质性研究系列 - 扎根理论的解释力，Melanie Birks教授与Jane Mills教授主讲

欢迎收听《言之有物》播客，通过更有效的沟通提升患者护理质量。

Welcome to the Words Matter podcast, enhancing patient care through better communication.

欢迎来到《言之有物》播客新一期节目，我是莫利弗·汤普森。再次感谢所有通过Patreon支持本播客的听众，你们的资助对我们意义重大。若您想以每期最低1英镑/美元/欧元的金额支持节目，请访问patreon.com/thewordsmatterpodcast。

Welcome to another episode of the Words Matter podcast. I'm Molliver Thompson. Once again, I want to thank all of you that have supported the podcast via Patreon. Your contribution is really appreciated. And if you'd like to support the show for as little as a pound, dollar, or euro per episode, you can visit patreon.com forward slash the words matter podcast.

这是质性研究系列的第二期节目。今天我将与梅兰妮·伯克斯教授和简·米尔斯教授对谈，她们是过去十年间对我影响最深远的扎根理论传播者、教育者及理论发展者。能邀请到这两位扎根理论界的巨星参与本系列，实属荣幸。梅兰妮是澳大利亚詹姆斯库克大学的护理学教授，在扎根理论领域著述颇丰，包括多部教材和论文。

So this is the second episode of the qualitative research series. And today, I'm speaking with professor Melanie Berks and professor Jane Mills, who for me are amongst the most influential communicators, educators, and developers of grounded theory in the past decade. So it's a real treat to have these superstars of GT contribute to the qualitative series. Melanie is a professor of nursing at James Cook University in Australia. She's published extensively on grounded theory, including numerous textbooks and articles.

她的研究兴趣集中在教育可及性、相关性以及培养高素质医疗人才方面。通过这些努力，她致力于推动优质循证教育与临床实践。简是拉筹伯乡村卫生学院的院长兼负责人，被公认为澳新地区顶尖的护理学者，在政府和高等教育领域具有丰富的团队领导管理经验。她的研究聚焦乡村与公共卫生、医疗人力及卫生体系强化。简的职业愿景是通过培养能创造积极影响的研究生和研究成果，助力构建公平社会，她坚信教育与研究是推动变革的强大工具。

And her research interests are in the areas of educational accessibility and relevance and preparation for well prepared health workforce. She's committed to promoting quality, evidence based education and practice through these endeavors. Jane is the dean and head of the La Trobe Rural Health School, and she's considered one of Australia and New Zealand's foremost nurse academics with extensive experience leading and managing teams in both government and tertiary sectors. Her research focuses on rural and public health, health workforce, and health system strengthening. Jane's career vision is to contribute to a just society by fostering research and graduates that make a positive difference, and believes that education and research are powerful vehicles for change.

本期节目中，我们将探讨扎根理论的本质与边界，回顾其六十年代兴起的历史背景、理论基础与哲学根基，以及从格拉泽、斯特劳斯到科宾、查尔马斯各代学者的发展脉络，了解梅兰妮和简如何确立自己的扎根理论立场。我们会将扎根理论置于其他质性研究方法语境中讨论，分析哪些元素是共性方法，哪些是其独特特征。既探讨什么是扎根理论研究，也讨论其成果——即扎根理论本身，并解析'扎根性'与'理论性'的内涵。

So in this episode, we speak about what grounded theory is and what it isn't. We talk through a brief history of grounded theory, the context in which it arose in the sixties, the underpinning theories and philosophies, and the different generations, from Glaser to Strauss to Corbin to Charmaz, and how Melanie and Jane came to establish their own position on grounded theory. We talk about grounded theory in the context of other qualitative methodologies and what aspects and methods are common and which are somewhat distinctive of grounded theory. We talk about what constitutes a grounded theory study, but also the product of a GT study, namely a grounded theory. And we touch on what makes it grounded and also what is meant by theory.

我们将讨论研究者立场的重要性，包括如何处理偏见与预设、反身性思考以及研究者的角色定位。还会涉及扎根理论的核心方法：数据生成与分析的同步进行、数据编码、备忘录写作的意义，以及指导理论抽样、理论编码和后续理论发展的'理论敏感性'概念。最后我们将探讨优质扎根理论的评判标准。正如您将听到的，能与梅兰妮和简对话令我无比振奋——她们合著的扎根理论首版著作对我博士阶段的研究及后续教学督导工作帮助极大。

We talk about the importance of the position of the researcher, including managing bias and preconceptions, reflexivity, and the role of the researcher. And we talk about some of the key methods of grounded theory, including concurrent data generation and data analysis, the coding of data, the importance of memo writing, and we talk about the notion of theoretical sensitivity, which guides theoretical sampling, theoretical coding, and subsequent theory development. Finally, we talk about what constitutes quality in grounded theory and how we know when we developed a good grounded theory. So as you'll hear, I was really excited to speak with Melanie and Jane. Their first edition of their grounded theory book was a great help to me during my doctoral research and subsequent teaching and supervision around grounded theory.

我很荣幸能为她们的第二版著作撰写关于如何运用非参与式观察与录像促进理论发展的小章节。相关书籍论文链接已附在节目标记中。最后请密切关注她们明年即将出版的第三版著作。现在有请梅兰妮·伯克斯教授与简·米尔斯教授。

And I was honored to make a small contribution to their second book where I wrote a short piece on how I used nonparticipant observation and video recording to facilitate my theory development. And I've linked this and all the relevant books and papers in the show notes. And finally, keep a lookout for the third edition of their book, which is due out next year. So I bring you professor Melanie Berks and professor Jane Mills.

梅兰妮、简，欢迎来到播客节目。

Melanie, Jane, welcome to the podcast.

你好，奥利弗。谢谢。能来这里我们感到非常荣幸。

Hello, Oliver. Thank you. It's our pleasure to be here.

这太棒了。能和你们两位交谈我超级兴奋。就像我之前告诉简的，你们关于颗粒理论的第一本书在我博士研究中段时期就像指路明灯——那时我读完了市面上所有关于GT的书，却依然迷茫困惑。而你们的书帮助我将方法论付诸实践，在我学术生涯关键时刻提供了亟需的清晰思路。能和你们对话真是太棒了。

This is wonderful. I'm super excited to speak to you both. As I was telling Jane before, your first book on granular theory was a real guiding light me towards the middle end of my doctoral studies where I had read, I think, consumed every book on GT that was out there, but was still pretty lost and confused. So your book just helped me operationalize the methodology and provided much needed clarity at a much needed point in my studies. It's fantastic to speak to you both.

谢谢奥利弗。很高兴听到这样的反馈——虽然你现在不是研究生了（显然当时是）。这正是我们写这本书的初衷。

Thanks Oliver. It's nice to hear we often get that type of feedback from well, you're not a graduate student now, obviously you were at the time. That was really what it was all about when we wrote the book.

虽然如果能邀请到凯西·卡麦兹或巴尼·格拉泽上播客会很好，但我想没有人比你们二位更能清晰阐述并发展扎根理论了。

And I think, whilst it would have been wonderful to get Cathy Charmaz or Barney Glaser on the podcast, I don't think there are two people that have communicated or can communicate grounded theory better than you both and develop it as well.

谢谢。我们开场很顺利呢。

Thank you. We're off to a flying start.

谢谢你。你这么说真是太好了。

Thank you. That's very nice of you to say so.

那么或许你们两位可以介绍一下自己目前的学术背景以及如何接触扎根理论的经历。

So perhaps you could both introduce yourselves and your current academic backgrounds and journey into grounded theory.

好的。要不我先开始？好主意，梅兰妮。你先来吧。

Okay. Shall I start perhaps? What good idea, Melanie. You go first.

谢谢。我是詹姆斯库克大学护理学教授，负责质量与战略事务。这个职位我接手不久。过去十五年左右，我一直在昆士兰州担任护理学院院长或副院长职务。不过我最初来自墨尔本，现在又回到墨尔本远程为詹姆斯库克大学工作。我接触扎根理论的契机是博士导师建议我在博士论文中采用这种方法。

Thanks, So I am Professor of Nursing with a portfolio of quality and strategy at James Cook University. I've taken this role on relatively recently. For the last fifteen years or so I've been working in the role of head of school or deputy head of school of nursing, mostly in Queensland. But I originally held from Melbourne and I'm back in Melbourne now where I'm working remotely for James Cook University. My journey into grounded theory started when my PhD supervisor suggested that I use it in my PhD.

多年前我曾有位同事在荣誉学位论文中使用过扎根理论，当时这让我望而生畏。她总用些专业术语，提到格拉泽和施特劳斯这些名字就把我吓退了。我像避瘟疫一样躲着这个方法，觉得它复杂得离谱。所以我在博士阶段一直绕着走，寻找其他方法来研究我的兴趣领域。但我的导师坚持认为这才是正确路径。

Now I had worked some years ago with a colleague who had used grounded theory in her honours degree and it terrified me. She used to use terminology and she'd say things like glazer and strauss which scared me. I avoided it like the plague. It sounded like it was just far too complex and so I was kind of skirting around and looking at other methodologies to investigate my area of interest in my PhD. But my supervisor rather insisted that it was the way to go.

我想正是这种恐惧感驱使我必须掌握它，试图控制方法而不是被方法控制。这就是我如何走到今天的。实际上，简当时也在墨尔本莫纳什大学读博，她比我早一年左右，这就是我们职业生涯产生交集的缘由。

And so I think the fact that I was so frightened of it drove me to master it, to try and control it so it couldn't control me. So that's how I came to be here. And in fact, Jane was doing her PhD, she was about a year ahead of me at Monash University in Melbourne, and that's how we came to intersect in our careers.

没错。从那以后我们就成了挚友。那是很久以前的事了，我们算过年份，具体多久就不说出来丢人了。反正是很久以前。

That's right. We've been great friends ever since. So it's a fair while ago now. We were counting up the years and we won't embarrass ourselves by telling you how long ago it was. It was a while ago.

梅尔和我有同一位导师——凯伦·弗朗西斯，她现在愉快地退休了，正开着房车环游澳大利亚。但当时她是莫纳什大学的护理学教授。同样的故事，凯伦说：'噢，我觉得你需要用扎根理论。'

Mel and I shared the same supervisors. Karen Francis, who's now happily retired and traveling around Australia in a caravan. But at the time, she was Professor of Nursing at Monash. And same story. Karen said, Oh, I think you need to use grounded theory.

当她来找我讨论我的研究方向时，我正住在凯恩斯。我对想研究的课题已有初步想法。她说：‘哦，我觉得你需要去读这个。’于是我去詹姆斯库克大学图书馆转了一圈，找到本扎根理论的书——那是斯特劳斯和科尔宾的第二版著作。

When she came up to talk to me, I was living in Cairns at the time, about what my study might be about. I had an idea what I wanted to investigate. She said, Oh, I think you need to go and do this. So I took myself off to the JCU library and I had a little look around and found myself a grounded theory book. It was the second edition of Strauss and Corbyn.

我当时想：‘天啊，这真的太难了。’确实非常棘手。总之我觉得必须找位扎根理论领域的资深导师。当时JCU有位安妮·邦纳，她现在已是安妮·邦纳教授了。

I thought, Oh my goodness me. This is very hard, really. It was really tricky. And anyway, I thought, Oh, I think I'll have to find a supervisor that's got a fair bit of expertise in grounded theory. And at JCU at the time, there was Anne Bonner, who's now Professor Anne Bonner.

她同意加入指导团队，她的博士论文也是用扎根理论完成的。安妮比凯伦严格得多，她说：‘你必须按时间顺序读完所有扎根理论文献，从最早期的到最新成果。’于是我从《发现》开始，系统性地研读每本著作，进行分析并做了大量笔记——最后这些笔记应该都分享给梅兰妮了。

So she agreed to come onto the team and she had done her PhD on grounded theory as well. So Anne was much more strict than Karen and said, Right, you need to read all of the grounded theory text sequentially. So from the very start to now. So off I went. So I started with discovery and made my way through and methodically read them all, analysed them all, took a whole heap of notes which I promptly, I think, shared with Melanie in the end.

这就是我接触扎根理论的经历。但对我们俩都不容易，因为完全是自学。当时的教材根本谈不上用户友好。所以博士毕业后，梅尔萌生了写本入门书的绝妙主意——我们后来确实这么做了。

And yeah, that was how I came into grounded theory. But it wasn't particularly easy for either of us because we had to really teach ourselves. And the textbooks at the time were not exactly what you call user friendly. Thus, when we had finished our PhD, Mel came up with a bright idea about writing our own book. That's what we did.

是的，我们现在会建议初学者别从原始文献读起，而是先看我们的书。然后把它当作参考手册，针对性地查阅你需要的理论部分。

Yeah, and I think we would now recommend not to start at the beginning and read through, but to start with our book. Then use it as a reference manual to work through those areas, those aspects of theory that you are seeking more information about.

确实不推荐这种方式，过程相当煎熬。但总得有人做这个工作，而我就是那个‘幸运儿’。

Yes, not something I'd recommend either. It was quite torturous really. Somebody had to do it though, so that was me. I was the lucky duck that did it.

你们俩的经历展现了扎根理论自六十年代演变的不同流派。确实，通读全部文献就像成人礼，可读完斯特劳斯和科尔宾的书依然困惑。接着读查默斯的书时以为会豁然开朗，结果对我帮助有限——虽然它在认识论层面很有启发性，但实操指导性不强。所以你们的观点完全正确。

Both of your experiences touch on these different flavours of grounded theory, emerged from the sixties. You're right, it was a rite of passage to have to read every single one, and then still be confused at the end of Strauss and Corbin's book. And then you got to Chaimaz's book and think, will simplify things, and it didn't really for me. It was a really lovely read, moving the epistemology on, but certainly in terms of operationalizing it and how to do it, it wasn't entirely helpful. So no, I think you're completely right.

开始阅读你的书，然后参考历史文本获取背景信息。

Start to your book and then refer back to the historical text for context.

嗯，那是我很久以前的事了，因为凯西·谢马兹出版她的第一本书那年我刚毕业。所以我甚至没能有幸读到凯西那温暖友好的优美散文，这确实很遗憾。

Well that's how long ago I did mind because Kathy Shemaz published her first book the year I finished. So I didn't even have the benefit of being able to read Kathy's lovely prose, which is rather warm and friendly, that's for sure.

那么谁想来定义或说明什么是扎根理论？我认为这是个吃力不讨好的任务，但至少有两位最适合的人选能给我们一些描述或勾勒其轮廓，无论它是方法集合、方法论、研究路径还是其他什么。

So who wants to define or say what grounded theory is? That's the unenviable task I think, but there's no two better people to at least give us some description or shape to what it is, whether it's a collection of methods or methodology or approach or something else.

我很乐意回答这个问题，有趣的是我父亲也经常问我同样的问题——到底什么是扎根理论？要知道我父亲不是研究者也不是学者，他在建筑行业工作。所以今天我在想，或许可以用建筑类比向他解释。这就像是研究领域的建筑学，当你建造房屋时，首先要确定最终成品的样子。比如你想建一栋新艺术风格的房子，就必须选择特定材料并通过建造流程来实现这个目标成品。

I'm happy to take that one and it's funny because my father often asks me the same, know what exactly is a grounded theory? You know my father's not a researcher, not an academic, he worked in the building industry So I was thinking about it today, I could actually probably use a building analogy to explain it to him. It's like architecture for research. When you're building a house you decide what you want your end product to be. So for example if you wanted to build a house in Art Nouveau style, you would have to choose materials and you would have to carry out processes through the building to produce that end product, to produce that goal.

在扎根理论中，我们想要的最终产品是具有解释力的理论。为此我们必须使用方法，并以能导向该最终产品的方式来运用它们。因此我认为它是方法论——虽然对此存在争议，因为方法论是方法的哲学体系，而我确实认为扎根理论中方法的运用有其哲学基础。但这关乎你所使用的方法：必须正确运用所有方法，而所谓'正确'其实包含多种不同的扎根理论应用方式。

What we want in grounded theory is theory as the end product. A theory that has explanatory power and so in order to do that we have to use methods and we have to use them in a way that's going to lead to that end product. So I believe it's a methodology, there's a debate around that because methodology is a philosophy of methods and I do believe there's a philosophy underpinning the use of the methods in grounded theory. But it's about the methods that you use. You have to use all of the methods correctly and when I say correctly there's many different ways in which we can apply grounded theory methods.

但你必须完整且恰当地运用这些方法。比如不做理论抽样就无法产生扎根理论，缺乏理论敏感性也不行。这是一套方法集合，当正确运用时就能产生具有解释力的理论成果。

But you have to use them all, you have to use them properly. Can't produce ground theory without doing theoretical sampling for example, you can't do it without having theoretical sensitivity. It's a collection of methods that when used properly can produce an end product of ethereum explanatory power.

梅尔和我经常在许多事情上意见相左，这让人们很惊讶，毕竟我们合作撰写过这么多著作。我认为有多种不同方法论可以指导扎根理论方法的应用。但正如梅尔所说，若真想得出扎根理论，确实必须使用一整套特定方法。我的意思是，它绝非定性描述分析。而我们都知道，很多论文虽然冠以扎根理论之名，实则只是描述性分析。

Mel and I often differ on quite a few things, which people find quite surprising because we've written so many things together over the years. I think that there are a number of different methodologies that inform the use of grounded theory methods. But as Mel said, there is really a set of methods that you have to use if you actually want to come up with a grounded theory. I mean, what it's not is qualitative descriptive analysis. And quite often, as we're all aware, papers will get published under the nomenclature of grounded theory when in actual fact they are really just a descriptive analysis.

关键在于整个理论本身所体现的过程性和动态感，这实际证明了它确实是一种扎根理论。所以，我认为更多困惑可能在于它不是什么，而它是什么其实非常明确。

And it hinges on that whole sense of process and movement through the actual theory itself in terms of actually demonstrating that it is a grounded theory. So yeah, I think there is probably more about what it's not that's unclear and what it is is very clear.

是的，你说得对。它不是通用的研究配方，目的也不仅是描述或探索，而是解释现象的能力——这就是为什么强调过程，因为过程正是一系列导致解释的事件。而且扎根理论的许多方法技术确实已被其他研究方法所采纳。

Yeah, think you're right. What it's not, it's not a generic recipe for research. It doesn't aim to simply describe or explore. It's about that ability to explain phenomena and that's why there is the emphasis on process because process is about a series of events leading to an explanation. And there are definitely methods and techniques from grounded theory that have been adopted by other research methodologies.

但正如我之前所说，如果这些特征性方法没有被正确用于生成理论作为最终产物，那它就不是扎根理论。

But as I said before, if these characteristic methods aren't used properly to generate theory as an end product, it's not grounded theory.

原因显而易见——如果我们忽略方法论和支撑这些方法的哲学思想，这些方法本身极具实用性。比如迭代特性、来回推敲、不同编码策略、理论敏感性。难怪其他质性研究方法会借鉴，或研究者直接套用这些方法后贴上'扎根理论'标签。但这些方法本身就是极有效的数据收集和分析技术，可以说这反而证明了其他质性研究者对'扎根理论'方法价值的高度认可，某种意义上算是种褒奖。

And you can see why because the methods, if we ignore the methodology and the philosophy underpinning the methods, the methods themselves are so useful. You know, the iterative nature, back and forth, the different coding strategies, theoretical sensitivities. You can see why other qualitative methodologies kind of pinch or borrow, or researchers just kind of plug these methods in and and then label it 'granded theory'. But the methods themselves are just really useful techniques to gather data, to get some purchase on the data. So I suppose you can see it as some sort of testament to the value and usefulness that other qualitative researchers find in the 'granded theory' methods, And so it's a compliment if you like.

但这本身无可厚非，Oliver。我和Mel指导采用不同研究设计的学生时，也常借用扎根理论方法来指导学生。案例研究就是个好例子——我与学生合作时成功运用过多种相关方法。所以借鉴扎根理论方法完全没问题，只是最终成果若不符合标准，就别称之为扎根理论。

But there's nothing wrong with that either Oliver. Mel and I both supervise students using different research designs and have often borrowed from grounded theory methods in order to be able to give students guidance around the use of methods in other designs. Case study is a good example of where I've done quite a lot of work with students and we've used a number of the different methods very successfully. So there's no problem with that. No shame in borrowing grounded theory methods, but just don't call what you've produced at the end of grounded theory if it's not.

总结来说，我们可以称其为方法集合，但定义不止于此。支撑这些方法的是一整套特定理论或哲学思想，它们决定了方法实施的初衷是为了发展扎根理论。但问题是：意图是否足够？以发展扎根理论为志向就足以使其成为扎根理论吗？毕竟不是所有人都能达成目标。有时你可能追求实质理论，但最终发现只是描述性且较浅显的结论。

And so in summary, we can say a collection of methods but it doesn't stop there, or the definition doesn't stop there, but rather what supports those methods is a particular set of or particular theory or philosophy which underpins the reason why those methods are implemented, with the intent of developing a grounded theory. Is and is it the case that intent is sufficient? The aspiration to develop a grounded theory is enough for it to be a grounded theory because not everyone gets there. Right? Sometimes you might strive for a substantive theory, but actually the findings are descriptive and somewhat superficial.

你已经尽力尝试，实施了那些方法。

You've given it your best go, you've implemented those methods.

是的，仔细想想，你提出的就是定性描述分析，连格拉泽都说这很好。事实上，有时你确实需要描述和探索现象，这没问题。但如果你的目的是解释情境中发生的事情，那么你就需要得出解释性结论，这时理论就派上用场了。所以回答你的问题：仅有意图是不够的。意图就像——用我的房子比喻来说——我本打算建造新艺术风格，但门前却装了联邦式雕花装饰，或是与设计不符的斜屋顶。

Yeah, think and then what you've come up with is qualitative descriptive analysis, which even Glaser says is good. In fact, there are times when what you want to do is describe and explore a phenomenon, and that's fine. But if your intent is to explain what's going on in a situation, then you need to actually have that explanatory outcome, and that's where the theory comes in. So to answer your question, no intent is not enough. Intent is you can intend to, you know, I go back to my house analogy, you know, I intended to build an Art Nouveau style, but I've got, you know, Federation fretwork out the front or I've got, you know, a pitch roof which are inconsistent with the design.

因此，虽然我的意图可能是达到某个目标，但除非真正做到，否则我不能声称已实现初衷。目标并未达成。这房子虽能住人，却非你原本想要的结果。所以风险在于...

So where my intent might have been to end up in a certain place, then unless I do that, I can't claim that I have actually ended up where I said I was. I haven't achieved the goal. So while it's still a house you can live in, it's not what you set out to achieve. So the risk of

在您迎来清晨而我步入夜晚之际，我们讨论了扎根理论的历史渊源及其发展过程——虽然未深入细节，但这很重要，因为它揭示了研究方法的应用背景以及研究者可采取的不同路径差异。简，你愿意简要谈谈扎根理论是如何诞生的吗？

moving into your morning and my evening, the history of grounded theory and where it arose and how it arose, and we haven't gone into too much detail, but it is important because it tells us something about the methods that are employed and some of the differences in terms of the approaches which are on hand for researchers. So Jane, do want to say a little bit about how grounded theory came about?

当然。它起源于1960年代，当时社会学界正强烈抵制我们所谓的科学方法——即采用演绎式研究设计。斯特劳斯和格拉泽当时正合作研究斯特劳斯获得的竞争性资助项目，他在加州大学旧金山分校工作。

Sure. It came out of the 1960s and really at that time there was, particularly in sociology, quite a pushback against what we might consider to be the scientific method. So using a deductive approach to research design. And so Strauss and Glaser were working together on a competitive grant that Strauss had got. He was over at the University of California San Francisco.

他其实在护理学院任职——这点我们总是很自豪。他获得这笔资助来研究死亡与临终课题，因此聘请了巴尼·格拉泽。相比安塞尔姆·斯特劳斯，巴尼的量化研究背景更深厚。安塞尔姆是芝加哥学派的老派社会学家，其世界观深受符号互动论和实用主义影响，这也从根本上塑造了扎根理论方法的实用性和研究设计本身。

He's actually in the School of Nursing, which we're always very proud of. He had got this grant to investigate death and dying and so employed Barney Glaser on it. Barney had a much more quantitative background than Anselm Strauss. Anselm Strauss was a sociologist of the old school from the Chicago school. And so I really saw the world through very much a symbolic interactionist lens and certainly very much through a pragmatist lens as well, which really influences the utility of grounded theory methods and the design itself.

简而言之，他们共同开展这项研究，开创了理论生成的归纳法。研究结束后，两人合著了《扎根理论的发现》一书。当然有趣的是，总有被遗忘的英雄——比如有位叫珍妮·关奥利·本特的女士（我可能发音不准），她也是护士，参与了该研究。

So basically, together they worked on this study and developed an inductive approach to theory generation. And so at the end of that study, they actually wrote up the book Discovery of Grounded Theory. Of course, interestingly, there's always some unsung heroes in there. And there was a woman called Jeannie Quanoly Bent, who I might not have pronounced that properly. Benoit?

实际上历史表明，她对当时扎根理论方法的发展颇有影响。这确实是个遗憾的故事，因为当我们谈论扎根理论历史时，她基本未被认可。之后这个理论在七十年代继续发展演变。

Not sure. But she was a nurse as well, had been working on that study with them. And in actual fact, history now tells us, had been quite influential in the development of grounded theory methods at the time. So, yeah, it's which is a bit of a sad story really because, of course, she has been largely unrecognized, you know, when we talk about the history of grounded theory. And, of course, you know, that developed then through the seventies.

巴尼离开了学院，去做什么了，梅兰妮？去搞房地产开发还是类似的事情，对吧？

Barney left the academy, went off to what did he do, Melanie? Went off and developed property or did something along those lines, didn't he?

我知道他从事房地产开发。

I know he was in property development.

是的，房地产开发。但他当然继续写作、出版，施特劳斯继续在大学工作，最终指导了不少博士生，其中一位就是朱丽叶·科尔宾。他们合作完成了《质性研究基础》这本书，实际上是为博士生编写的。

Yeah. Property development. But of course, kept writing, kept publishing, Strauss kept working at the university and of course ended up with quite a number of PhD candidates, one of which was Juliet Corbyn. And together they produced their book, The Basics of Qualitative Research. And of course that was actually written for PhD candidates.

有点像我和梅兰妮的情况，我想当时他们希望能写本教材指导博士生运用扎根理论方法。这可能就是为什么那本书相当规范。正因如此，学生们觉得它非常实用，最终大获成功。当然，巴尼·格拉泽对此提出了反对意见，他对该书的驳斥相当有名。

So a little bit like Melanie and myself, I think at the time they thought that maybe they would write a text that could guide PhD students in the use of grounded theory methods. And that is probably why that book is quite prescriptive. In saying that, it's also why students found it very useful and ended up being a runaway success. And of course, Barney Glaser pushed back against that. And his rebuttal of that text is quite famous.

措辞也很尖锐。我前几天又重读了，因为梅尔和我正在编写我们书的第三版。重新审视那一章，看看他当时写的内容。他当时确实很不客气。这当然导致了所谓的分道扬镳。

It's also very scathing. I went back to it again the other day because, of course, Mel and I are doing the third edition of our book at the moment. So revisiting that that chapter and having a look at what he wrote. So he was really quite unkind at the time. And of course, that then led to this supposed split.

但实际上他们一生都保持着友谊。安塞尔姆·施特劳斯在多本书中题献给巴尼·格拉泽，反之亦然。所以我认为他们的分歧主要是哲学层面的，而非个人恩怨。八十年代时，他们的许多学生都在运用扎根理论方法进行研究，比如凯西·谢莫斯和阿黛尔·克拉克。

But in fact, they stayed friends the whole of their lives. Anson Strauss dedicated many books to Barney Glaser and vice versa. So I think that probably their disagreements were largely philosophical as opposed to personal. I mean, the eighties, a lot of their students were out using grounded theory methods. So that was, I think, the time of Kathy Chemours and Adele Clarke.

虽然阿黛尔·克拉克获得博士学位的时间比第一批扎根理论学者稍晚些。但没错，他们当时确实非常努力，做了大量研究。虽然没怎么发表方法论著作，但有些那个时期的研究成果论文。直到1990年代，我们才开始看到关于扎根理论的教材大量涌现。

Although Adele Clarke did her PhD a little later than that first sort of tranche of grounded theorists. But yeah, I mean they were really working hard and doing lots of research at the time. Not really publishing about methodology, but there are some findings papers from that time. And it's really not until the 1990s that we start to see the beginning of a proliferation of textbooks around grounded theory.

因此在那个时代，60年代或1967年左右，扎根理论的独特之处在于它开始将定性方法操作化，这些方法此前在社会科学领域要么不太受重视，要么人们对定性研究如何得出其发现感到相当神秘。这就是为什么那本书显得如此不同寻常且意义重大。

And so at that time, '67 or the sixties, it was what was unique about grounded theory is that it began to operationalise qualitative methods which had previously been either not really well respected within social sciences, or it was all just quite mysterious how qualitative research obtained the findings that they did. So that was why that book was quite unusual, quite significant.

确实如此，而且这也是对民族志研究的一种背离。我认为霍华德·贝克尔的《白衣男孩》可能是20世纪60年代初定性研究发现的奠基性文本之一。当然，那是一部民族志著作。

Well it was, and it was also a departure from ethnography. And so, I think it was Howard Becker's Boys in White was probably one of the seminal texts of qualitative research findings that came out in the early 1960s. And of course that's an ethnographic text.

是的，请允许我补充一点。你说得很对。我的一位导师曾将扎根理论描述为定量与定性研究之间的桥梁。我认为它的作用在于，它实际上具备了定量研究所期望的结构或控制力，但对于那些想在社会科学领域做研究的人来说，我们知道我们并不想要那种程度的控制。

Yeah, if I can just add to that. You're quite right. One of my supervisors once described grounded theory as the bridge between quantitative and qualitative research. And I think what it does is it actually has the structure or the control that you'd expect in a quantitative study. But for people who want to do research in the social sciences, we know that we don't want to have that level of control.

我们希望让数据引导研究的方向。

We want to allow the data to direct where the study goes.

我们可以谈谈你当前的立场和方法论发展，但或许我们可以先快速总结一下现有的不同版本——当然不是全部，而是最著名的那些。比如60年代的早期文本和格拉泽后续工作所代表的传统或经典扎根理论，它忠实于原始方法论。有人认为它带有某种情境实证主义色彩，旨在发现理论而非构建理论——正如你和查马兹显然会主张的那样，这是理论的共同构建，而格拉泽则更像是从数据中找出某种客观存在。

We can get to maybe your current position and how you've developed the methodology, but we might just quickly summarise if we can the different versions that are out there not all of them of course but the most well known. So the early text in the sixties and Glaze's following work is to find a traditional or classic grounded theory where it's remaining true to the to the original methodology. And people have said that it's somewhat situation positivism, so it looks to discover theory rather than construct it as you and obviously, Charmaz would advocate that this is co construction of theory, whereas Glaser just kind of finds this stuff in the in the data somewhere, some objective thing.

确实如此。多年来我们对此多有论述。不过我认为，现在我们实际上已达成一种立场，即尝试不再将扎根理论划分为不同类型。正如我们之前讨论的，它是一套共同的方法。关键在于你如何看待自己以及如何定位自己作为研究者的立场。

Well, yeah. We've written a lot about that over the years. I think probably though, we've really come to a position now where we try and move away from actually classifying grounded theory as different types. Because as we talked about earlier, it's a common set of methods. I think it's about how you think about yourself and how you position yourself as a researcher that counts.

你说得很对。巴尼·格拉泽确实将自己定位为后实证主义者。他大量谈论涌现、揭示和发现。但他在方法运用上也同样展现出这种后实证主义倾向——比如他不相信录音访谈或文字转录的价值。

And you're quite right. Barney Glaser does indeed position himself as a post positivist. He talks an awful lot about emergence and uncovering and discovering. But it's also in the way that he uses the methods as well that demonstrates that rather post positivist bent. So he doesn't believe in recording interviews for instance or transcriptions.

因此，他的编码方式与采用更多共同建构主义方法时的做法截然不同。我认为这正是凯西·施梅玛斯的书引起广泛共鸣的原因——它为人们提供了重新审视访谈本质的思考方式。毕竟在扎根理论研究中，访谈绝非生成或收集数据的唯一途径。我知道梅尔对此有些深刻见解，但访谈确实是最常见的与参与者互动的方式。

So the way he codes is quite different than if he were working with a more of a co constructionist approach. And of course I think that's why Kathy Schemmass's book struck a chord with so many people because it provided this way of thinking around the reality really of the interview. Because of course the interview is not the only way of generating data or collecting data in a grounded theory study. Mel, I know, has got some really good thoughts around this. But the interview is I suppose in many ways the most common way of working with participants.

那种认为你能在某种程度上保持客观、或与同处一室（如今可能是Zoom另一端）的人保持距离的想法，对我们许多人来说显然站不住脚。因此我认为凯西·岛津的研究之所以重要正在于此。梅尔，你有什么要补充的吗？

And so that idea that you could in some way be objective or separated or removed from the other person that's in the room with you or nowadays on the other end of Zoom was really quite apparent to many of us. So actually I think that's where Kathy Shimaz's work was pretty important. Mel, you got any thoughts you want to add?

你说得很全面了。我们现在更倾向于讨论扎根理论的不同代际而非流派类型。常有学生联系我们说希望更清楚地了解如何选择和理解区别，我认为困惑的根源在于这些方法存在大量重叠的哲学基础和操作方式。我和简总是建议人们选择有效的方法——只要你能证明所用方法符合自身哲学立场并最终生成理论，我们其实无从质疑你的研究路径。

No, you've covered that pretty well. I think we do tend to talk about generations of grounded theorists now rather than genres or types. We often get students contacting us and saying I wish you could explain it to me better, how do I know who to choose, how do I understand the distinction, and I think one of the reasons that people get so confused is that there's a lot of overlap, there's a lot of shared philosophies, there's a lot of shared approaches, and what Jane and I encourage people to do is to do what works. If you can provide a rationale for the way in which you've used the methods that's consistent with your philosophical position and you end up generating theory, then I don't know that we can question the approach that you've used.

能否将扎根理论与其他质性研究方法进行定位比较？这可能帮助研究者决定是否首选扎根理论。那么扎根理论擅长研究什么？或者说它在哪些理论发展领域具有优势？

And are you able to situate grounded theory next to other qualitative methodologies? I suppose that might also help people as to whether they choose to do a grounded theory study in the first place. So what is it about GT or what is GT good at looking at or developing theory about?

我们知道它常用于研究空白领域，这点与其他质性方法类似。所有方法论都有其价值，但正如扎根理论不探究生活体验，现象学不提供解释力，行动研究或叙事探究亦然。这些方法在知识生产中各司其职，但唯独扎根理论能生成理论。特别是在医疗健康领域——看看已发表的扎根理论数量就知道——它之所以受欢迎，或许因为我们医疗从业者虽惯用血压值、药物剂量等硬指标，实际处理的却是个体化的情境。

We know that it's often used in cases where little is known about the area of study. So that could be said for other qualitative methodologies. And all qualitative methodologies have their place, they serve a purpose, but just as grounded theory doesn't attempt to explore lived experience, phenomenology doesn't offer explanatory power, and nor does action research or narrative inquiry. These all serve essential functions in the generation of knowledge, but those functions don't include generating theory. So in the context of these other methodologies, grounded theory is quite unique, and I think one of the reasons that we tend to rely on it in particularly if you look at the amount of grounded theories that have been published in the area of healthcare, it is a very popular approach in healthcare and I think that's because those of us that work in healthcare context, we are used to relying so much on hard facts, blood pressure measurements, drug dosages, but in reality we work with individuals.

我认为扎根理论在医疗行业盛行的原因在于：它提供了让我们安心的结构化框架，使我们能在看似混乱的人文关怀领域获得掌控感。其他方法论较难实现这点，不过正如之前所说，许多扎根理论方法其实已融入其他研究范式成为主流。

So I think one of the reasons that grounded theory is really popular in the healthcare professions is because it gives us the structure, a structure that we feel comfortable operating within while accepting that working with people on issues that concern them is not actually hard science. So it gives us a sense of control in a context that can otherwise appear chaotic. And I think that's less the case with other methodologies, although as we were saying before a lot of the grounded theory methods have actually become quite mainstream even in these other methodologies.

我还想补充奥利弗的观点：关键在于研究者提出的问题。研究设计的选择完全取决于你的研究问题。应该先有问题再确定设计。最常见的错误就是人们直接说'我要做扎根理论'。

I'd like to add to that too though. Mean really Oliver, it's about the question that people ask. And so the choice of the research design is absolutely fundamental to the question that you ask. First you start with a question and then you work out what the design is going to be. And the most common mistake people make is that they say, I want to do a grounded theory.

所以我说，你的研究问题是什么？嗯，我还不知道。好吧。那么，你可能会问什么问题呢？嗯，我对某个人的真实生活经历非常感兴趣。

So I say, What's your research question? Well I don't know yet. Okay. Well, might you ask the question about? Well, I'm really interested in the lived experience of someone.

正如梅尔所说，那将是一项现象学研究。因此，关键在于你提出的问题决定了你选择的研究设计。当你看到所谓的扎根理论出现偏差时，比如人们最终只是进行了不错的定性描述性分析——他们归纳主题、提炼概念、做了这类工作——问题就在于他们一开始就没有提出正确的问题。归根结底，这是关于解释某些现象。

And as Mel said, Well, that's going to be a phenomenological study. So it is all about questions that you ask as to the design that you choose. And when you see where a so called grounded theory has gone a bit wrong, where people have actually ended up generating quite a nice often qualitative descriptive analysis so they've themed things, they've come up with themes, they've done these sorts of things What they've done is they haven't asked the right questions in the first place. So it is about explaining something. That's the bottom line.

这本质上是在解释一个过程或现象，是关于阐释具有动态变化的事物。

It is really about explaining a process or a phenomenon. It's about explaining something that has motion and movement.

通常他们来找我们时已经有个问题，他们提出了问题。但这个问题最终并不寻求解释。他们只是听说扎根理论不错——我接过不少电话咨询，人们说听说扎根理论是种好方法。

And often they'll come to us and they have got a question. They've developed a question. But it isn't a question that's seeking an explanation at the end of it. They just heard that grounded theory was a good And I've heard people ring me up. I've heard that grounded theory is a good methodology.

你能就如何在本研究中使用它给我些建议吗？你的研究是关于什么的？我想探索这个，或者说经常是生活经历类的——是的，我想研究这个或调查那个，但你的终极目标是什么？你希望达成什么成果？

Can you give me some advice on how to use it in this study? What is your study about? I want to explore this, or I want to and often lived experiences is, yeah, I want to examine this or investigate that, but what is your end game? What is your outcome that you're hoping to achieve?

这个问题的提出方式受到诸如符号互动论或实用主义等理论的启发。如果你关注的是过程中的流动性、变化和动态性，那么你对研究问题的概念化方式将决定你如何提出这个问题，进而判断它是否适合扎根理论研究。以决策制定为例——这是个简单的例子——如果你将其视为社会互动的、心理社会的过程，那么使用扎根理论来理解它就很有意义。而如果你关注的是作为决策者的生活体验，这完全不适合扎根理论研究。

And the way in which that question is asked is informed by the theories such as symbolic interactionism or pragmatism. So if you're that fluidity in process and movement and dynamism, in a way the way in which you conceptualize the research problem will frame how you ask that question and then determine whether or not it's suitable for a GT study. So if you're looking at decision making, for example, it's an easy example. If you view that as a social interactive, you know, psychosocial process, then it would make reasonable sense to to use grounded theory as a way to understand that. Whereas if you're viewing it as a a lived experience of what it's like to be a decision maker, that wouldn't lend itself at all well to a grounded theory study.

不，奥利弗你说得完全正确。事实上很多人对哲学层面很陌生。梅尔在我们另一本书中写过精彩的章节——有些人可能会觉得很有帮助——那章比较了不同的定性研究方法，书名叫《定性研究方法实用指南》，现在可能还能买到。关于哲学是什么及其运作方式的问题，梅尔写过非常出色的章节，我们正在重新审视这部分内容。

No. That's absolutely right, Oliver. So it really is and often people are very philosophically naive. Mel wrote a great chapter in one of our other books which actually some people might find quite helpful, this comparing of different qualitative methodologies which is qualitative methodologies, a practical guide, which I think you might still be able to get it. But that whole question about what is philosophy and how does it work was something that Mel wrote a really great chapter about and we're actually revisiting that.

但我应该让你来谈谈那个，梅尔，而不是我。

But I should let you talk about that Mel, not me.

梅尔：我认为你很好地解读了这一章节。因为我是一个非常黑白分明的人，所以我们在定性研究和哲学中探讨的这些灰色地带确实让我头疼。我想做的是写出一章能帮助人们理解并克服我那种担忧的内容——对我来说这些概念太过虚无缥缈难以把握。这章实质上是关于将哲学操作化，并理解它与研究的相关性。因为很多人没意识到，比如攻读哲学博士学位时，其中必须包含哲学元素。

Mel: I think you've seen it through really great chapter. It's because I'm very much a black and white thinker and so these grey areas that we cover in qualitative research and in philosophy in particular really I find that make my head hurt. And so what I wanted to do was produce a chapter that helped people understand it and overcome the concern that I had in that just to me it just seemed so ethereal it was too hard to grasp. And so it's really about operationalising philosophy and understanding what its relevance is to research. Because what a lot of people don't think about is that for example if you're studying a doctor of philosophy there has to be an element of philosophy.

因此必须讨论你看待世界的方式，以及你认为知识是如何构建的，这些将决定你调查的内容、调查方式，以及你自身哲学立场对分析和研究结果的影响。

So there has to be some discussion of the way that you see the world and the way that you believe knowledge is constructed in order to inform what you then investigate, how you investigate it, and the influence of your own philosophical position on your analysis and the outcome of those processes.

我想问两个问题。一个与...相关，或许我们可以同时讨论。一个是扎根理论，解释下'扎根'的含义可能很有必要。第二部分则是关于'理论'本身。

So two things I wanted to ask. One was related to the and we could maybe tackle them both at the same time. One was grounded theory. What the grounded bit means is probably worth mentioning about what is meant by grounded. And then I think also the second part is theory.

我们一直在讨论发展理论。你们所说的理论指什么？如何判断我们形成了理论？它是预设前提吗？还是确凿的事实？理论究竟是什么？

We've all been talking about developing theory. What do you mean by theory? How do we know when we've got it? And is it is is it something that's just a a presupposition? Is hard facts, a theory?

显然，'理论'一词有多种用法。谁愿意先来解释下'扎根'的含义？毕竟这是播客标题和方法论中的核心概念。

Obviously, theory can be used in many different ways. So who wants to go first with perhaps just explaining what's meant by grounded, seeing as it's in the title of the podcast and the methodology?

好吧，我来解释'扎根'部分，梅尔负责'理论'部分。这样如何？

Well, I'll do the grounded and Mel can do the theory. How's that sound?

好的。完美。

Good. Perfect.

扎根理论的核心思想是从数据出发。特别是在扎根理论转录的初始编码阶段，无论你采用何种方式生成或收集第一批数据，这些数据最终都需要转化为文字记录或某种文本形式，以便你能够打开并进行编码。正是这个最初的步骤，将你的分析真正扎根于数据之中。这就是扎根理论的精髓所在。与传统科学方法不同——后者可能先提出某个待验证的命题（属于演绎法）——扎根理论研究是从数据出发，真正从数据中构建理论。

So the grounded really is the idea that you are beginning with the data. Particularly with the initial coding of a grounded theory transcript, whatever it is that you do to generate or collect that first tranche of data in a grounded theory study, it has to be translated essentially into transcript or into some sort of text in order for you to open it up and code it. And it's that very initial sort of first step that really grounds your analysis in the data. And that's what the grounded theory bit is. So as opposed to a traditional scientific method where you might have actually come up with some sort of proposition that you actually want to test, which is a deductive methodology, a grounded theory study is about starting with the data and actually building theory from the data.

因此它根植于数据。在最开始时，你实际上并非试图验证现有理论。所以'扎根'这个概念，我认为真正指向的是最初深入数据的那次探索。

And so it's grounded in the data. So you're not actually trying to test an extant theory in the first instance. So the grounded bit is all about that first initial foray I think really into the data.

这就是为什么我们尽可能使用'活体编码'（in vivo codes）。即直接采用参与者自己的用语——因为我知道在其他方法论中往往并非如此。你可能从第一份转录就开始抽象化，但在扎根理论中，我们尽力保持扎根状态，贯穿分析的各个阶段。一个好的扎根理论，你应该能沿着理论回溯到原始数据。

And that's why we try as much as possible to use in vivo codes. So words of the participants themselves so that you because I know in other methodologies that's not often the case. You might start abstracting immediately from that first transcript, but in grounded theory we try as much as possible to stay grounded even through the various phases of analysis. In a good grounded theory you could actually trace the theory back to the raw data.

有时你的分类标签可以直接采用参与者的原话，这样能更真实地反映在更高层级。

And sometimes your categories may actually be titled with an expression from your participants so it's really represented higher up.

是的，理想情况下就该如此。

Yeah, ideally.

没错。这就是最终目标。那么理论部分就交给你了，梅尔，继续吧。

That's right. That's the end goal. So the theory bit Mel, go on. You do the theory bit.

搞定简单的部分了。

Got the easy bit.

理论是一组相互关联的概念，它们构成一个框架帮助我们理解事物。我们经常引用的最著名扎根理论是库伯勒-罗斯的临终阶段理论。这个理论常被用来解释各种形式的悲伤，而不仅仅是面对死亡时的反应——比如失业、离婚或截肢等情况。它是一个帮助我们理解现状的框架。

A theory is a set of interrelated concepts that forms a framework that helps us to understand something. The most common grounded theory that we often cite because it is so well known is Kubler Ross's stages of dying. You look at that theory and you can actually understand what it's used often as an explanation or an explanation scheme for other forms of grief, not just facing death. Know you've lost your job, you've divorced, you've had leg amputated. It's a framework for helping us to understand what's going on.

我们常说某人正处于否认阶段或勉强接受阶段。这个理论可能是最容易用作示例的，因为许多理论相当抽象。但我们想要的扎根理论应该是能讲得通的——它需要具备相关性和适配性，必须有效运作，并能引起被研究现象直接影响者的共鸣。所以理想情况下，理论应该合乎逻辑。我和简在讨论理论发展或理论整合时，非常推崇使用故事线叙述法。

We often talk about somebody who's going through or they're in denial and they've got the narrow acceptance. That's an example of a theory that I think is probably one of the easier ones for us to use as an example because a lot of theories are quite abstract. But what we want in a grounded theory is something that makes sense. We talk about it having relevance and fit and it needs to work and it has to resonate with the people who are most impacted by the phenomena that you've actually studied. So ideally a theory will make sense and Jane and I, when we talk about theoretical development or theoretical integration or developing theory as an end product, We promote very strongly the use of storyline.

故事线方法实际上是在1990年代斯特劳斯和科尔宾的著作中提出的，但在格莱泽提出反驳后逐渐式微。近年来我们在最新版《Sage扎根理论手册》中发表了相关章节。故事线不仅是呈现扎根理论的叙事方式，其本身就是一种分析方法。我们希望通过这种故事化的理论呈现，能够完整解释研究中所有参与者的经历。

Storyline was actually introduced I think in the 1990 Strauss and Corbyn text and after Glazer's rebuttal it actually fell away. I think they spent a bit of time trying to recover from that and address a lot of the stuff that Glazer had said. So storyline kind of fell away and we've always felt that it's a really valuable way of not only presenting a grounded theory and having that explanation in a narrative but also it's a form of analysis in itself and we've recently had a chapter published in the latest Sage handbook of grounded theory. So when we look at developing theory in a grounded theory study that's what we're looking to do. We're looking for something that makes sense to the reader that are the concepts that are generally the categories that have come out of your analysis but they're woven together in a way that tells a story that accounts for all of the experiences of the participants in that study.

然后我们会对此应用理论编码。这些编码要么在故事线中自然显现，要么是恰好契合你所讲述故事的现有理论框架，从而提供额外的解释力。

And we then apply theoretical coding to that. Either these are codes that become evident in the storyline itself, or it's a frame that currently exists that absolutely fits the story that you've told and provides that additional explanatory power.

是的，我记得读查玛兹的第一本著作《建构扎根理论》时，她区分了客观主义理论（追求预测和因果关系）与解释主义理论（更关注理解社会背景和现象）。我一直觉得，一个优秀的扎根理论既然能深入理解现象，自然也会具备一定预测力——如果你充分理解人们在其环境中的行为模式，就能预判类似情境下的行为。虽然这不是你们的研究重点，但我不认为这种对比毫无意义。

Yeah, I was going to say I remember reading Chamaz's first book, I think it was, the constructing ground of theory, and she makes a distinction between objectivist theory or positivist notions of theory which look to predict, and there's a real focus on predicting and, I guess, causations related to that. Whereas interpretivist ideas around theory are much more around, as you said, understanding the the social context and phenomena involved. And I always I've been kind of battling with that because a good constructed grounded theory, which seeks to understand, would probably have some predictive power too. If you can have a good, rich understanding of how people are operating within their environments, you would be able to probably have a sense of how others might behave in the future. I recognise that's not your focus, but whether it's a pointless contrast.

不，我完全同意你的观点奥利弗。这正是我们与查玛兹存在分歧的地方。特别是考虑到形式化扎根理论的潜在效用——将现有理论应用到新情境来验证其普适性，本质上就是在进行预测验证。

No, I totally agree with you Oliver. That's one of the things where we would disagree with Shemaz about that. And particularly when you think about the potential utility of formal grounded theory too. So the idea of actually taking an existing grounded theory and then trying to apply it in a different context and see whether it still holds true there. So in fact, what you are doing is predicting that in actual fact it will hold true.

所以我认为这可能是一种错误的二分法，即认为如果你是建构主义扎根理论的理论家，你就不会考虑你的最终成果实际上可以预测在另一个情境中可能发生的事情。

So I think that's probably a false dichotomy, the idea that if you're a constructivist grounded theory, theorist that you would not consider that your end product could in fact predict something that might happen in another context.

但我认为这是定性研究普遍存在的问题，我们被训练说这是一项定性研究，因此结果不可推广。但我们没有讨论学习成果的可迁移性，没有探讨如何将当前情境中的发现应用于类似情境的可能性。我觉得这完全是定性研究被要求固守本分的表现。

But I think that's a problem with qualitative research generally, is that we've been trained to say that this is a qualitative study and so the results are not generalisable. But we don't talk about the transferability of the learnings. We don't talk about how we can take what has happened in this context and have an idea of how something in a similar context may play out. So I think that's all about qualitative research being told to get back in its box.

我同意这个观点。但另一个关键是，评估扎根理论质量的标准之一——如果遵循巴尼的准则——就是可修改性这个概念。实际上，总是存在这样的预期：你可以将特定情境中的现有理论修改后应用于另一个情境，这就是学习迁移性的概念。否则，如果不能做到这一点，就真的需要质疑其实用性了。

Well, I'd agree about that. But the other thing about that is that one of the standards for assessing the quality of a grounded theory, if you take Barney's maxim, is this notion of modifiability. So in actual fact, there is always an expectation that you could take an existing theory from a particular context and modify it for a separate one, so that notion of transferability of learning. Otherwise, you have to really question the utility of it if you can't actually attempt to do that.

我曾与因果关系哲学家们做过一系列播客，名为《因果健康系列》。简而言之，当前对因果关系的理解基于休谟式的因果关系，要求具有重复性和频繁性，这支撑了大多数量化研究。不过他们持有略微不同的因果关系观点，主张定性研究确实能对单一案例中的因果关系做出解释，即通过个体独特性来理解因果关系如何在单一个体中产生。

I've done a series of podcasts with philosophers of causation. It was called the Course Health Series. Simply put, the current conception of causation is around Humean causation where it's got to be repetitive and frequent, so it underpins most of quantitative research. Anyway, they they've got a slightly different view of causation, and they're advocating that actually qualitative research does have something to say about causation in the single case. So it's that individuality of the person to understand how causation may arise in a single individual.

你必须拥有那样的叙述和故事，因为它与那个个体息息相关。但预测的问题在于它与实证主义联系过于紧密，定性研究者往往因为提出关于预测或因果关系的主张而陷入困境。

You've got to have that narrative and that story because it's pertinent to that individual. But but the problem with prediction is that it's so associated with positivism, and qualitative researchers tend to to get their niggas in a twist by making claims around prediction or causation.

不过我确实思考过，在当前环境下，人们是否真的能继续采取这种态度。要知道，我们正处于比以往更具竞争性的科研资助环境中。虽然我认为定性研究现在更被接受，许多国家也预期资助提案会包含定性研究部分，但确实需要强调可迁移性这个概念——我认为这对定性研究是比因果关系更合适的表述——以及其意义，这样才能真正证明公共资金使用的合理性。

Well, I do wonder though, in the current environment that we find ourselves in, whether people can actually afford to continue to take that approach. You know, we are in a much more competitive grant environment than ever before. And while qualitative research, I think, is much more accepted now and there is in many countries an expectation that there will be a qualitative element to grant proposals, I think actually there has to be this sort of sense about transferability, which I think is probably a better word to use for qualitative research than causation, and what that might mean in order to actually justify the use of public funds.

我想我们可以梳理一些关键方法，既然它们对扎根理论这个概念有所贡献——这些方法是必要但不充分的。就像我解释哲学时说的，你必须掌握这些方法，但它们本身并不等同于扎根理论。那么我们来讨论研究者偏见、研究者应如何处理这些先入之见，以及与理论敏感性之间的张力？

I think if we can just go through some of the key methods, seeing as they contribute to this idea around grounded theory, they're necessary but not sufficient, I think that's how I was explaining philosophy, that you've got to have some of these methods, but them in themselves don't necessarily equal a grounded theory. So if we go through things like researcher bias and how researchers should manage those preconceptions and the tension with theoretical sensitivity?

我认为我们所有人都天生带有偏见，而我们对质性研究的兴趣恰恰意味着我们承认这一点。真正的问题在于我们如何运用这种认知，以及首先如何获得这种认知以便决定如何处理它，我认为这非常重要。备忘录写作是扎根理论中的一种方法，能让你暴露自己对特定情境的先入之见。这是我们从一开始就引导学生练习的内容。梅尔是备忘录写作方面的专家。

I think that all of us are inherently biased, and I think the fact that we're interested in qualitative research means that we acknowledge that fact. The question really is more about what we do with that insight, and actually having that insight in the first place in order to make a decision about what to do about the insight, I think is really important. So memoing is one of the methods in grounded theory that really allows you to be able to expose your own preconceived ideas about a particular situation. And it's one of the things that we work with students to start doing from the very get go. Mel's actually the expert on memoing.

他写过几篇相关的期刊文章，我们在书中也多次讨论过。我们用一组齿轮来比喻，备忘录就像是让齿轮协同运转的润滑剂。备忘录写作确实能促进研究者的反思性，实现认知并付诸行动。所以我认为，意识到并理解这是质性研究者必备的素质很重要。这未必是坏事，它就是事实本身。

He's written a couple of different journal articles on this and certainly we talk about it a lot in the book. We use the analogy of a set of cogs and memoing being the lubricant that makes the cogs go around together. And memoing is really the way that we can promote reflexivity in researchers and the idea of actually having insight and then acting on insight. So that's just important, I think, to be aware and to understand that that is part and parcel of being a qualitative researcher. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just what it is.

关键在于如何管理这种偏见。这对我们接触的许多大龄博士生尤为重要，他们通常有临床医生、管理者或领域领导者的职业背景。这些人往往对自己将要发现什么抱有坚定预期。很多时候我们需要破除他们作为'专家'的预设，让他们对研究过程保持开放的好奇心，这非常关键。

What you have to do is be able to manage it. And so that's very important. Certainly in terms of a lot of our experiences with PhD candidates that come as mature age students and so therefore have a life history as often as clinicians or managers or leaders in their field. So they have some very firmly held ideas about what it is that they imagine they're going to find when they go out. Half the time it's about trying to debunk the idea that they are some sort of expert and having them being open to the wonderment of the research process is really important.

这往往是一段奇妙的经历。我们见过许多学生最初信誓旦旦'不会受影响'，但实地调研后回来惊叹：'天哪，实际情况完全不同！'当他们真正以研究者身份置身现场，开始与参与者互动或进行观察时。我特别重视让学生经历这种实地观察阶段。

And it is often a wondrous experience. We've had many experiences where students have had quite firm ideas, even though they're like, Oh, no, no, no, we won't let that influence us. But in actual fact, they come back in and they go, Oh my goodness, it wasn't like that at all when I got out there and I actually was sitting as a researcher in that space and starting to work with participants. Or importantly, observe. So often, having that period of observation in the field is something which I really like students to do.

我经常鼓励他们采用民族志方法，因为那种静默的反思和观察往往能带来关键洞见，帮助他们以尽可能开放的心态处理数据。

I encourage them to have that sort of ethnographic element often because that quiet reflection and that observation sometimes really leads to that level of insight that they need in order to try and approach the data in as open a mind frame as possible.

我想有句话说得对：保持开放心态，但别让脑袋空空。

And I think the expression is an open mind but not an empty head.

这个建议永远不错。

That's always a good idea.

梅兰妮，你能谈谈文献有时如何被使用，以及围绕文献在扎根理论中的角色存在哪些争议吗？它前置了理论，导致人们过于依赖它。研究人员在前期应如何处理文献——是查阅、完全不看，还是适度参考？

Melanie, can you say something about how the literature is sometimes used and there's debates around the role of the literature and grounded theory and then it front loads theory and people get too attached to it, and what researchers should do with the literature beforehand, whether they look at it, don't look at it, look at it a little bit?

正如简提到的关于管理预设和偏见的问题，这还涉及到我们如何应对正规学位课程中的研究要求。比如攻读博士学位时，通常需要完成背景调研工作。遗憾的是，仍存在传统观念认为必须寻找理论框架、确立已有成果并在此基础上发展。而我们并非要验证现有理论——扎根理论旨在通过归纳法生成新理论，创造新知识。我建议学生关注研究背景，因为发表定性研究时我们讨论的不是文献综述。

Well, think what Jane has said about managing preconceptions and managing bias, it also comes down to how we manage the requirements for undertaking research often in formal award courses. So you're doing a doctoral study, there's often an expectation that you're going to do this background work. There's unfortunately still this traditionalist position that you need to go out and do you find a theoretical framework and establish what's already been done and build on that. And of course we're not attempting to test existing theory where the intending ground theory is to generate inductively theory and that produces the new knowledge. What I encourage students to do is to look at the context, because we don't talk about literature reviews when we're publishing qualitative research, for example.

我们讨论的是背景。这项研究将在什么情境下开展？我们对这个领域有哪些基本了解？显然你会遇到与你研究领域交叉的既有研究，但如简所说，你需要管理这些信息。这包括通过备忘录声明你的假设，并对发现保持反思性态度。

We talk about background. What is the context in which this study is going to take place? What do we know about the general area? And obviously you're going to encounter studies that do cross into your proposed area of study, but as Jane has mentioned, you manage those. And that's about declaring your assumptions in the form of memos, it being reflexive in how you react to what you find.

现实是你不可能生活在真空中，指望没人告诉你研究领域的任何信息——这反而会产生预设，污染你的研究。实际上我们必须满足课程要求，通常这意味着要做背景工作，但不一定要局限于研究领域本身。我们提倡的是围绕研究主题进行广泛阅读。

The truth is you can't just live in a vacuum and hope that nobody tells you anything about the area that you're studying because it's going to create preconceptions that are going to contaminate your work if that's not how it works. Realistically we have to meet the requirements for any of the programs we enrol in and that often means that we have to do the background work, but it doesn't necessarily have to be looking specifically at the area of study. We talk about reading around the study and the literature if you can take that form.

我认为需要阐明这种矛盾：正如我们所说，扎根理论的核心是从数据发展新理论而非验证既有理论，而文献却充斥着现有理论。如果你过多依赖文献来强行指导数据分析和后续理论构建，实际上你只是在检验旧理论。这就是矛盾所在，对吧？

I think just to articulate that tension is that the issue is that as we described the grounded part of grounded theory is essentially new theory developed from data rather than testing existing theory, whereas the literature is just saturated with existing theory. And if you start too much with that or or use that to force your your data analysis and subsequent theory, then really you're just testing existing theories. So that's the tension, isn't it?

没错。你会失去广阔的探索空间，因为现有文献的研读已经大幅缩小了你的视野范围。

That's right. You don't have that broad area of wonderment that you're looking at exploring because you've narrowed it considerably with your exploration of the literature that's currently out there.

简，或许你可以自然过渡到理论敏感度的话题，因为这与此相关。这里存在一个最佳平衡点：既要保持足够的好奇心，又要具备洞察力，知道该关注什么、辨别哪些现象具有意义但不过度解读，否则就可能陷入强行套用理论的困境。

Jane, perhaps you could just move on seamlessly to theoretical sensitivity, because that's also related. There's a sweet spot, isn't there, with how much wonderment you have, which is also tinged with insights and knowing what to listen out for, knowing what seems to be significant, but not too significant or too insightful, otherwise you're perhaps forcing.

我认为你不应该对理论敏感性感到恐惧。我们谈论它时，指的是跟随数据中的线索。当然，你的洞察力水平与你的生活经验直接相关。正如梅尔所说，我们并非以白板状态进入高等学位研究，事实并非如此。

Well, I think you shouldn't be frightened of theoretical sensitivity. We talk about it as following the clues in the data. And of course, your level of insight is directly related to your life experience. And as Mel said, we don't come to particularly high degree studies as a tabula rasa. It doesn't work like that.

因此，你往往对该领域已有相当程度的洞察。我认为敏感性的关键在于理解它是动态发展的，特别是在数据收集与分析同步进行的整个过程中，它的发展速度实际上相当迅速。接着是理论抽样。所以你的理论敏感性与同步数据收集或生成及分析直接相关。随着理论发展，你对数据会更敏感，获得更深见解。

And so you do often have quite a degree of insight into the field. I think the thing that's quite important about sensitivity is to understand that it's not static, that it's something that develops and it certainly does develop really at quite a steep rate really during that whole process of concurrent data collection and analysis. And then theoretical sampling. So your theoretical sensitivity is directly tied to concurrent data collection or generation and analysis. Your theory you become more sensitive to the data, you have greater insights.

你记录的备忘录越多，就越能通过这些见解进行思考，并开始培养对后续可能情况的敏感性。你会思考：我该往哪里探索？该抽样哪些内容才能为正在成型的理论获取新见解？这是一个非常流动的过程，但你必须拥抱理论敏感性。每次与导师团队、伴侣或那些不得不忍受你滔滔不绝的朋友讨论（因为我们知道在数据生成、收集和分析阶段，这会占据你全部精力），这些对话都在推动你的思考。

The more you memo, the more you start to think through those insights and you start to develop your own sensitivity to what might be coming next. You're thinking around where might I go, where might I sample in order to get insights or fresh insights into my developing theory. So the idea is to sort of it is a very fluid process but you really need to embrace theoretical sensitivity. And every single discussion that you have with your supervisory team or with your partner or your poor friends who have to be bored to tears listening to your experience because of course we know it can be all consuming when you're in that phase of data generation, collection and analysis. And so you really want to talk it through all the time.

所有这些对话、你绘制的每张图表、撰写的每份备忘录，都将增强你的理论敏感性。这值得庆贺，因为研究结束时，你将成为该领域的专家——而专业素养绝非与生俱来，需要投入大量时间、精力和工作才能达到这种专业水平。

All of those conversations, every single diagram you draw, every single memo you write will contribute to your theoretical sensitivity. So it's something to be celebrated because at the end of your study, what you want to be is an expert on your area and expertise does not come checked. It takes an awful lot of time, effort and work in order to be able to develop that level of expertise.

但归根结底，具备理论敏感性对理论发展至关重要。这种敏感性意味着能从数据中识别出最终将纳入理论的内容，或对发展中的理论具有相关性的要素，从而据此构建理论。如果缺乏这种能力，正如简所说，就必须通过备忘录等方法培养理论敏感性。否则你将别无选择，只能依赖先入之见和现有理论来构建——那就不再是归纳性理论了。从这个角度看，这是关键所在。

But it's also critical to have theoretical sensitivity in order to develop your theory at the end of the day. Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to recognise in the data what is going to end up in your theory or what has relevance for your developing theory so that you can then build on that. If you don't, do as Jane has said and find ways of developing your theoretical sensitivity through MIMO ing and other application of the grounded theory methods. You're not going to be able to do that and you will have no choice but to rely on preconceptions and extant theories to construct what is then not an inductive theory. So it's critical from that perspective.

这个过程还会带你绕回原点。另一要点是：人们不必因有时需要回溯早期访谈而感到气馁。随着分析推进和理论发展，当分类开始变得更具密度、更有趣且维度更丰富时，你会以全新视角重新审视那些早期资料，突然意识到：天啊，当初竟没发现这点！我的学生中就常有将初期访谈完全重新编码的情况。所以初次编码绝非终点。

It will also take you back around, you know. And and that's the other thing is that people mustn't feel too discouraged about the fact that sometimes you go back, you know, to those early interviews, and you see them in a whole new light once you progress through your analysis and your theory is starting to develop and the categories are starting to get denser and more interesting and more dimensionalized. You go back and think, Oh my goodness, I didn't know that or I didn't recognize it the first time around. And quite often, I have students that will completely recode those initial interviews and go back again. So just because you've coded an interview once doesn't mean that's it.

当你沿着轨迹回溯时，会获得全新的认知视角。

You go back down the track and you can see it in a whole new light.

我认为值得稍微深入探讨一下理论抽样，因为它我认为这是扎根理论独有的，或者说与之紧密相关。关键在于它不是目的性抽样，不是一开始就收集多样化的观点，而是根据理论发展的需求来选择案例或数据，填补空白、塑造框架，并解决围绕理论发展产生的问题或假设。梅兰妮，你能谈谈什么是理论抽样，以及它为何不仅仅是目的性抽样吗？

And I think it's worth just dwelling a little bit on that theoretical sampling because it it's I think it's unique to grounded theory or certainly it's gonna closely tie to it. And it's so important that it's not purposeful sampling. It's not just getting a diverse range of views that you start out with, but it's sampling of cases or data in order to meet the needs of your theory development to to fill in gaps and holes and to give shape and to address questions or hypotheses that you have around your your theory development. So, Melanie, do want to say something about what theoretical sampling is and how it isn't just purposeful sampling?

理论抽样是跟随数据中的线索获取更多有助于构建理论的数据。我常用一个例子：有位学生研究乡村医院孕早期流产案例，想探究这些女性的护理流程。她获得了伦理许可（这当然是个敏感话题），得以访谈这些女性和照顾她们的护士。从访谈中发现，护士和女性本人都提到了她们的伴侣。于是她追踪这些线索，找到伴侣们提问，从而推动理论进一步发展。

Theoretical sampling is following the leads in your data to get more data that will help you build your theory. One of the examples I use often is I had student who was looking at first trimester miscarriages in rural hospitals and she wanted to explore the process of care of these particular women. And she got ethics clearance, it's a very sensitive topic course, so she got ethics clearance to interview the women and to interview the nurses who care for these women. And what she found from these interviews were that the partners of the women were mentioned by the nurses and the partners were mentioned by the women themselves. So she followed those leads and sought out the partners to ask them the questions that would help to then progress further and further develop the theory.

理论抽样不仅限于完成一次访谈后分析并决定下一步访谈对象，还包括你要向这些人提出什么问题。有时理论抽样可能在单次访谈中就发生。比如首次访谈时，受访者提到某个你从未考虑探索的观点，但由于你当时的理论敏感性，你意识到这是个重要概念并深入追问。于是你提出一个原本没打算问的问题，这个过程会不断累积。

Theoretical sampling is not just about completing an interview and then analysing an interview and then deciding well who do I need to talk to next. It's also about what do you ask those people. And sometimes theoretical sampling can occur in an interview. It could happen in your first interview, you're talking to someone and they say something and it's not something you've even considered exploring but suddenly because of the theoretical sensitivity that you have even at that stage, you recognise that this is an important concept and then you pursue it. So you ask a question you might never have intended to ask and that's a process that builds.

我认为这确实是扎根理论特有的，对'扎根'过程至关重要。因为你提出的每个问题、进行的每次访谈或数据收集都在前一次基础上推进，这样你就能确信理论是扎根于真实数据的——你可以循着线索验证。

Think it is quite unique to grounded theory and it's critical to the grounding because you're building on every question you ask, every interview that you undertake or every data collection episode that you have is building on the last one, and so you have confidence that your theory is grounded in the real data because you can follow the trail.

对于正在从事或考虑开始扎根理论研究的学生和研究者，你会给出哪些关键建议？

What would be some of the key pieces of advice that you would give students or researchers either currently involved with grander theory or contemplating embarking on one?

我认为最重要的建议是：谨慎构建初始研究问题，然后平衡地选择研究设计——因为这很可能不是个扎根理论研究。所以首先要认真思考这个问题。如果确定是扎根理论问题，就要有足够信心知道自己不需要选边站队。我们对此确实持不可知论态度，更重要的是理解你的哲学立场、最重视什么、如何看待真理——这对你意味着什么？然后根据你提出的研究问题，这会指导你如何考虑研究设计。

Well, I think that the most important piece of advice I've got is to really be careful about constructing that initial research question and then making a balanced choice about your design because it may well not be a grounded theory study. So really think about that in the first instance. If it is a grounded theory question that you're asking, then you have to be confident enough to know that you don't need to choose some sort of side. We definitely take a very agnostic approach to this And it is more about understanding where you position yourself philosophically, what you value the most, how you consider truth, what is that for you, and then what does that mean in terms of your research question that you've asked? And then that will give you some guidance about how to think about your research design.

方法本身终究只是方法。在我们最近参与的扎根理论研究所举办的网络研讨会上，来自所谓扎根理论'各派系'的共识是：方法其实是共通的、相同的。差异在于你如何理解并运用这些方法。这没有绝对的对错，关键在于做出清醒的选择后坚持贯彻，并确保在研究过程中体现——包括你与参与者的互动方式、对数据的思考角度、以及在数据中寻找和优先关注的内容类型。

The methods themselves are really the methods. And at the recent webinar that we participated in that was run by the Grounded Theory Institute, that was the general agreement from all so called sides of the grounded theory family that actually the methods are common, the methods are the same. It's how you think about them and then how you use them that differs. And it's not necessarily right or wrong, there's none of that. It's just about making a conscious choice and then really working with that and actually making sure that you're writing about that and you're thinking about that in terms of how you interact with participants, how you're thinking about the data, the sorts of things that you're interested in looking for and prioritising in the data.

我最重要的建议是不要对整件事过于固执。这不是选边站的问题，而是要做你自己的扎根理论研究，更像第三代扎根理论学者那样思考，采取一种非常开放包容的方式。梅尔，你怎么看？

My big piece of advice would be just don't be too hard bound about the whole thing. It's not about choosing sides. It's actually about doing your own grounded theory and thinking a bit more like a third generation grounded theorist, which is in a very open and inclusive way. Mel, what would you say?

是的，我想说不要陷入其中的政治角力。你说的不选边站很重要。找个导师，找一个你信任且懂扎根理论的人。我们经常接到学生的咨询，他们虽然有导师组，但可能其中有人自称是扎根理论专家，实际上只懂第一代方法或只推崇斯特劳斯和科比特的理论。

Yeah, I would say don't get bogged down in the politics of it. I think what you said about not choosing a side is important. Get a mentor. Have somebody you trust who understands grounded theory. We often get contacted by students who have a supervisory panel and there may be someone on there who claims to be an expert in grounded theory but they're struggling because they only know first generation approaches to grounded theory or they love Strauss and Corbett.

这没问题，但我觉得这些方法未必适合学生想探究的每个问题。所以你需要有人能根据你的哲学立场和研究目的来引导你。但最重要的建议是从一开始就写备忘录。从思考的第一天就开始写，这适用于任何研究——定性、定量、扎根理论或其他。用备忘录来探索你的思路。

That's fine, but I think that those approaches don't necessarily well they don't suit every problem that a student might want to explore. And so you need to have someone who can guide you in the direction that you need to go consistent with your philosophical position and the purpose of your study. But the most important piece of advice I think is to memo from the outset. Memo from day one, from the time you start thinking, and this applies it doesn't matter what sort of research you're doing qualitative, quantitative, grounded theory or otherwise. Use memos as a way of exploring your thinking.

一开始会像我当年一样感到很不自在。我最初只写'见了导师，进展尚可，确定了伦理申请'。几个月后我开始写'该死的导师快把我逼疯了，他们不断改主意'。备忘录是你探索思维的安全空间，也是建立研究轨迹、记录决策过程的地方——我认为这就是扎根理论的引擎，备忘录的撰写过程本身就是扎根理论的工程化。

It will feel as it did for me really uncomfortable at first. I used to write down 'met with supervisors to date, it was okay, decided on ethics application'. And within a few months I was writing 'Hatness supervision making my supervisors are driving me mad, they keep changing their mind'. And it's a safe space for you to explore your thinking, but it's where you establish your audit trail, it's where you record your decision making processes, it's where the actually it's the powerhouse of grounded theory, I think it's the engineering of grounded theory, the memos, the process of memo.

实际上，这些不断修改完善的高级备忘录最终会成为你论文或研究报告中的研究结果章节。所以它也有实际用途——把想法落实在纸面上。

And practically those advanced memos, as they're rendered and written and rewritten, become your findings chapter or section or whatever it might be of your paper, your thesis. So it serves a practical purpose too, that it gets stuff down on paper.

确实如此，否则这些想法很可能会丢失。

It does, that would otherwise be potentially lost.

没错，那些半夜或洗澡时突然冒出来的好点子。你必须赶紧出来写个备忘录记下来，这非常重要。

Yes, all those bright ideas that you have in the middle of the night or when you're in the shower. You have to get out and write yourself a memo afterwards. Very important.

梅兰妮、简，非常感谢你们为我们讲解扎根理论。

Melanie, Jane, thank you so much for talking us through grounded theory.

非常荣幸。谢谢你，奥利弗。

Absolutely pleasure. Thanks Oliver.

这是我们的荣幸，奥利弗。非常感谢。

It's our pleasure, Oliver. Thanks very much.

访问Wordsmatter-education.com获取所有节目笔记、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。

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.