本的所有不同变体中体现出来。可能还有我们能想象到的其他变体。但在这个语境下，流动性指的是什么？

Another one is about the experience of being diagnosed with diabetes. And there is an essential summary of the invariant features of that, and then the variations through the unfolded, the constituents of what makes up that from the data. And these are really useful examples, I think, to look at when you're beginning, because that's the outcome that you want at the end, to understand what makes loneliness loneliness, And how is it manifest through all the different variations in this sample? And there may be other variations that we can imagine beyond that. But what is mobility in this context?

它的本质不变属性或特征，以及样本中所有解释或关联这些特征的变体。这就是我们最终想要的结果。我认为这正是现象学与其他定性分析形式截然不同的地方，因为其目的是把握现象并展示它。诠释现象学家也试图展示现象，但方式略有不同，正如普里奥所描述的那样。

The essential invariant properties or characteristics of it, and where are all the variations in the sample that explain that or relate to it. So that's the outcome we want at the end. And I think that is what makes phenomenology very distinctive from other qualitative forms of analysis, because the purpose is to apprehend the phenomenon and show it. And hermeneutic phenomenologists also try and show the phenomenon, but in a different, slightly different way, as Purio has described.

这其实已经涉及到隐含的意义理论——胡塞尔方法或海德格尔方法所支撑的意义理论存在细微差异。但详细探讨这个我认为会花太多时间。不过值得承认的是，如果你想从理论哲学基础到研究结果的讨论和呈现都保持系统性，就必须像凯特提到的，在每一步都保持相同的描述现象学态度或更偏向诠释现象学的态度。否则就会显得混乱。我们确实看到很多定性研究自称是现象学研究（这也引发了对现象学研究定义的争论），

It would already kind of relate to the theory of meaning that would be implied to that there is a slight difference in the theory of meaning underpinned by Husserlian approach or Heidrickerian approach. But that would take, I think, a little bit too much time to go into the details. But that is good to acknowledge that if you want to be systematic from the theoretical philosophical underpinnings of approach until the very end of how you are discussing and presenting the findings of the study, that you keep during every step that Kate was referring to, that you need to maintain the same adopted either descriptive phenomenological or more hermeneutic phenomenological attitude. And otherwise, it gets a bit muddled. And we do see a lot of examples of qualitative studies that they do claim to be phenomenological, which is also one because there is a debate at what makes phenomenological study.

但我们确实看到一些研究声称具有现象学属性。实际上他们可能只是——我并非要贬低——收集了访谈数据，也许采用了开放、深入的方法论，然后进行了比如主题分析。他们声称这是现象学研究，而实际上未必如此。

But we do see examples that they do claim a phenomenological status. But actually, they have done, they might have just not just, I don mean to undermine, but they have collected interview data, maybe perhaps with an open, in-depth methodological way, and then done, for example, thematic analysis. And they claimed this was a phenomenological study when it necessarily wasn't. Well,

现在你促使我问：什么构成了现象学研究？就像你说的，可以收集一些访谈数据，并以生活世界意义的视角来处理这些数据。你可以借用其中一些概念。我想问题在于松散度或严谨度，或者说你对这些理念的忠实程度？因为你可以做一个主题分析（TA）研究，并将其置于这种哲学框架中。

now you've prompted me to ask what makes a phenomenological study. Because you could, like you said, is to collect some interview data and approach that data you know, in the mind of a of a looking at life world meaning. I mean, you could you could borrow on some of these notions. And I suppose, is it the looseness or the tightness or how wedded or welded you are to some of these ideas? Because when because you can do a TA study, which is kind of framed or situated within this philosophy.

但就像我们之前讨论的，什么让愤怒成为愤怒？为什么愤怒不是孤独？什么时候它变成了孤独？那个让我们突然说'对了，就是这个'的临界点在哪里——即它符合现象学研究的范畴。

But when a bit like we were saying, what makes anger anger? Why isn't anger loneliness? And when does it become lonely? You know, is where is that point where we suddenly say, yeah, there we go. It meets that category of a phenomenological study.

我认为要从凯特提到的点开始：你需要用现象学术语定义感兴趣的现象。然后还必须以某种方式采取现象学态度，并且必须明确说明这一点。

I think it starts with what Kate was already referring to that, you know, you need to define the phenomenon of interest in phenomenological terms. And then also that, you know, you have to adopt the phenomenological attitude in one way or another. And you have to make that explicit.

是的，我同意这一点。我认为关键在于，访谈数据或任何你收集数据的方式（主要是访谈），访谈数据本身并非现象。这是关键区别。访谈数据是通往现象的门户或途径。因此，仅总结访谈内容能让我们了解人们的想法、感受和观点。

Yeah, I agree with that. And I think a point in this is that the interview data, or whichever way you collect the data, but it's mostly interview, the interview data is not the phenomenon itself. That's the distinction. The interview data is the access or the portal to the phenomenon. So, just to summarise what's in your interviews, gives us an idea of what people think and feel and their opinion.

但那并非现象本身。现象学家试图进一步界定现象的意义与边界，探究何以为该现象，并将访谈和数据收集作为接触现象的手段。我认为这是个重要区分。正因如此，仅询问人们的想法、进行总结和主题分析虽很有用，能提供洞见，但这并不构成现象学研究。

But that is not the phenomenon. The phenomenologist is trying to go further in delineating the meaning of that and the boundaries of that phenomenon, what makes that phenomenon that phenomenon, and uses the interview and the data collection as a means to access the phenomenon. And I think that's an important distinction. And that's why just to ask people about their ideas about things and to summarise it and do a thematic analysis is very useful. It can give us insight, but that doesn't make it phenomenology.

使之成为现象学研究的，在于理解现象的边界、其特征、其不变特征以及变体。

What makes it phenomenology is understanding what the phenomenon's boundaries are, what its characteristics are, what its invariant characteristics are, and then the variations.

作为人文科学领域的描述性研究者，你还需要判定何种主张可称为现象学的。这始于最基本的还原——即悬置与加括号，将现象视为意识中的呈现或给定物，不作任何关于其如被体验般存在或对意识呈现的本体论或认识论主张。这对现象学者并非重要或有趣的问题。接着你要决定还原的程度，因为胡塞尔实际描述了多个还原层次。若最终达到先验还原层面，你实际上在进行哲学探究。

And as a descriptive researcher in human science, you would need to decide also that, you know, what would be your claim for being phenomenological. And that would start with the most basic reduction in the sense of the epoche and the bracketing and considering the phenomenon as a presence or a given to consciousness and not making any existential claims or epistemological claims that it exists as it was experienced or has a presence to consciousness. That is not an important or interesting question for a phenomenologist. And then you would decide how far you would go in your reduction because Husserl actually describes several layers or levels of reduction. And if you would end up with the transcendental level of reduction, you would actually do a philosophical investigation.

科学层面的还原并不超越人类意识及其生活世界。因此，这使得研究在某种程度上成为语境限定的研究——我们承认这点，而本质层面概括的可转移性仍具语境特异性，目标并非追求现象普遍层面的概括。

And the scientific level of reduction is not to transcend the human consciousness and the life world from that experience. So, that is kind of what makes the study also, in a way, context limited study in the way that we embrace it and we acknowledge it and the transferability of the eidetic level generalizations would be still context specific and the aim would not be to aim at universal level of generalizations of the phenomena.

我们多次提到'加括号'。我记得在撰写博士论文时，曾在某处提及这个概念。当时我采取社会建构主义的扎根理论视角。我的导师Nikki Petty——她是物理治疗师兼扎根理论家——在批注中用红字写道：'加括号！问号？快漱口！'。显然这个概念在质性方法论中颇具争议，在现象学内部也是个棘手问题。

So we've mentioned bracketing, or you've mentioned bracketing a couple of times. And I just I remember when I was writing a piece of work for my PhD, and I think I put somewhere in my thesis or some piece of work relates to it, I mentioned bracketing. And I took a social constructionist grounded theory perspective. And I remember my supervisor, Nikki Petty, who was a physiotherapist but also grounded theorist, one of her comments, one of her track changes was bracketing, exclamation mark, question mark, wash your mouth out, exclamation mark. So it's clear that it causes quite a bit of contention across the qualitative methodologies, but also is a pretty prickly, thorny issue within phenomenology itself.

那么，我们能否简要解释这个概念，将其作为方法或理念进行介绍，并说明为何它如此具有争议性？

So, I wonder if we can maybe briefly explain what it is and just introduce it as a method or a concept and why it's so contentious.

是的，我非常希望凯特能介入，但我可以先开个头。她解释得特别优美。不过用HASL术语来说，括号法或悬置以及还原，都是指那种必要的反思性动作，要获得哲学思考或现象学哲学思考的立场——即现象学态度——就需要这种动作。我认为这是进行一项具有现象学主张的研究所需的关键哲学前提之一。因为这确实关系到我们对待现象的态度，即将现象视为意识本身的现象。

Yeah, I would really like Kate to step in, but I would just start that up. She can explain it so beautifully. But bracketing or epoche in HASL terms and reduction are kind of terms for the reflective move that is required, needed in order to attain the stance of a philosophical thinking or phenomenological philosophical thinking which refers to the phenomenological attitude. And that is one of the, I think, the key philosophical assumptions that is required for a study for having this phenomenological claim. Because it also does relate to the attitude that we take towards the phenomenon as a phenomenon to consciousness as such.

但是凯特，你解释这个总是特别优美。

But, Kate, you can explain it so beautifully.

确实。奥利弗说得很对，这确实引发很多争议。你会看到有些论文认为括号法不可能实现，所以干脆不去尝试，直接转向解释学方法——这在某种程度上是对括号法含义的误解。

Sure. Sure. And Oliver is quite right, it causes so much contention. And, you know, you see it in papers where there is a belief perhaps that bracketing cannot be achieved, so therefore we're not going to even attempt it. And we're going to go straight to hermeneutic approach, which is a sort of a misunderstanding on some level of what bracketing means.

这关乎悬置判断，但更是一种从自然态度（即我们在世界中不加反思、视一切为理所当然的状态）向现象学态度的主动转变——退后一步重新审视，不把任何事物视为理所当然。我举的最佳例子是：当你成为训练有素的专业人士后，你会开始透过学科理论视角看待事物；而现象学态度要求你搁置所有这些，像初次见到般重新开始。卡伦·达尔伯格提出的'约束'概念很有帮助——想象骑马时勒住缰绳，不是压制而是调节那种超越数据本身进行解释的自然冲动，保持对数据原貌的关注。

It is about suspending judgment, but it's about this active shift from the natural attitude, and that is our unreflective way of going about in the world and taking things for granted, to the phenomenological attitude of taking a step back and relooking at again and not taking anything for granted. So, the best example I can give of this is, you know, when you're a trained professional, you start to see things through your disciplinary theoretical perspectives, or if you're a sociologist, you see it through a particular theoretical perspective. And the phenomenological attitude is asking you to set all of that aside and start again as if it's the first time you've seen it in a way, to suspend your judgment. What I think Karen Dahlberg is very helpful here, because she uses the term bridling. And if you imagine, and Carne Dahlberg's Rides Horses, you know, this is about holding back or controlling, maybe that's not the right word, trying to temper the natural impetus to go beyond the data with an interpretation when you're looking at it, rather than staying with the data just as it is, in its non taken for granted way, and to see something there that would have been obscured by an abstract, something coming over the top of it, or a disciplinary perspective, or an unconscious assumption you might have that you're not aware of.

所以达尔伯格的'约束'概念强调始终保持开放，同时放慢节奏、调节冲动。跟我合作的学生在首次尝试分析时会发现，他们只是从受训视角进行总结。而通过退后重来，他们往往能意识到自己并未处于现象学态度中。现象学家詹姆斯·莫利说，最天然具备现象学态度的是以惊奇眼光初次看世界的孩童——这就是括号法在实践中的要求。

So, Carne Dahlberg's notion of bridling is to always be open, and at the same time, this slowing down and this tempering. And where students working with me have learned about this is in doing it in their first attempt at analysis, they begin to realize that they're just summarizing from their own perspective that they've been trained in and how they in the everyday think about things from their disciplinary perspective. And then by taking a step back and starting again, then they can often see how they weren't in the phenomenological attitude. But James Morley, who's written a lot in phenomenology, he would say that the most natural phenomenologists who are in the phenomenological attitude are children who are looking at things for the first time in wonder. And that is what bracketing requires in a pragmatic way.

但常被误解的是以为必须忘记或清空所有预设。其实是要清醒意识到自己的前设，谨慎避免让这些前设影响数据收集与分析。从这个角度看，胡塞尔的自由想象变异法更清晰地表明：你需要将关于现象的所有前知识都悬置起来。

Yeah, but what is often kind of misunderstood that it means that you have to forget or make your mind empty of assumptions. It doesn't mean that. You have to be aware of those. You have to be really critically aware of your own pre assumptions and being careful not to bring in those assumptions to your collection of data and analysis of data. And I think in that sense, the Hussle's method of free imaginative variation makes it even more clearer that you know, you would put aside and bracket all the foreknowledge about the phenomenon.

然后通过基于特定意识行为（如意指、充实和认同行为）的自由想象变异法——虽然这些概念展开讲会很长——来测试你对现象意义的把握。通过不断变异那些不变的意义，直到体验到对所探索对象那空泛意指意义的充实。我理解人们面对复杂现象时可能放弃严格遵循胡塞尔的方法，因为这确实艰难。坦白说，我分析自己16名参与者的数据时——这对描述性现象学研究算很多了——花了整整一年多才完成分析。

And then with the help of the method of imaginary variation, based on specific conscious acts, which, you know, also would be too long story to tell, but they are the signifying, fulfilling and identifying acts of consciousness where you would test, you know, when you have grasped the meaning of the phenomenon that you are after. And with the help of that method of free imaginative variation, you would vary those invariant meanings until you experience the fulfilment of the emptily posited signified meaning of the object that you are exploring. It is hard work in that sense that, you know, I do agree and I can understand that people might give up, you know, doing it as rigorously as hustle means it with complex phenomena because it is hard work. And I'm really honest to say that when I was exploring my own data, I did have 16 participants, which is quite a lot for a descriptive phenomenological study. But it took over a year to finish the analysis.

所以，这就是为什么这项工作如此艰难。

So, that was why it was so hard work.

这本质上是反思性的。但正如我们一开始所说，有一些程序可以指导我们完成这个过程，这些程序确实很有帮助，Perio会补充说明。但你首先要通读数据以把握整体，理解整体情况及其内容。然后你要注意并标记出每次受访者分享内容中意义发生变化的地方。接着，你要紧紧跟随这些所谓的意义单元，对它们进行反思，并尝试将其转化为更通用的语言，同时忠实于原意。

It essentially reflective. But, you know, as we said at the beginning, there are procedures that we can use to guide us in this process that really help, Perio will add. But you, first of all, are reading your data for sense of the whole, what sense of the whole thing and what's in here. And then you are noticing and marking out each time the meaning changes in what people have shared with you. And then you, by staying very closely to each of those meaning units, we sometimes call them, you reflect on those and try and translate them into a more general language, but staying really close to their meaning.

然后，这些经过转化的意义单元，你就可以开始将它们聚类。这个过程非常耗费精力且高度反思性，但正如我如此喜欢Georgie的原因——它能处理好Pirio提到的所有这些复杂性。同时，你要保持对自己先前理解的觉察。所有与Pirio和我合作的学生，我们都要求他们在分析前写下自己的先前理解：他们目前对这些问题的理解、从文献中学到了什么、以及他们的假设是什么？

And then those transferred meaning units, then you begin to cluster them. And this procedure is very strenuous and it's highly reflective, but it will look after this is why I like Georgie so much it will look after all these complexities that Pirio has talked about. And at the same time, you stay attuned to your pre understanding. And all of the students that work with Pirio and I, we ask them to write about their pre understanding before their analysis. What do they understand by all of these issues at the moment and what they've learned from the literature and what their assumptions are?

他们对此有何理解？然后要尝试意识到并觉察这些理解如何在这个过程中发挥作用。这就是我们必须做的。这里与扎根理论有一些连续性，Oliver提到了扎根理论。

What do they understand of it? And then to try and be conscious and attuned to how that is at play in this process. And that's what we have to do. And there are some continuities with grounded theory here, Oliver. Mentioned grounded theory.

要知道，反思性意味着你不是带着空白大脑进入扎根理论研究，而是带着对已有研究局限性的认识。所以这不是什么神秘莫测、难以把握的东西——虽然确实困难（我不该这么说），但在文献中它被描述得过于复杂甚至遥不可及。有一批研究者认为它既不相关、无用，甚至不可能实现。但正如你所说，关键不在于否认研究者的存在——没有带着全部意识的研究者，就不可能有任何研究。

You know, the reflexivity, you don't go into a grounded theory study with an empty head, but you go in there aware of the limits of what's already been done. And so not this mysterious, difficult to apprehend thing that is made out in It is difficult, I shouldn't say that, but it's made very complex and maybe unreachable in the literature. And there are a body of researchers who don't believe that it's relevant, useful or even achievable. But as you said, the argument is not that there is no researcher there. There cannot be any research without a researcher there, with all their consciousness.

关键在于研究者要约束自己的先前理解，努力觉察那些被视为理所当然的预设，尝试用这些程序以开放、新鲜的视角看待所见之物。简而言之，我认为这就是我们试图达成的目标。

But it is that the researcher is bridling their pre understanding and is trying to be attuned to their taken for granted and trying to look fresh and openly at what they can see in an open and fresh way using these procedures. That, in a nutshell, I think is what we're trying to achieve.

我还想说一个实用建议：你可以从一份转录文本开始，完整地描述其结构，并尝试描述该结构中最恒定的意义。当你开始分析第二份时，必须能够放下刚完成的成果。这就是个很好的例子——我仍清楚自己之前的操作，需要保持这种意识，但不会将其带入新的分析中，而是重新开始。然后我会按照Kate描述的方法，先划分意义单元，再转化这些意义单元。

And I would say also that one good tip would also be that you would start with one transcription and you would go with it until the very end of describing the structure and also trying to describe the most invariant meanings of that structure. And then when you start with the second one, you need to be able to give up what you have just done. And that is a good kind of example of that. I m still aware what I was doing and I need to be aware but I m not bringing it into this analysis where I start fresh again. And then I would go to what Kate was describing that you would delineate the meaning units and then transform the meaning units.

在进入描述结构的最后阶段之前，你需要先对所有转录文本进行这项处理。因此，你不会对其他转录文本这样做。但我会先用第一份文本来测试，以便更清楚地意识到自己的预设和预期。因为通常学生也会注意到，最终结果与我最初处理的第一份文本相去甚远——那份文本更多地掺杂了我个人的预设和先入为主的观念。

You need to do that for every transcription first before you are entering to the last stage of describing the structure. So, you wouldn't do that with the rest of the transcripts. But I would do with the first just to test and become more aware of what are my pre assumptions and expectations. Because usually, the student also will notice that, you know, what I ended up at the end is far from what I did with the first one, which was more embedded with my own pre assumptions and preconceptions of what I'm expecting to see.

或许我们可以从现象学研究产生的数据类型出发，将其与主题分析或扎根理论进行对比。扎根理论非常注重观察社会进程、社会互动和系统。因此访谈中的问题往往具有动态性，关注的是某种运动、关系和社会互动。那么一份访谈转录文本或访谈问题会呈现怎样的形态？

And maybe just for some practical issues about the sort of data that's generated in a phenomenological study, whether and compare it to a thematic analysis or a grounded theory. So grounded theory is pretty intent on looking at social processes and those social interactions and systems. And so there are questions in the interview are quite dynamic. You're looking at kind of movement and and relationships and social interaction. What would be what would an interview transcript look like or some interview questions?

在诠释学或描述性现象学方法中，它会呈现怎样的面貌？

Would it look like in either hermeneutic or the descriptive phenomenological approach?

是的，当我开始数据收集时，通常只会准备一两个核心问题。比如针对评估体验的研究，我会让他们描述刚结束的工作实习中与评估相关的经历。这样能让话题更具体。但同时我也会要求他们尽可能详细地描述体验，并允许他们从任何切入点开始讲述。

Yeah, when I would start my data collection, I would only have one or two main questions. And if you think about the assessment experience, I would ask them to describe their experience of assessment related to the work placement that they have just finished. That would make it more concrete. But I would also ask them to describe their experience in much detail as possible. And I would allow them to start whatever they would start.

我会在开始时说明：'重点是你在说，而我在听'。然后根据他们提及的内容进行追问，比如'你刚才说这很煎熬，能具体展开说说吗？你指的是什么意思？'

I would explain them at the beginning that it s the purpose that you are speaking and I m listening. And then, you know, I would follow-up with the questions, whatever they are referring to, what they were. You just mentioned that it was cruciating. Can explore that a bit further? What do you mean?

'你这么说具体是指什么？'通过这种方式引导他们层层深入地描述体验。第二个核心问题则是让他们描述记忆中某个具象的、对他们意义重大的评估场景。同样地，我会采用类似的追问程序——基本上类似于斯塔纳·夸尔（发音不确定）那本经典的访谈研究著作中的方法。

What did you mean by that? And then kind of in that way, ask them to describe, you know, deeper and deeper in experience. And the second main question would be to describe one concrete situation of assessment that they have in mind that was significant and meaningful for them. And again, I would do the same procedures follow-up questions Pretty much in a similar sense that Staener Quale, I don't know how to pronounce it, is doing in the classic research interview book.

书名是《进行访谈》吗？

Doing interviews, it was called?

是的，类似这样的流程适用于描述性研究。通常只会设置一到两个问题。一个是关于整体生活世界体验的，但仍与你的研究兴趣——评估体验相关。另一个则会更具体地要求描述当时的情境和发生的事情。不过你仍会有后续追问，但不会预先设定主题或猜测他们会说什么。

Yeah, something like That would be kind of the procedure for the descriptives. They would only have one or two questions. One of the more kind of the overall Life World experience, but still related to your research interest, the assessment experience. But the second one would be a more concrete asking then to describe the situation and what was going on in that situation. But still you would have your follow-up and probing questions but not having your themes or thought beforehand at what would they say.

你需要完全开放地跟进他们的回答。除了这两个问题外，没有预设的其他问题。

You would completely openly follow-up what they are saying. You have no predefined questions other than these two.

没错，访谈就像一张白纸。你只需要问'那是什么样的体验？'或者'当时身处那种情境是什么感觉？'又或者直接问'评估过程是怎样的？'然后他们就会告诉你。

Yeah, the interview is like a clean slate. You just want to ask, What was that like? Or, you know, What was it like to be there in that situation? Or as imperios, What was, you know, the assessment like? And then they will tell you about that.

接着你可以问'能多举些例子吗？'或'能更详细描述下吗？'就这样推进。我们没有预设要覆盖的领域，除了'那是什么感受？'或'你当时如何体验的？'这类问题。

And you ask them, can you tell me, give me more examples of that? Or can you describe that in greater detail? And that's how it goes. We don't have any predefined areas to cover, except what was it like? Or, you know, how did you experience that?

有时在访谈中，我们可能会偶尔借鉴生活世界的一些基本维度。比如在关于行动力的描述性研究中，我们确实从空间维度询问长者关于场所的问题，也从人际维度询问他们与人交往的实例，试图获取关于行动力的例证。不过多数时候还是围绕那两个核心问题。顺便说，在考虑样本时，以访谈次数而非人数来衡量是很好的做法。

Sometimes we might occasionally in an interview be guided by some fundamentals of the life world. So, for example, in the mobility study, which was a descriptive study, we did ask older people about places that they, you know, from a spatial perspective, we thought about spatial perspective, and we thought about the interpersonal perspective, where we asked them for examples that were to do with literally moving around. And we asked them for examples of being connected with people, and so on to try and get examples of the mobility. So sometimes we can do that, but it's mostly just the two questions. And just while we're talking about interviewing, it's quite good practice sometimes to think about your sample in terms of interviews rather than people.

你可以访谈三个人四次，或五个人两次，也可以访谈十个人一次，但核心是追求深度。弗雷德·温茨的《质性分析五种方法》中有个很好的例子：关于现象学的章节分析了接收噩耗的创伤体验。整个访谈及其分析都聚焦于被诊断为绝症时那种戛然而止的深刻体验，以及这种停滞的多重表现。我认为这是通过深度描述来阐明创伤现象某个维度的绝佳范例。

You could interview three people four times, or you could interview five people two times, you could interview 10 people one time, but you're really trying to get more and more depth. And, you know, a good example of this is in a book called Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis by Fred Wertz. There's a chapter on all of the qualitative analyses, and the one on phenomenology is the experience of trauma through being given bad news, very bad news. And the interview and its analysis is all about the depth of receiving the news that the diagnosis is terminal, and how that has stopped the person in their tracks, and all the ways that stopped them in their tracks, and what that was like. And to illuminate the phenomenon of trauma, one dimension of the phenomenon of trauma, I think it's a really good example, where the interview is just about that bit, but in a great deal of in-depth description of what that was like for the person receiving the bad news.

好的，我会试着找到并分享链接。

Yeah, I'll try and find it and link it.

但我想强调的是，诸如饱和或验证这类概念并不属于现象学研究范畴，这种情况相当常见。

But I would like to highlight that such concept as saturation or verification don't belong into a phenomenological study, which is quite often.

或者可能不适用于任何定性研究。

Or probably not in any qualitative study.

是的。有时同行评审员会试图询问。

Yeah. Sometimes the peer reviewer tries to ask.

是的，我们应该说，皮耶罗，我们也不支持成员核查，某些用于检验数据的方法和程序以及其他定性方法并不适用，因为这是对现象的解释，与我之前所说的相关，它们本身并非现象。访谈是接触现象的途径，研究者通过访谈中的证据来描述现象，再将其带回与参与者核对并不合适。这不是真理对应论。要知道，任何验证在这里都不相关。结果的可信度在于，当人们读到或听到这个现象描述时，若能产生共鸣、被打动，认为其真实可信，那才是最终的可信度。

Yes, we should say, shouldn't we, Piero, as well, that we're not for member checking as well, and some of the methods and procedures to check out data and other qualitative methods don't apply, because it is the interpretation, the phenomenon, it's related to what I said earlier, themselves are not the phenomenon. The interviews are the access to the phenomenon, and it is the researcher who is describing the phenomenon through the evidence in the interviews, and to take it back to check out with participants isn't a fit. It's not a correspondence theory of truth. You know, there isn't any verification isn't relevant there. It's where the credibility of the outcome comes with is if people who then read that phenomenon or hear about it, if read to them, recognise it, resonate with it, are moved by it, that it is faithful, then that's the credibility at the end.

当然，你可以询问参与者他们的转录是否正确。但一旦进入分析阶段，这样做就毫无意义了。

Sure, you can ask participants if their transcript is correct. But once it moves into analysis, there isn't any point in that.

现象学数据更为重要的标准在于其丰富性。如果数据蕴含多重意义——我认为这是乔治使用的术语——那才是关键。人们常问需要多少访谈理论，对于描述性现象学家而言，一个经验就足够了。但乔治建议至少要有三个，以便能用数据验证你对本质结构的描述。也就是说，你用数据来验证你的发现。

And the much more important criterion for phenomenological data is that it has to be rich. So, the richness of the data, if the data is pregnant with meanings, I think that is the term that Georgi is using. Think that is a good term that if you would, because people often ask how many interview theories you need, for a descriptive phenomenologist, one experience would be enough. But Georgi is recommending that, you know, have at least three to be able to validate your description of essential structure with the data. So, you validate your findings with the data.

这使得它与其他许多定性方法略有不同。有时向学生或评审员解释这一点相当困难。

That makes it slightly different from many other qualitative approaches. That is sometimes quite hard to explain to students or the reviewers.

你是否在数据收集访谈和数据分析之间来回切换？比如在扎根理论或主题分析中，这种迭代过程会让后续的数据收集（即访谈）受到前期分析的影响。也就是说，你做完一次访谈，进行一些分析，获得有价值的见解后，可能会调整问题，甚至改变下一次访谈的重点。那么这种交替是持续进行的，还是说所有访谈结束后才统一分析？

And are you moving between data collection interviews and data analysis? So this iterative process, for example, in grounded theory or TA, where your subsequent analysis rather your subsequent data collection, your interview is informed by your proceeding analysis. So you've done an interview, done some analysis, have some useful insights, change some questions, might, you know, might change the focus of the following interview. So, there this movement between, or is it all the interviews analysis at the end?

现象学研究的数据收集不适用这种方法。你可以先完成一次访谈并分析，然后再继续。但通常来说，先通读几遍转录文本并同步听录音会更容易入手——即使数据是你亲自收集的，听录音仍然很重要。这样你会逐渐发现最初忽略的深层内容，可能惊讶于反复聆听阅读后浮现的丰富含义。我个人倾向于先收集全部数据再开始分析。

That wouldn't apply to phenomenological data collection. You could do your one data, collect your one interview and then analyze it and then continue. But usually, you know, it's easier to start with the whole when you start reading your transcripts first several times and while listening to the recordings as well, which is also important even though you have collected the data yourself, you still start to already see more what was actually in the day that you first thought that that was pretty superficial. I don't think that it will be rich data pregnant with meanings, but actually, you might be surprised by listening and read through it several times. So, I personally prefer that you collect all the data and then begin your analysis.

不过正如之前所说，你需要通过练习访谈来分析单个转录文本，从而熟悉方法论步骤。这样你就能预期后续流程，避免陷入不知所措的状态。如果可能的话，我还建议参加现象学研讨会或暑期学校，用小型数据集进行实践训练。

But as I said earlier that you need to do the practice interviews and you know, do the analysis with, for example, one transcript so that you familiarize yourself with the steps of the method. So, that sense, you know what to expect and what happens next because otherwise you are in a bit of a state getting confused what is going to happen next. I would also recommend to people to, if possible, to do some kind of phenomenological workshop or summer school or something that you could be able to practice with, you know, small pieces of data.

如果我们重复访谈，目的是收集更多案例和参与者提供的描述。有些研究确实会重复，但这与扎根理论不同——后者是通过迭代过程塑造并初步验证理论。现象学研究更像是两厘米宽却一英里深的探索：我们只在既定范围内不断纵深挖掘，这个比喻不知是否贴切。

If we were repeating the interviews, it would be to gather more and more examples, more and more descriptions that people can share with us. And some studies do repeat it, but it's different to a grounded theory process where you are kind of shaping your theory and testing it a little bit, if I could say that, through this kind of iterative process. It's not like that. It's more just, you know, it's two centimetres wide, but a mile deep. And you want to go deeper, deeper, deeper, deeper, but still keeping the two centimetres wide only, if that metaphor works.

你不能超出预设的研究范畴，但后续访谈会持续深化理解。完成科学层面的分析后（如佩里奥所述），当得出现象的一般结构或本质特征时，就可以转向存在主义思考。比如若涉及具身性概念，可引入相关哲学理论深化研究。严谨分析完成后，后续可以自由拓展其他方向。

You don't want to expand out beyond, you know, the discipline that you've set. But the further interviews would be to deepen it more and more and more. And then there are other things you can do after you've looked after the scientific concern, as Perio has talked about, when you end up with the descripture, the general structure of the phenomenon, or you've described its essential features or characteristics the meaning, its meanings, in a meaning emphasis, then after that stage, you could take an existential turn and start to think about what that means existentially. You could begin to look at relevant say, if you're looking something arose about embodiment, you might want to deepen that by using some philosophical ideas about embodiment. After that part, after all the analysis has been done in the disciplined way, then you are free to add to do something else afterwards if you wanted.

明白了。那么假设在第四次访谈时，具身性概念突然凸显出来——即便数据收集已近尾声——你也不会觉得‘这个概念与数据产生共鸣，我要追加访谈专门探索’吗？

Yeah. Okay. So you wouldn't you, for example, if embodiment strikes you after interview four or something off once the end of your data collection, wouldn't you wouldn't then think, that's an interesting concept. It it has resonance with my data. I'm gonna do some additional interviews and explore this concept in relation to my participants.

你们不会这么做。

You wouldn't do that.

不，但你可以参考梅洛-庞蒂关于具身性的一些观点，将你的发现与现有理论进行对话。你可以这样做，也有研究者正在从事类似工作。但这并非硬性要求，只是强调科学研究的首要原则是忠于现象本身。诠释学同样如此，无论进行何种现象学研究，都必须忠实于现象。

No, but you could look at, for example, some ideas that Merleau Ponty has written about embodiment, and have a dialogue with what you've got with what is there. You could do that, there are researchers doing that kind of thing. But that's not a requirement. It's just to say that there is the scientific concern of being faithful to the phenomenon must come first. And that's the same for hermeneutic, you know, you have to be faithful to the phenomenon, whatever kind of phenomenology we're doing.

完成这部分工作后，你才能开始思考如何向世界分享成果。学术发表并非唯一途径，你可以通过最终形成的描述性文本，或是为服务对象设计其他呈现方式——比如制作阐述核心发现的动画短片。我个人对诗歌承载深层意义的能力很感兴趣，它能超越文字本身丰富表达。但所有这些都必须建立在首要基础上：通过保持现象学态度，紧密围绕数据和意义，真正做到对现象的忠实还原。

And then after that part is complete, then, you know, you can start to think about how you might share that with the world. And it might not be through for the academic world, it might be through the description that you've arrived at. But then for working with service users, you might think of another way of sharing it by maybe creating a short animated film about the key ideas that emerged, or I'm interested in how poetry can hold deep meaning beyond words, you know, you can enrich things. After you've looked after this first part, which is being faithful to the phenomenon, through the processes of really being in the phenomenological attitude, and staying very close to the data and the meaning.

我举个克里奇顿大学的硕士生案例。她访谈了三位还是四位参与者？总之是三四位，研究她们产后肛门失禁的经历。这个敏感话题产生了极具冲击力的数据。我特别希望看到她能将这项研究扩展为博士课题。

I have one example of a master's student in University of Crichton actually did her work. She interviewed three participants or was it four? Three or four, anyway, on their experience of anal incontinence after having a child. And that was really powerful, really sensitive topic and really powerful data. I really would have wanted to see her doing, expanding the research to a PhD study.

不过我当时已离开布莱顿大学，不清楚后续进展。她在完成描述性分析后创作了一首诗歌——毕竟硕士阶段时间有限，不同于博士研究。虽然时间紧迫，但她完成得非常出色。若能见证这两种形式的结合会很有意思。

But I left from the University of Brighton and I don't know what is the situation at the moment. But she ended up after the descriptive analysis to write a poem. I think was because doing a Master s is different when you do a PhD, you have more time to spend. And time is more limited doing your Master s, but she did a really good job. And to be able to see that combination would have been lovely.

对于如此敏感的主题，诗歌反而以极具力量的方式，更全面地揭示了现象结构和本质意义。我注意到时间不早了，现在是晚餐时间

With the sensitive topic as such, I think somehow the poem illuminated more aspects of that structure and its invariant meanings in very powerful manner. I'm conscious of time. It's dinner time

在奇切斯特。皮迪奥，如果你和我一样，芬兰现在该是就寝时间了。

in Chichester and if you're anything like me, Pidio, it's bedtime in Finland.

嗯，现在是...九点半。是的。

Well, it's it's 09:30. Yeah.

那是我睡觉的时间了。我想知道你们两位还有什么想补充的，或者有没有我们还没谈到但你们想讨论的话题？你们已经为那些想研究现象学或希望了解更多的人提供了一些非常有用的建议和指导。你们觉得还有什么值得说的吗？

That's by bedtime. I wondered if there was anything else that you both want to to add or any anything we haven't spoken about that you wanted to speak about? You've given some really helpful kind of tips and advice for those wanting to pursue phenomenology or perhaps are looking to find out more. Is there anything else you think is worth saying?

我不知道。我在思考现象学的潜力，它能给医疗专业人员和医疗实践带来什么，不仅仅是针对研究者，而是作为一种从业者或临床医生的态度。从这个意义上说，我非常希望人们能对现象学产生兴趣，比如以患者为中心的实践期望，以及现象学如何强调对生活经验的第一人称视角，并将其作为科学知识的基础给予认可。这与那些以量化结果为导向的定量方法截然不同。当然，我并不是贬低那种方法，但它们确实非常不同。

I don't know. I'm just thinking about the potential of phenomenology, what it could give for healthcare professionals and healthcare practises that are not just for the researchers, but as an attitude for a practitioner or clinician. I think in that sense, I would really like and love people to get interested, become interested in phenomenology and for example, all that expectation for patient centric practice and, you know, the way how phenomenology highlights the first person approach to lived experiences and gives credit as the base of scientific knowledge as well. In a very different way than all that quantifying outcome oriented quantitative approach. Thus, I m not undermining that, but it s very different.

它非常强大。所以，我想这就是如何让人们现象学产生兴趣，虽然我也不知道具体该怎么做。

It's so powerful. So, I think that would be just that how to get people interested in phenomenology, I don't know.

希望这个播客能做到这一点。

Hopefully, this podcast will do it.

是的。而且

Yeah. And

我想接着这个话题说，做得好的现象学研究，那些描述非常有力。它们足以建议改变实践方向、提升实践或直接继续实践，因为当它们做得好时，确实非常有力。它们还能帮助医疗专业人员重新接触他们在这个高度工具化的世界中工作、生活和应对的初衷，可以说让我们重新回到问题的核心。现象学文献中还有一个非常有趣的点，跨越了许多研究，那就是当你与那些经历非常挑战性事情的人交谈时，他们知道医疗专业人员无法改变或解决这些问题，但他们希望医疗专业人员能够承认他们每天面对心力衰竭、起床迎接未来的深度和细节。许多研究指出，参与者会描述他们感觉医疗专业人员无法在那个层面上与他们建立联系，虽然能在专业医疗路径上建立联系。

I think just to build on that, you know, phenomenological findings when well done, those descriptions are so powerful. They could be enough to suggest directions to change practice or to enhance practice or to continue practice right there, because they are so powerful when it's done well. And they can also help health professionals get back in touch with why they're doing what they do anyway in this very instrumental world that we have to live in and work in and cope with, it can bring us right back to the heart of the matters, if you like. And there's something very interesting in the literature as well, in the phenomenological studies literature that cuts across a lot of studies, and that is that, you know, when you talk to people who are going through things that are very challenging, they know that the health professional can't change it or do anything about it, but they would like the health professional to be able to acknowledge the depth and detail of what is like to live with cardiac failure and, you know, get up each day and face the future. A lot of the studies point to how the participants will describe how they felt there, the health professionals working with them couldn't connect with them there, that they could connect with them in the professional health pathway, but not at that level.

我认为这其中有些重要的东西可能会丢失。而现象学可以帮助我们保持与这些内容的紧密联系。

And I think there's something important there that could be lost. And phenomenology can help us stay close to that.

是的，还有一点我也在想，我们刚才讨论的关于搁置先入之见的要求等等。例如，我认为这凸显了专业人士也需要真正地，正如凯特也提到的，批判性地反思他们自己的预设和期望，当遇到不同情况的人时要退后一步

Yeah, one thing still that I also was thinking that what we just talked about bracketing the requirement to suspend the pre understandings, etc. That, for example, I think it highlights the need for the professionals as well to really, as I think Kate was also referring to, that are to critically reflect their own pre assumptions and expectations and when they encounter people with different conditions and step back

并保持开放心态。凯特、皮里奥，非常感谢你们。

and be open. Kate, Pileo, thank you so much.

谢谢。

Thank you.

谢谢邀请我们。

Thank you for having us.

如果你喜欢本期播客，请访问www.wordsmatter-education.com查看所有节目笔记、资源和博客，并查看关于背痛相关的语言与沟通在线课程。我们下次见。

If you enjoyed this podcast, visit wwwwordsmatter-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.