质性研究系列——废墟中留下了什么？与Jenny Setchell博士探讨后质性研究

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。和往常一样，我要感谢所有通过Patreon支持节目的听众，你们的支持意义重大，再次感谢。

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. And as usual, I want to thank all of you that are supporting the show via Patreon. It really makes a difference, so thanks again.

在用了七期节目探讨定性研究及其方法论的价值后，现在是时候解构这一切，谈谈定性研究存在的问题以及我们为何应该超越它。我这话半开玩笑，因为在本期节目中，我将与珍妮·塞切尔博士探讨以‘后定性研究’形式出现的反定性研究运动。珍妮是澳大利亚昆士兰大学物理治疗学研究学者，她的研究兴趣包括医疗保健的后结构主义批判视角。她拥有心理学博士学位，专注于物理治疗中的体重污名问题。

So after seven episodes exploring qualitative research and the value of its methodologies and its methods, it's now time to dismantle all of that and talk about everything that's wrong with qualitative research and why we should move beyond it. I'm only half joking because in this episode, I'm speaking with doctor Jenny Setchel about a countermovement against qualitative research in the form of post qualitative research. And Jenny is a research fellow in physiotherapy at the University of Queensland in Australia. Her research interests include post structuralist critical perspectives on health care. Her PhD was in psychology and focused on weight stigma in physiotherapy.

珍妮在多种定性与后定性研究方法论方面经验丰富。她是国际批判物理治疗网络的创始成员及执行委员会联合主席，同时也是国际批判健康心理学会成员。本期节目中，我们将讨论后核心研究如何重新思考支撑传统定性研究实践的推理与思维方式。

And Jenny's experience in a range of qualitative and post qualitative research methodologies. And she is a founding member and co chairs the executive committee of the International Critical Physiotherapy Network. And she's also a member of the International Society for Critical Health Psychology. So in this episode, we speak about post core research as a way of rethinking the reasoning and thinking, which is underpinned the practice of traditional qualitative research. We talk about how post qual challenges the humanist tradition of qualitative research.

由此我们探讨了‘理论思维’的理念——这是后定性研究强烈倡导的（我在节目说明中链接了艾丽西亚·杰克逊的同名著作）。我们谈到后定性研究如何坚决反对将定性方法论简化为技术操作的理论-方法二分法，以及它如何致力于颠覆定性研究中那些已成常态、惯例、想当然的预设，使研究路径与后现代理论保持一致。珍妮还分享了她对后定性研究在数据、方法及分析层面的见解。

And with that, we talk about the idea of thinking with theory, which post qualitative research strongly advocates. And I've linked a book in the show notes in the same name by Alicia Jackson. And we talk about how post qual strongly rejects any theory method divide that reduces qualitative methodology to a matter of technique. We talk about how post qual is concerned with contravening what has become normal, routine, assumed, expected in qualitative research so that the approaches to research inquiry align with post theories. And Jenny shares what she feels post qual has to say about data, methods, and analysis.

最后，我们讨论了定性研究者能从后COR方法中汲取什么——是需要全盘接受彻底转向，还是存在某些有益方式帮助我们反思并可能改变定性研究的思维与实践方式。与珍妮对话令我受益匪浅，她丰富多元的职业生涯使她能用冷静温和又充满自信的方式谈论后定性研究——其论点足以撼动最资深的定性研究者，但珍妮本人毫无狂热倾向。她对后定性研究的平衡见解，以及认为其可与传统定性/定量研究共存的看法实在精彩。

And finally, we talk about what can quality researchers take away from post COR approaches and whether we need to take all of it and jump ship completely, or that there are some useful ways of reflecting on perhaps changing the way that we think about and practice qualitative research. So I absolutely love talking to Jenny. She's had such an interesting and diverse career, and this comes through in the cool, gentle, yet confident way that she talks about post qual research, whose arguments could shake the most dedicated qualitative researcher. But there was nothing fanatical about Jenny. Her balanced view of post qual and how she feels that it consists alongside more traditional qualitative and quantitative research approaches was just brilliant.

现在有请珍妮·塞切尔博士。珍妮，欢迎来到节目。

So I bring you doctor Jenny Setchel. Jenny, welcome to the podcast.

谢谢奥利弗，很高兴来到这里。

Thanks, Oliver. It's nice to be here.

那么我想我们可以先为这次对话设定背景。原本我们计划将批判理论与后质性探究研究结合起来讨论，但经过一些阅读和收到您对某些问题的反馈后，我觉得将两者分开、分别投入时间会更妥当。因此安娜·里亚拉负责了批判理论部分，而我们将专注于讨论后质性探究研究（PQI）。

So I suppose we could start by just setting out the the the context for our for our chat that we'd originally kind of planned to hybrid critical theory chat and then introduce post qualitative inquiry research. And then I did a bit of reading and got some comments from you on some questions, and it seemed to me it would be kind of prudent to separate the two and spend and dedicate some time to both them separately. Hence, Anna Riala kindly took up the critical theory mantle, and we're gonna speak about post qualitative inquiry research, so PQI.

确实如此。我认为这是个明智的选择，因为它们实际上是相当不同的领域。尽管在某些方面会相互影响，但事实上有时可能会存在明显分歧。

Yes, indeed. No, I think that's a wise choice because they're quite different things, actually. Although they do inform each other in some ways, can actually be quite at odds at times, in fact.

是的。我们可以探讨PQI如何建立在批判理论基础上。不知道您是否愿意在某个节点——说来有趣，这次对话本质上是对质性研究的批判，却属于质性研究系列的一部分。这很可能是我们与戴夫'随便问'环节前的倒数第二期，希望听众已经听过前面八期倡导质性研究及其知识生成价值的节目。

Yeah. And we can explore how PQIs is built on critical theory. I suppose, I don't know if you want, at some point, whether we give some so it's curious that this conversation is essentially a critique against qualitative research, and it sits within a qualitative research series. So whether and and this will be positioned probably the penultimate episode before Dave Dave and and mine can ask us anything. So, hopefully, listeners would have listened to potentially eight episodes advocating for qualitative research and the value of of these approaches for generating knowledge.

您是否想给那些花了八小时收听质性研究节目的听众某种'预防性解药'——无论是现在还是最后——告诉他们这些时间没有白费，所有这些内容都有其价值？

Is there some kind of prophylactic remedy that you want to give listeners that have spent eight hours listening to episodes about Quolls, now or at the end, that it wasn't wasted time and there's value in all this stuff?

当然。记得我们早先讨论时我说过，把这个话题放在质性研究系列里需要勇气，因为它确实对当前质性研究的某些实践方式和未来趋势提出了质疑。'后质性'中的'后'既有'反对'也有'超越'之意。但请注意，我既是质性研究者也是后质性研究者。我认为多种方法论并存很有价值，绝不会主张全盘否定。

Absolutely. So I think, you know, in our earlier discussions, there was I said to you, it's quite brave to put this in a series on qualitative research, because, yeah, it's arguing against some of the ways in which qualitative research is currently practiced, is moving towards being practiced. Yeah, so it's kind of almost a counter, like the post part of post qual means against or, I guess, after. But of course, I'm a qualitative researcher as well as a post qualitative researcher. I think there's value in having lots and lots of different approaches, so I absolutely wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

请困惑的听众注意：这不是质性研究入门课。这是在全面考量质性研究及其历史的基础上，指出其中存在的问题，并尝试探索超越量化与质性二元对立的新路径。这是个充满挑战的新兴领域，仍在形成过程中——毕竟'后'这个概念源自后现代主义、后结构主义等思潮。

So please, for those listeners that get confused, this is kind of, you know, not qualitative research 101. It's taking all of qualitative research, its histories into account and considering, you know, where some of the problems can be in it, I guess, and thinking of other ways beyond quant, beyond qual, beyond both of them, I guess. So it's quite a challenging space. It's a new space to work in. It's still being formed, and almost in the way it Because the post also comes from things like postmodernism and poststructuralism.

它关乎解构结构与观念，突破事物的固化认知——这对初接触者可能很可怕。这正是我事先提醒'此举需要勇气'的原因，因为我们实质上是在打破对事物的固有认知并寻求超越。随着深入探讨，我们会更详细地展开这些内容。

It's about breaking down structures and ideas. It's about moving beyond solidification of things, which can be quite scary when you're new to a concept. And I think that's one of the reasons why I said, warning, this is a brave move, because really, this is about breaking down solid ideas of what things are and moving beyond that. So as we explore it further, I'm sure we'll go into that a bit more in detail.

太好了。这确实让我平静下来了。

That's great. That's definitely settled my nerves.

很好。

Good.

不过或许我们可以从你的自我介绍开始，你的学术和临床经历非常有趣。

But maybe we could start by you introducing yourself, and you've had a really interesting academic and clinical journey.

是的。我经历过几种职业。目前我在昆士兰大学健康与康复科学学院的物理治疗学科担任高级研究员。所以我回到了物理治疗领域。但我的博士学位是心理学，实际上我现在更像是一名社会学家。

Yes. I've had a few careers. My current one is as a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland in the School of Health and Rehab Sciences in the discipline of physiotherapy. So I'm back in physiotherapy. But my PhD was in psychology, but I've become more of a sociologist actually.

确切地说是健康社会学家、物理治疗社会学家。全球我们这类人不多，非常稀少。这是个不错的领域，因为它有点与众不同。我的临床生涯主要集中在肌肉骨骼领域，我曾在私人诊所担任物理治疗师，但也做过许多其他零碎工作，包括志愿工作和监狱医疗服务。

So sociologist of health, sociologist of physiotherapy. There's a few of us in the world, but not very many at all. So it's a nice space to be in because it is a little different. But yeah, my clinical career was mainly MSK. I worked in private practises usually as a physiotherapist, but I did lots of other little bits and pieces, some volunteer work, and I've worked in jails, prisons.

我曾在偏远小医院工作，是那里唯一的物理治疗师。也在澳大利亚以外的国家做过志愿者。是的，我还当过杂技演员和艺术工作者。在开始学术生涯前，我做过许多不同工作。现在的研究工作中，我经常借鉴临床生涯和艺术工作的经验。

I've worked in remote small hospitals where I've been the only physiotherapist. I've done volunteer work in countries outside of my own country of Australia. And yeah, I've also been an acrobat, arts worker. So I've done lots of different things before I started my academic career. I do draw from both my clinical career, but also my arts working career a lot in my research life.

如果要描绘你的研究轨迹，常见路径是从量化研究开始——因为这通常是本科教育和临床教育的主要内容，然后转向质性研究，之后或许再涉足后质性研究领域？

And if you're going to map out your research journey, a common journey is starting in quant because that's that usually forms much of an undergraduate education and clinical education, and then move to qual and then perhaps subsequently dipping toes into post QUAL?

是的，并不完全是，可能有一点。所以没错，我作为物理治疗师也接受过定量研究的培训，然后在攻读肌肉骨骼物理治疗硕士学位时，我延续了这一方向。之后，我进入了博士阶段。刚开始读博不久，我就对批判理论产生了兴趣，心理学领域也是如此。

Yeah, not entirely, maybe a little bit. So yes, I was also trained in quantitative research as a physiotherapist and then doing my master's in musculoskeletal physiotherapy, I continued that journey. After that, I moved into a PhD. And very quickly as I started my PhD, I became interested in critical theory. And so was in psychology.

我感兴趣的是批判健康心理学领域。就在那时，与戴夫·尼科尔斯和芭芭拉·吉布森一起，我在博士刚开始阶段协助创立了批判物理治疗网络。因此，我很早就开始批判性思考，这让我觉得定性方法确实更合适。我在博士期间首次开展的研究——至今仍是我被引用最多的研究——就是一项混合方法研究，这也是我毕生为数不多的混合方法研究之一。我可能在其他一些研究中作为合著者出现，但定量研究在我的工作中占比极小，几乎可以忽略不计。

It was critical health psychology that I was interested in. And that was when, with Dave Nichols and Barbara Gibson, I helped form, and this is right at the beginning of my PhD, the Critical Physiotherapy Network. So, yeah, so I was thinking critically very early on, which led me to qualitative methods really, was appropriate. And I used in my PhD, so my first ever research, the first study, which is my most cited study still, is a mixed method study, one of the only mixed method studies I've ever done. I might be one of the authors on some other ones, but really has been very small part of my work, almost no part of my work doing quantitative research.

因此，我的第一个研究采用了调查方法，主题是关于体重污名与物理治疗。这是一项批判性研究，旨在质疑物理治疗领域关于如何概念化超重或肥胖人群的一些常规和实践。而博士期间的其他研究则全部采用定性方法，且各自运用了不同的研究方法，彼此都不相同。

So I did a survey methodology for the first one, which was about weight stigma and physiotherapy. So that was critical study in that it was sort of questioning some of physiotherapy's norms and practises around how we conceptualize people considered to be overweight or obese. And yeah, then the other studies in my PhD were all entirely qualitative and using various methods, none of them the same as each other.

那么你现在认为自己属于特定类型的研究者吗？就像人们在晚宴上会问的那样——我不知道现在还有没有晚宴，我父母那个年代有——假设你在晚宴上被问到：‘珍妮，你是哪种类型的研究者？’你的第一反应会是什么？

And do you identify as a particular type of researcher now? Do kind of feel like a Do people serve dinner parties? I don't know, dinner parties. My parents had dinner parties, but let's say you had a dinner party, And, oh, Jenny, what kind of researcher are you? What's the first thing that you say?

我想我现在会说自己是一名社会学研究者。如果用通俗语言解释，就是关注更广泛的社会背景，以及研究中诸如权力差异等问题的考量。这显然包含了批判理论的元素。同时我也会说自己算是个定性方法论者，对定性研究非常感兴趣，也教授过很多方法论课程。

I think I would now say that I'm a sort of sociological researcher, which, I guess, if I define that in lay terms, it's consideration of those broader social contexts and considerations of things like power differences in research. So that definitely includes the kind of critical theory element of things. And I would say that I'm a bit of a qualitative methodologist. I'm very interested in qualitative research. I've taught methods a lot.

因此我对多种方法有所了解——当然不敢自称任何领域的专家——但对定性方法论的范畴比较熟悉，也擅长运用理论来贯穿研究思考，这更偏向后定性研究的范畴。嗯，

And so I'm aware of a lot of I'm absolutely not an expert in any of them, I'm sure, but I'm quite aware of the range of qualitative methodologies quite aware of being able to use theory to think through research, which is a bit more the post qual end of things. Well,

这正好引向我们一直在...其实我们并没有绕圈子。如果回到晚宴的例子，要你用最简单的大白话解释什么是后定性研究，你会怎么描述？

that brings us on nicely to the thing that we've kind of been I've been dancing around, and we haven't been dancing around it. I suppose if you were gonna lay I guess back to the dinner party example, if you were gonna simply describe what post quo was about, what would be your simple layman's explanation or or description?

我不认为我对之前那个问题给出了一个非常简单的答案，但我会试着回答这个。首先复杂之处在于，后质性研究的先驱之一——抱歉，是伊丽莎白·圣皮埃尔说过，你不能对质性研究、后质性研究提出'它是什么'这样的问题。它更关乎'它能做什么'。所以如果我们忠于后质性研究原则，这确实会让问题变得困难。

I don't think I gave you a very simple answer to that previous question, but I'll try with this one. So the first bit that's not simple about it is that one of the foremothers of qualitative researcher, of post qual research, sorry, Elizabeth St Pierre, says, You can't ask that question of qualitative research, post qual research. You can't say, What is it? It's more about what it does, really. So that does make it difficult if we've been true to post qual.

但我想我的核心观点是，它反对后实证主义——这是当今大多数量化研究和部分质性研究背后的理念。它反对那种认为世界上存在易于获取的客观真理的观念，或者认为只要问对问题就能触及真相。它抵制僵化的结构，比如固定方法、既定方法论，反对清单式研究。所以这更多是在说明它'不是什么'而非'是什么'。

But I guess my key points about it is that it's against kind of post positivism, which is the concept behind most quantitative research these days, and some qualitative research, a lot of qualitative research these days. So it's moving against that idea, which is really about, you know, these ideas that there's a truth to be found out there in the world that's simple to access. Or, if we just ask the right questions, we can access So it's against kind of rigid structures, things like methods, set methods, set methodologies. It's against checklists. So that's kind of saying what it's not rather than what it is.

因此它具有更强的流动性。它往往与理论紧密结合——理论本身就是方法和方法论，尤其是方法论。它某种程度上超越了传统方法论，我们用理论来解析数据，同时也质疑'什么是数据'。

So it has kind of more fluidity in it. It tends to be caught up with theory. So it's theory really that's the method and the methodology, particularly the methodology. So it's kind of moves beyond methodology, and we use theory to think through data. It also questions what data is.

它摒弃了'数据就是访谈记录'这种观念。数据可以是多方位的：可能是访谈者本人，可能是访谈中提出的问题，可能是进行访谈的房间，可能是转录员处理访谈数据的方式...这种延伸可以持续下去。

So it throws out this idea that the data is the interview, perhaps the transcript, right? Might be the many things. It might be the person conducting the interviews. The question that is asked in the interviews is also the data, the room that you're in when you do the interview, the transcriptionist and how they've managed the interview data. It can go on like this.

或者可能完全不涉及访谈。比如我们最近做的——我又在自嘲了，我还是没给出简单答案——我们刚完成一项后质性研究（目前正在审稿中，我刚提交了修改稿）。在那项研究中，我们观察自己设计的网站，数据实质上是我们的情感反馈。

Or it may not involve interviews at all. For example, we've recently done, and again, I'm laughing at myself, I'm not giving you a simple answer here. So for example, we did a recent post call study, which is currently under review. I've just submitted a revise and resubmit on it. And in that one, we were looking at this website that some of us had designed, and the data was really our feelings in response to that.

主要是情感数据推动了我们对网站的分析。这与你通常做的理性认知分析非常不同——比如评估网站运行效果。从量化角度，你可能会测试网站看用户健康状况变化，这是个健康信息网站。

So it was emotional data most. That was kind of what pushed our analysis of the website. So it's very different from a rational cognitive type of analysis that you might usually do to say how well or not this website was working, I guess. So it might be, you know, from a quant perspective, you'd test the website and see if people get better or worse. It's a health information website.

看人们访问网站后健康状况是否改善。量化研究会对比真实网站与安慰剂网站的效果。质性研究可能访谈用户获取他们的观点和体验。而我们并非健康信息寻求者，只是通过浏览网站、观看视频、阅读内容，用情感反应来引导网站分析——这相当有趣。

See if people get better or worse after they've accessed the website. So that'd be a quant comparison between, you know, a placebo website or something and the actual website. Whereas a qualitative study might interview people to see their opinions and responses to the website, and their experiences of it. Whereas we weren't health information seekers. We just looked at the website, watched the videos, read through sections, and see, like, used our emotional responses to guide our analysis of the website, which was quite interesting.

回到你的例子，或者更准确地说，是你最近的提交内容中提到的——你将对该网站的情感反应等作为数据。但你不能直接记录，我的意思是，当你上传论文时，你无法直接输入情感反应，而是必须将其转化为文字。这些是反思。你无法直接下载情感反应并放入论文，必须通过文字转换，即进行反思并书写下来，这不正是...

So back to your or to your example not your example, but your recent submission where you said that your your emotional responses to the to the website, etcetera, that was the data. But you could just record I mean, when you upload your paper, you couldn't input your emotional responses in kind of well, you had to convert it to text. And these were reflections. You couldn't kind of download your emotional responses and just put them on your paper. You had to you had to convert them to text, so you had to reflect on them, write them down to isn't that isn't that just?

但这不正是某种反思性的、自民族志式的数据报告吗？这其实是传统质性研究的一部分。

But isn't that just kind of reflective Yeah. Yeah. Auto ethnographic type reports as data, which is part of kind of traditional qual.

确实存在自民族志的元素。不同之处在于我们运用理论来解析情感。为此我们创造了‘情感反身性’这个术语，将情感与反身性结合起来。

So yes, there's elements of auto ethnography. What was different was we used theory to think through our emotions. So we actually coined the term afflexivity. So affect and reflexivity joined together.

然后

And

我们运用了莎拉·艾哈迈德关于情感的理论。她认为情感是附着于特定事物的社会文化政治概念。我们采用她理论中的三个子情境来解析我们所经历的情感。因此我们绝非表面化接受，而是通过解读、考量，探索网站的人类与非人类维度，思考全球用户访问时的体验——谁可能感到被接纳或排斥，涉及诸多不同层面。

we use Sarah Ahmed's theories on emotions. So her theories on emotions are that emotions are sort of sociocultural political concepts that get stuck to particular things. So we use three of her kind of sub contexts to think through those emotions that we've experienced. And so we definitely did not take them on face value. We interpreted them, we considered them, we explored the website, the human and non human aspects of the website, the data to think through how this website might be experienced by the world, by people accessing it, who might feel included or excluded, lots of different aspects of it there.

所以后访谈阶段，我虽在讨论数据，但更重要的是直接运用理论来解析这些数据。

So the post call part, I was talking about the data, but the post call part is also the direct use of theory to think through that data.

这就是最简要的说明。

And so that was the simple description.

这个简单的描述做得很糟糕。

It's a terrible job of doing a simple description.

但我想更复杂的部分涉及一些运动——如果你愿意这么称呼的话——这些正在为PQI构建论点。比如人文主义、后人文主义、后结构主义等，我知道这些都是相当沉重的概念，我并不期待你或任何人能就此展开全面讲解。但有没有什么方式能向可能不熟悉这些理论的听众，用对他们有帮助的方式来描述这些概念呢？

But I suppose but I suppose the more complex one is touching on some of the the movements, if you like, which are building this argument for PQI. So things like, you know, humanism, posthumanism, poststructuralism, and I know that these are kind of weighty ideas, which I am not expecting you or anyone to kind of give us a full kind of lecture on what they're about. But are there ways that ways that you can describe them which which might be useful to listeners that perhaps aren't aware of of some of these theories or these ideas?

后质性研究确实试图超越人文主义走向'后'的领域。后结构主义、后现代主义和后人文主义是这个理论语境下常见的思考路径，也是重新解构既定方法论（比如聚焦人类经验）的常用方式——讽刺的是，我刚才讨论的数据本身就是一种人类经验。但我们论证了这实际上如何契合后人文主义的路径。这些努力旨在消解人类理性思维表面价值的中心地位，而这往往支撑着人文主义质性研究。

So post qual really tries to move beyond humanism to the post. So post structuralism, postmodernism, and posthumanism is a really common approaches to thinking with theory in this context. And also common approaches to reconsidering breaking down these concepts of set methods and things like focusing on human experiences, which ironically, that data was a human experience that I was just talking about. But we argued how that fitted into a kind of posthuman approach, actually. So there's these efforts to de centre that human rational thought as being able to be taken at least on face value, which tends to underpin kind of that humanist qualitative research.

也就是说，它超越了人们对现象学式研究的态度、观点和体验。它既超越了传统人文主义，也超越了批判理论——早期批判理论确实更具人文主义色彩。

So that's people's thoughts, attitudes, opinions, experiences of kind of a more phenomenological approach, for example. So it's moving beyond that. And it's moving beyond critical theory, and that certainly early critical theory tended to be much more humanist as well.

抱歉打断。这或许能自然过渡到批判理论与后质性研究之间的关联或谱系：它们是不和睦的表亲吗？具体是什么关系？是因为批判理论变得过于批判，才促使人们更进一步走向后人文主义等领域吗？

Sorry. So maybe that might be a nice segue segue into the the linkage or the lineage between critical theory and post qual, and how are they unhappy cousins, or what's their relationship? They fall out? Is it that the critical theory has got so critical that they they're gonna move the step further towards, posthumanism, etcetera?

是的，'后批判'这个表述可能更贴切。如果你用'后-批判'来表述，就能涵盖后人文主义、后结构主义（这毫无疑问）以及后现代主义。批判理论本质上更偏向人文主义路径，特别推崇马克思主义、早期女性主义这类结构化的人文主义方法——那是一种非常结构主义的取向。

Yeah. The postcritical probably fits okay with it. So if you could put post hyphen critical, then that brings in posthumanism, poststructuralism definitely, and postmodernism. So critical theory was much more sort of a humanist type approach, which really sort of preference things like, for example, Marxism and early feminism, sort of structured humanist kind of approaches. So that was a very structuralist approach.

它认为世界上存在制造权力差异的结构（这就是'批判'的部分），比如政府、马克思主义中的阶级结构、女性主义中的男女对立。这是一种更结构化的权力理解方式。而后理论则将权力视为更分散的概念——福柯、德勒兹与加塔利等哲学家正是由此切入。当这种解构真正深入后批判理论家的思想时，就与后质性研究试图打破质性研究结构的努力完美契合了。

It said that there are these structures in the world that create, so this is the critical part, that create power differences. Government, class structures in Marxism, in feminism, male versus female. So it was a much more structured approach to understanding power, whereas the Post came in and talked about power as this more dispersed kind of concept. And that's where, you know, philosophers like Foucault and Toulouse and Quattari fit into this picture. And in doing that breaking down of structures, if you really read into these types of post critical theorists, then this aligns nicely with post qual's attempts to break down the structure of qualitative research as well.

正如我先前提到的伊丽莎白·圣皮埃尔，她是后核心研究的先驱之一。她来自教育学背景，曾表示很难在质性研究中使用福柯等后结构主义理论家的思想，因为他们的核心理念恰恰反对质性研究方法所依赖的那种结构化的、条理分明的研究范式。

So what Elizabeth St Pierre, again, who I was mentioning before, who's one of the foremothers of post core research. She's from an education background. So she said, you can't it's very hard, and many qualitative researchers have done this or tried to do this. It's hard to use post structuralist theorists, such as Foucault, in qualitative research because their whole concepts are kind of against this kind of structuralist, well structured approaches to research that qualitative methods are often defined by.

威尔，就像你说的，她是四位先驱女性学者之一。

And Will, like you said, she's one of the four of the four foremothers.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我会附上她的几篇开创性论文链接，这些论文介绍了后质性研究方法，还有一些视频，其中部分可在批判物理治疗网络网站上找到。我看过这些资料所以直接分享链接。

And I'll link her she's had some big a couple of big kind of seminal papers introducing post qual and a few videos, some of one of which is on the Critical Physiotherapy Network website. So I'll just link those because I've watched them.

太好了。

Great.

我看这些材料时确实产生了情绪反应——正如之前提到的，她对那些我在职业、学术和个人层面都深度投入的方法论提出了尖锐批评。后质性研究是否在呼吁彻底推翻质性研究？它应该取代质性研究吗？还是说这仅仅是另一种探究方式？两者能否共存？或是说质性研究可以保留现有形式，同时接纳这种替代路径？

And I suppose when I, you know, when I did watch them, it created some, as I mentioned before, some emotional reactions about if she's been quite critical towards methodologies and approach of which I'd become really, I guess, invested in professionally and academically and personally. Is it the case that post quo is calling for the demolition of you know, it shouldn't that it replaces qualitative research, or it's just an additional way of inquiry, or neither can both coexist, or they're quite happy that qual remains in some form, but there's this alternative way?

当然不能代表他人发言，就我个人而言——我的一篇后核心论文运用了'多元性'概念。我本质上是个多元主义者，认为拥有多种研究路径、多元理念和认识世界的方式非常宝贵，能推动世界向不同维度发展。所以对我来说，这既不是要抛弃质性研究，也不是要否定量化研究。

Well, definitely can't speak for other people, but I'll speak for myself. Sure. And so I'm definitely one of my post core papers uses the concept of multiplicity. And I'm definitely a pluralist or a multiplicitous kind of person in that I think that it's great to have a lot of different approaches, a lot of different ideas and ways to approach understanding the world, and moving the world forward in various ways. So for me, it's not about throwing out qualitative research, or even quantitative research for that matter.

我认为，如果我们周围没有任何定量研究，我可能会成为一名定量研究者。关键在于尽可能采用多种不同方式来获取知识和理解世界，并思考如何重构、重新思考，使其对每个人都更有效。所以对我来说，问题不在于此。我读过PostQual四位学者的不同观点，有时似乎是要抛弃定量研究，认为两者无法共存。但在我看来，这更多是针对你在进行研究时的思维方式，而非这些方法不应存在于不同情境中——根据我的理解。因此，我不会反对摒弃那些东西。

I think if we didn't have any quantitative research around, I would be a quantitative researcher, for example. I think it's just about, you know, using as many different ways as possible to access knowledge and the world and understanding how to rework it and rethink it and make it work better for everybody. So for me, it's not about that. There may be I've read different things from the four people of PostQual, and certainly sometimes it seems to be about abandoning it and that it's impossible for them to live together kind of But I think that tends to be more focused on your thinking while you're doing that work, rather than these shouldn't exist in different settings from my reading of it. So no, I wouldn't be against throwing those things out.

再次说明，我并非要你评论他人观点，但这个问题听起来确实像在询问你的看法。显然我想了解你的想法。我认为PQI对定性研究的一个批评在于，如你所描述的，是那种带有实证主义色彩、过分关注技术方法、缺乏理论根基的定性研究版本。定性研究者会承认这是糟糕的、非学术的定性工作，会完全支持后定性研究的立场，但不一定会说要完全抛弃解释主义或彻底转向。所以我很好奇，伊丽莎白·圣皮埃尔和这场运动真正批评的是哪种形式的定性研究？因为那不是我认可的那种。

And again, and I'm not trying to get you to comment on other people's thoughts, but nonetheless, the question sounds like I am asking you. But I obviously want your thoughts. And I suppose one of the criticisms that PQI levels at qualitative research is, as you described, a version of qualitative research which is kind of positivist, kind of technique and methods focused, a theoretical. And I think qualitative researchers would recognize that bad qualitative research or they would recognize it as poor, non unscholarly qualitative work and would be completely on the side of the post qualitative inquiries, but wouldn't necessarily say, well, we've got to abandon interpretivism or or move completely. So I I I just kind of wondered what what form of qualitative research that Elizabeth St Pierre and the movement is really criticizing, which version, because it's not the one that I really recognise.

是的，这是个很好的切入点，也适合讨论'后定性'这个术语的起源和意义。在健康领域尤其相关，因为作为定性研究者——我在此声明中自认是定性研究者——我们某种程度上正被后实证主义运动所侵蚀。越来越多的实证研究者开始做定性研究，非民族志方法变得越来越普遍，更多采用那些标准化方法。

Yeah. And this is a really good point and a nice place to sort of discuss where this term post qual really came from and matters. So certainly it's relevant in health because we are, as qualitative researchers, I'm counting myself as a qualitative researcher in that statement, as qualitative researchers, we are getting taken over in some ways by the post positivist movement. There's more positivist researchers starting to do qual research. It's become more and more common for things not to be ethnographic, for things to take those more standardised approaches.

比如仅进行描述性分析的半结构化访谈，以及问卷调查等。确实存在一种偏离探索性或理论性定性研究方法的趋势。后定性研究或许已经取得不少进展，特别是在批判性定性研究领域。比如多伦多有个研究中心，他们的工作更偏向人文主义，但仍属于后定性研究的范畴。

So things like semi structured interviews, which are just descriptively analysed. There is definitely a movement, and surveys as well, for example. So there's definitely a movement away from the more exploratory or theoretical approaches to qualitative research. Certainly post qual is perhaps already done a fair bit, particularly in critical qualitative research. There's a centre in Toronto, for example, which is doing It's a bit more humanist, but still doing something that borders along the post qual scheme of things.

同样，社会学本就倾向于理论化研究，可以说与后定性方法非常相似。要知道，后定性研究起源于教育领域，而健康领域因其正遭受实证主义或后实证主义定性研究的'入侵'，也对此产生了强烈兴趣。因此，在这个层面上它很重要。

Similarly, sociology tends to approach things with theory anyway, and maybe arguably very similar to post qual approaches. So, you know, post qual has come from education. It's good to realise that. And health is another area that's really been attracted to it, I think, because of those incursions, really, of positivist or post positivist qualitative research, I guess. So, yeah, so it matters in that way.

举例来说，我听了这个系列关于扎根理论的第二期精彩播客。虽然我自己没用过扎根理论，但我认为由此产生了许多优秀研究和实践变革。但他们的理念是要严格遵循所有这些方法论步骤，虽然存在变体，但必须坚持这些步骤，否则就不是真正的扎根理论。

And I think So for example, I was listening to that great second podcast of this series on grounded theory. And one of the And, you know, I really like the grounded theory approach. It's not one that I've used, but I certainly I think that some really wonderful research has come out of there and some great shifts in practice, etcetera. But, you know, their concepts are to really use all these methodological steps really rigorously, and use them really well, do the same There's variations, but really stick to these steps, right? Or else it's not proper, grounded theory.

而后定性研究反对这种做法，认为这些步骤本身会在研究发现中以某种形式重现，限制了你对世界的认知。半结构化访谈也是如此——无论你如何创新，访谈总有特定局限。当然，如果采用'行走访谈'之类更具创意的方式，限制可能会少些。

And so Postgres is really against that. It thinks that those steps in themselves are reproduced in some ways in the findings. It limits what you can sort of see and know in the world. And same with like semi structured interviews. There's particular things about interviews, no matter how you're creative, you get a Well, maybe less so if you get more creative, like if you do walk along interviews or something like that.

但无论如何，这些访谈中的某些内容成为了某种特定产物。它确实产生了一种特定类型的数据和结果，这很遗憾，因为它限制了我们探索那些访谈本应探讨的问题的方式。因此，后质性研究在某种程度上试图弥补这一点——它采用的方法完全不同于常规预期，比如在我提到的那个多样性论文中，我们仅凭三人作为物理治疗师的记忆就构建了一个虚拟患者。

But regardless, there's some things about those interviews that are artifacts into the, you know, there's this It does produce a particular kind of data and a particular kind of result, and that's a shame because it limits our way of exploring those, whatever those issues are that the interviews are intended to explore. So post qual's, I guess, trying to remedy that in some ways. It's like, it's using these approaches that are completely, like, particularly with the elements that are exploring data as being something quite different from what we might expect. Like, for example, in that multiplicity paper I was talking about, we just constructed a patient out of the three of our memories of working as physiotherapists. So that was with Dave Nichols and Bob Gibson and myself.

我们研究的这个虚拟患者，是在一篇高度理论化的论文中深度剖析了十分钟虚构诊疗过程。我们探讨了在这十分钟典型的物理治疗临床互动中，一位髋关节置换患者如何被多重差异化对待。这种数据通常不会被视作合理的研究素材。

The patient that we explored, we explored ten minutes of a fake consultation, a made up consultation in huge amount of depth in this very theoretical paper where we explored how someone with a hip replacement was, multiply that their hip replacement was considered quite differently within these ten minutes of clinical a typical clinical interaction within physiotherapy interaction. So that data would not normally be considered reasonable data to use, I imagine.

关于扎根理论这点——毕竟这是我投入研究的方法论——你说得对。其中确实存在某些分析方法能引导数据解读，凸显参与者间的差异变体。我们称之为方法，但这些本质上只是传递数据思考方式的工具。即便在你提交的明信片论文中，你们三人处理数据的方式也存在差异，注意力会被特定事物吸引。如果我问你具体操作方式...

But just on the grounded theory point, and only because, again, it's a methodology I've invested in, and I suppose, to to your point, you're you're right. There are some, I suppose, methods or analytical processes within ground theory, which will lead to or help your interpretation of the data and be struck by some of the differences and kind of variants amongst participants. And we called them methods, but these are just ways to convey or to communicate to people about how to think about data. And and and I'm not it's not certainly the only way, but so even in the in the the postcard paper you submitted, there was a way that the three of you thought about data and, you know, were struck by the differences or your gaze was kind of drawn to certain things. And if I asked you, Jenny, how did you how did you do that?

比如你会用什么方法？这种方法可能因项目而异，但你总能描述出类似归纳法的过程：从数据中得出结论、思考可能性、用新数据验证初步想法。虽然我不是认知学家，但人脑确实存在某些固定思维模式。所以方法不就是描述数据思考方式的工具吗？它们可能显得过于僵化，但...

Like, what was your what was your method? And it might be a method that changes between different projects that you do, but you'd probably be able to describe something around, I don't know, which sounded like induction or something you're drawing kind of conclusions from kind of data or thinking about possibilities or looking to test those initial thoughts out with some additional data. Mean, these are I'm, you know, I'm no cognitiveist, but I would imagine there's certain ways a brain can work and the kind of things fire and that kind of human reasoning. So isn't it the case that the methods are just descriptions of way to ways to think about data? And, yes, they're probably overly kind of rigid and they sound quite confining, but I don't know.

因为后质性研究必须设置方法章节——或者说必须描述研究发现的过程。一旦进行这种描述，就是在建立方法体系。当有人说'这项研究很棒，我想做类似探索'时...

I just it's it's because your post call study, I would imagine you would have to set a a method section or or not. I mean, you have to describe how you reach your findings. So there are findings in the so the minute you make that description, they're they're methods, aren't they? I mean, they're and then if someone says, that's a great study. I'd like to do something like that.

也许不是完全复制，但采用相似路径。这样我们就会逐渐形成方法体系。那么我们该如何避免方法的固化呢？

Maybe not replicate it, but explore something similar. I really like the way you did it. I might try and do something similar. And then we begin to create a set of methods. So how how do we how do we avoid having methods?

这正是后质性研究的要义——避免固定方法，持续创新重构。具体到那项研究，我们参考了两篇论文：一篇是Simone Fuliger关于后质性研究的著作，另一篇是Plutz对以患者为中心护理的话语分析。我们通过这些文献来构建研究思路。

So I think that's the point, is that the post call is trying to avoid having set methods and keep recreating them, making different ones. So to go into more detail of that study, we used two papers that weren't oh, one was Simone So one of them was Simone Fuliger's work on post qualitative research that was published in one of those qualitative sports journal publications. Yeah, so we used hers as a way to think through the So we used that before we So the processes were, we read two papers. One was Plutz's understanding of It's a discourse analysis of patient centred care, And the other one was Simone Fuliger's paper on post qualitative research in the context of sports. She was introducing it to that discipline.

我们都读过那些资料。我们中有些人是定性研究者，有些是定量研究者（抱歉说反了），还有些是社会理论家。我们来自公共卫生、职业治疗、物理治疗、社会学、生物学等领域，现场也有患者参与。

So we all read that. Some of us were positive qualitative researchers, quantitative researchers, sorry. Some were social theorists. We came from public health, from OT, physio, sociology, biology. There's patients there as well.

所以我们其实是刻意在那个房间里制造差异。我们花了两个小时——事先阅读这些论文，各自记录了对这个网站的反应笔记，然后在房间里碰面讨论了两小时。我从讨论录音中整理了笔记，内容涉及方方面面。而且我们事先并未限定要采用何种理论框架。

So really, like, we intentionally kind of created difference in that room. We spent two hours. So we read these papers beforehand, had like jotted down notes on our own responses to this website, and then we met in a room for two hours and discussed it together. And then I took down notes from that recording of that discussion, which went in all sorts of places. And then we hadn't pre described any kind of theoretical approach that we're going to use.

于是我们尝试探讨哪些理论视角可能适用于此，哪些能为探索腰痛（该网站的主题）带来非传统的研究路径。最终我们选定了情感理论，认为它能提供独特视角。所有这些阶段我们都采取了非常规做法，这些方法很难复制——甚至不可能复制，因为我不可能再把原班人马召集起来了。所以我们是在创造自己的方法论。

So we sort of played around with some ideas of what theoretical approach might be of interest here and what might add something that's sort of not typical way of exploring low back pain, which is what the website was focused on. So we landed on emotions theory as being something that would add something different. So in all those stages, we're kind of doing something quite different, something that's not necessarily easy to replicate. And I'd say you couldn't replicate it because the people were, I couldn't even pull those people together again, I don't imagine. So we're creating our methods.

我们完全跳脱了既定方法的框架。通过迭代式的工作推进分析过程——是的，我们没有称之为'结果'，实际上在方法部分我们称之为'后质性探究'，主要是描述我们的做法。

We're way, way away from sort of set methods there. And then as we created sort of the analysis through our sort of iterative working through. Yeah, we didn't call them results. And we call it post qualitative inquiry, actually, our methods section. So we sort of describe what we did.

这些确实无法归类到标准方法论里。虽然你可以把我们的工作流程当作方法论来复现，但这其实违背了我们的初衷——为什么不在不同时间，与不同人群，采用不同理论（或单人研究）来创新呢？

But yeah, they don't fit neatly into some standard kind of methodology. So yeah, all of that work that we did, though, for sure, it's You could replicate, sort of replicate that as a methodology, but that would be against kind of the way Like, why not do it differently, a different time, with a different set of people and different theories, or just one person, whatever.

确实有道理。想想扎根理论早期，其方法描述就非常粗糙。它源自《死亡时刻》和《死亡意识》这两本书，只是两位社会学家想理解临终体验的过程。当时的方法相当原始，民族志也一样，就是社会人类学家在群体中生活观察。

Yeah, so that makes sense. If you think about grounded theory, came the methods were really poorly described early on. There was just a book that, you know, came from a time for dying and awareness of dying, which are two sociologists that just wanted to understand that that experience and process of dying. And the the methods were pretty rudimentary. And likewise with ethnography, it was just, you know, social anthropologists spending time with with with groups.

我相信那些研究者当时并不以方法为核心，他们更关注研究目的和成果。最终这些方法会被系统化——人们会说'这方法很棒，我们写本方法论的书吧'，然后就衍生出各种方法。你们作为这种新方法的先驱者，是否预见到未来会有人试图将你们这些富有创见的方法规范化？毕竟它们确实有效。

And what and I'm sure at that point, these researchers were like, weren't methods centric. They weren't necessarily they were more focused on the purpose, if you like, and the outcome. Ultimately, what happens is this stuff gets codified and people say, that was really good. Let's write a book about that approach, and then you end up with lots of methods. So do you imagine that whilst you guys are pioneers, if you like, this new approach, that there will be a temptation to begin to formalize these really creative, interesting methods because they work.

比如，如果论文非常有趣且具有变革性，人们会愿意重复这样的研究，因为它带来了好的结果，产生了丰富有用的知识。我们可以创建自己的方法，但这里已经有一些很棒的方法了，我们就采用那些吧。

Like, you'll if you're if if the paper's super interesting and it's transformative, all that stuff, people want to do that again because it it had a good outcome. It had produced a nice, rich, useful knowledge. We could create our own methods, but there's some great ones here. Let's do those.

完全同意。我认为后质性研究（post qual）会反对这种做法。它会主张持续探索，寻找数据可能的新形式、新思路、新方法，以及不同的概念或理论来运用。这大概就是后质性研究的核心理念——保持这种探索和实验的精神。

Absolutely. So I think post qual would argue against that. Like, it would say, keep moving. Keep trying to find new ways, new ideas of what data might be, new approaches, new and different concepts to use or theories to use. So I guess that kind of is the essence behind post qual, is to keep moving in that way and keep experimenting in that way.

是的。我想这背后确实有一种抵抗的意图。而早期的质性研究者可能相对满足，他们最初创建这些方法论时未必有这种追求，但后来希望扩展这些方法，使其更具适用性，被不同研究群体和领域采纳。

Yeah. I guess there's an intention yeah, I suppose that it really is trying to resist that. Whereas guess the early qual researchers were reasonably happy. They weren't weren't necessarily looking to to be they were maybe initially created, but wanted to expand these methodologies to make them more usable and be taken up by different groups and sections of of research.

如果我们批判性地思考，这源于权力结构。我们不得不将这些方法变得更具体的原因，是为了获取资金支持，在健康研究领域获得合法性——在那个更倾向于实证主义的生物医学世界里，我们被要求这样做，以便用那些人能理解的方式证明我们工作的价值。这些来自我们试图融入并在其中管理研究职业生涯的权力结构，某种程度上迫使我们走上这条路。我在澳大利亚为国家医学研究委员会做评审，深知方法论呈现面临的诸多限制——你必须以主要读者是实证或后实证主义者的方式来呈现。

And if we think critically, it comes from the power structures. The reasons why we've had to sort of make these methods more concrete is for funding, is for legitimacy in health context, you know, in that kind of more positivist biomedical world, we've been asked to do that so that we can justify our work in a way that's understandable to those people, right? So comes from the power structures that we're trying to fit into and trying to, you know, manage research careers within, sort of force us into that. You know, I review for the National Medical Research Council here in Australia, I understand there's lots of constraints to how you can present methodologies. You really do need to do it in a way that you know that it's going to be primarily positivist or post positive as people reading your work.

没有资金显然很难开展研究。

And it's hard to do work without funding, obviously.

那么关于如何评判质量这个棘手话题——即使在质性研究中，如何评估可信度或严谨性（如果你倾向于这个术语）。后质性研究对构建在研究中的质量策略有何见解？我们如何区分好的和不太好的后质性研究？是否存在做得好与不好的区别？这些概念是否与质性研究类似，还是有所不同？

So maybe on that point about just judging the quality of I mean, this is a thorny topic, even qualitative research, how to judge, you know, trustworthiness or rigor, if you like, if you're that end of the spectrum. But what does what does PQI say about quality strategies built into research? How do we judge a good PQI study from a not so good PQI? Is there such a thing as good and bad, well conducted, not well conducted? Is it similar kind of notions within qual, or is there something different?

我认为评估质性研究的方式有很多种，其中某些绝对不适用于后质性研究。比如CORAQ这类清单式评估工具，或qual strobe之类的标准，显然不合适，因为我们正试图跳出这些要求特定内容的结构化框架。肯定不能用那些。但确实存在一些更宽泛的评估标准。

I'd say it's I mean, there's a whole lot of different ways in which qualitative research is assessed. And some of those would definitely not be appropriate for post qual. So, the checklist approaches like the CORAQ or something like that would, or the qual strobe ones, or whatever they are, certainly that would be inappropriate, because we're trying to get outside of those structural approaches where those ask for very particular things. Yeah, so definitely not that. But there are some much broader types of criteria.

我在思考特蕾西的大帐篷标准。其中一些可能与此相关，例如，我记得有八条大帐篷标准。有些不太适用。但这些概念，比如这个话题是否有趣且重要？

I'm thinking of Tracy's big tent criteria. So some of those might be relevant, for example. I think that's eight big tent criteria. Some of them not so much. But these concepts of, you know, is the topic of interest and important somehow?

是否有对内容的充分调查？它是否具备深度或某种意义？我不知道怎么说。在后质性研究中，能否启发新想法会很重要。显然几乎总会用到理论，但要避免落入那些典型术语的窠臼。

Is there kind of an adequate investigation of whatever it is? Has it got some kind of depth to it or some kind of point to it? I don't know, in some way. Does it open up new ideas would be quite relevant in post qual. And, you know, obviously there'd be almost always use of theory, and is that done in a way that's I'm trying to avoid some of those typical terms.

从某些方面来说这很难表述。但关键在于理论应用是否合理连贯。后质性研究指出，如果使用福柯的理论，就不能采用高度结构化的方法，否则从一开始就违背了后结构主义。比如使用后结构主义或德勒兹理论时，必须确保这种思想贯穿于写作方式、研究方法乃至数据收集过程。我曾用这些理论分析标准数据如访谈资料，但必须论证为何这样使用，以及如何对访谈有不同的理解，或如何突破结构化访谈的局限来获得新发现。这让我想起我一位博士生主导的另一篇论文，我可以分享给你。

It's quite difficult to speak about in some ways. But, you know, is the theory applied in a way that makes sense, that sort of continuous This is where PostQual came and said that if you're trying to use theory like Foucault, you can't really use methods that are very structured because it starts to break down Foucault's poststructuralism from the start. So if you're using a poststructuralist theory or a Deleuzerian theory, for example, you want to make sure that that carries through the way you've written the work, the way you've approached, perhaps approach collecting the data. Well, you know, I've used these theories to examine, you know, standard data, like interview data, but I have to argue why I'd be using these and sort of how I've differently understood these interviews, perhaps, or, you know, worked against this sort of structuralism of creating interviews to come up with something new from them. That reminds me of another paper that one of my PhD students led, and it was I'll share it with you.

我记不清完整标题了，但包含'游击'这个词，比如游击战士、游击园艺、纱线轰炸。这个概念源于游击战士需要运用各种非常规策略才能生存。我们分析了一个另类访谈——这是我的博士生蒂姆·巴特利特（现在是博士了）做的。

I can't remember the full title, but it's got the word gorilla, as in gorilla fighter, gorilla gardening, yarn bombing. Wow. You know, this idea that, I guess, gorilla fighters were underground and had to sort of use sort of all sorts of different sort of strategies to be able to exist and continue in the world. So we took one interview that was kind of this rogue interview. This is how Tim Bartlett, who was my PhD student, now Doctor.

蒂姆·巴特利特发现这个访谈与其他素材格格不入，于是用后质性方法重新审视。这几乎成为他博士研究的预演——非常具有后质性。他重新分析的这个访谈中，研究助理很难让受访者聚焦主题，对方总在说与研究无关但精彩的内容。

Tim Bartlett, this was an interview that just didn't fit properly with the others. So he reexamined this in a post call way. Was almost a practice run for his PhD work, which is very post qual. So he relooked at this interview, which, you know, the person that was doing the interviews for him, the research assistant, she had real difficulties keeping this interviewee on track. He was saying all these amazing things that were nothing to do with the research topic, so she kept trying to bring him in.

我们研究了这个异质性访谈，成果令人振奋。这篇方法论层面的论文让我们玩味受访者的观点如何与原研究问题产生关联，同时也迫使我们反思：何为有用？访谈如何形成束缚？甚至连研究问题本身也可能成为限制。

So we looked at this kind of dissident interview, and it was a fantastic exploration. It really, like, was kind of almost a methodological paper in that we played with these ideas that he had in relation to actually the initial interview question or the research question from that other study that he did, but it also really made us challenge what's seen as useful and what's not, how interviews can be really constraining, and how things like research questions actually can be quite constraining as well.

是的。你提到研究问题可能形成限制。那么该如何...我是说，探究总是始于问题。我明白不可能提出一个涵盖一切的问题。

Yeah. No. So the research you said that, you know, things like research questions can be constraining. And I suppose, well, how do you I mean, they even inquiry in you, like, you start with a with a question. I get that you can't ask a question which is which is which captures everything.

比如，这个问题必须聚焦于你感兴趣的问题。但你必须从一个问题开始。

Like, it's gotta be a question which is focused on the problem that you're kind of interested in. But you've got to start with a question.

但也许问题会变成别的什么，一旦开始探索，它难道不应该能够变化吗？你可以从一个问题开始，但应该质疑那个问题。我认为优秀的定性研究者也会这样做，对吧？并在过程中不断调整。但这说明如果我们真的被方法所限制，就会固守最初的问题，你明白吗？

But maybe the problem becomes something else, and shouldn't it be able to be once you start exploring it? You could start with a question, but you should question that question. And I think good qualitative researchers do that as well, right? And adapt it as they go. But I think it speaks to the fact that if we're really constrained by our methods, we'll start with the question, stick with the question, you know?

所以我想，是的，这是后实证主义会认同的一点，即不一定非要提出一个问题或对此过于僵化。

So I guess, yeah, that's one of the things post poll would agree with, is not necessarily posing a question or not being rigid about it as well.

我认为后定性研究中让我真正喜欢的一点——从我读过和听过的内容来看，也是我完全认同的——是它对研究中二元对立的批判。比如你要么是实证主义者，要么是解释主义者。它反对所有这些二元对立的思维方式。对吧？如果我完全搞错了，请随时纠正我。

I think one thing I I really do like about the post qual, the stuff that I've read and and kinda listened to is which I can totally identify with is this kind of dualism in research. So you're either a positivist or you're either a interpretivist. And, I mean, it kind of opposes all of those kind of dualistic ways of thinking. Right? Whether it's it could be pick me up if I completely misorder, if I'm wrong, if you like.

但那种非此即彼的观念——要么量化研究要么质性研究，要么实证主义要么解释主义——这种非黑即白的呈现或思考方式并不总是有帮助，因为实际情况往往比这更流动。

But the idea that you're either or, either or, you're either quant research or qual research or positivist or interpretivist, and that seems to be that black and white way of kind of presenting or thinking about things isn't always that helpful because things are a more fluid than that.

是的。在后结构主义理论特别是后人类主义理论中，这是一种看待客观性或物质性的新方式。它既不是纯粹人文主义的也不是纯粹物质的，这些概念之间存在许多模糊地带。所以不是非话语即物质的那种二分法。

Yeah. So with this post structuralist theory or particularly posthumanist theory, it's kind of this new way of looking at objectivity or materiality. So it's not either sort of humanist or material. There's so many ways in which those things are blurred in between. So it's not either discourse or material in that way.

因此，这些二元对立正是我们在后量化工作中试图打破的东西。

So, yeah, those dualisms are things that we try to work to break down in postquant work.

但在混合方法中，他们会说，好吧，我们对此已有答案——那就是实用主义。如果我们稍加调和，就能勉强融合定量与定性这两种认识论。虽然这常是两者的不愉快联姻，但之所以有效，是因为混合方法生成的知识确实能解决问题。

But in mixed methods, they would look to say, well, we've got the answer for that. It's called pragmatism. And if we just draw upon you know, we can kind of fudge fudge the two epistemologies quant qual. And it often is a bit of unhappy marriage between the two. But I suppose the reason why it works is that they would say that the reason why it works is because it works, because the the knowledge which are generated by mixed methods offers a solution to a problem.

因此其真实性在于实用性，这就是实用主义理念。但混合方法与后定性研究完全格格不入。

So it's it's truthfulness lies in the fact that it was useful. So that's the notion of pragmatism. But mixed methods doesn't fit well at all within post qual.

不，绝对不兼容。两者都基于认识论，而后定性研究反对认识论框架，它已转向本体论的思维方式。

No. No. Absolutely not. So both of them are quite epistemological, and post qual is against epistemology. So it's moved beyond that to an ontological way of thinking.

这里解释起来很微妙。后定性认为世界是在实践中被创造的，它摒弃了'知识独立于世界存在'的观念，将知识视为创造世界的过程本身。方法论和认识论在这里都被抛弃——用后定性视角审视混合方法研究时，你会发现其认识论或方法论已与数据深度纠缠，无法剥离。

Now, that's where it gets tricky to explain. So that's about the world being created as it's done, and it's moving away from these ideas that knowledge is separate from that. So it thinks of knowledge as creating the world, so as it happens, rather than we can take knowledge as a separate thing outside of that. So that's where methodology gets thrown away and epistemology gets thrown aside as well. So it would look at, I think, I would, if I'm looking with a post QUAL lens or a posthumous lens at a mixed methods study, I would say that the epistemological approaches or the methodological approaches that are used are so much involved in the data that you can't really separately entangle those.

你或许能看到某种解释性方法，除非他们采用后实证主义方式（这在混合方法中很常见）。比如定性部分的访谈研究与定量部分的后实证主义方法相互缠绕，最终形成两种特定的认知路径——这与后定性研究所能触及的问题维度截然不同。

So yes, you're seeing a sort of interpretive approach, perhaps, in one, unless they're doing it in a very post positivist way, which is pretty likely in mixed methods. So with their interview study or whatever that qual part is, and then they're using a very positivist or post positivist approach with their quantitative research as well. So that gets really entangled in their findings. And for me, they are creating a particular way of seeing whatever their research question is, or two particular ways of seeing it, which can't really access the problem in the same way that post COR would.

对我而言，这始终是个关键特质：认识论（或更准确说是本体论）、方法论与具体方法之间必须存在严密的逻辑一致性，每一层级都要为下一层级提供依据。我曾以为这种思考很精妙。

So to me, that's an that I've always considered it as an attribute that there's real consistency between your epistemology or rather ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods that these each have to justify the next, and there's a kind of logical consistency amongst them all. And I thought that was quite I thought I was being quite clever doing that.

不过这种划分确实干净利落，对吧？

But That's nice and tidy, right?

对，对，没错。

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

是的。但绝对并非如此。从定性研究的角度来看，我有幸在多伦多大学参加过批判性质量研究的研究生培训，那段经历非常棒。他们展示了几乎每种研究方法都可以与各种研究方法和认识论类型结合使用，这些概念确实容易混淆。

Yeah. But absolutely, that's not the case. And I know, even from a qualitative perspective, when I did my I was lucky enough to be able to sit in some graduate training in critical quality research at the University of Toronto, and it was absolutely fantastic. So they showed how every research method has been pretty much used with every research methodology, with every type of epistemology. So those things can get really mixed up.

可能更难证明其合理性，但这未必是坏事。某种程度上这属于后定性研究的范畴——我们发现混合使用这些方法能得出一些截然不同的结果。当然，我认为某些知识可能更容易通过特定方法获取，但这不意味着我们总是要用那些方法去追求那些知识。比如现象学研究，通过问卷调查可能很难触及本质，或许民族志研究或访谈会更合适。

It may be more difficult to justify how it works, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. And I think we, again, that's a bit post qual in a way, in that we find some quite different things from mixing those things up. I definitely think there's some, maybe some knowledges that are easier to access with particular methods, for example, but that doesn't mean we should always use those methods to try and get to those knowledges, I think. So for example, experiential studies is quite, maybe, you know, something phenomenological is probably quite hard to access through a survey, for example. It might be better to do ethnography or an interview or something like that.

但这不意味着你不能尝试用其他方法去探索。

But it doesn't mean you can't can't use other approaches to try and get at that.

确实。我完全理解你可以这么做，但这些认识论或本体论不都是基于特定前提的吗？如果用另一套假设去违背这些前提，虽然可行，但逻辑上会自相矛盾——它们在认识论层面根本不在同一个话语体系里。

Yeah. And I I certainly can see that you can, but isn't it isn't it the case that those epistemologies or ontologies are based on a set of premises? And if if you contravene those premises by matching them up with a different set of assumptions, you can of course, you can do that. But I imagine that these would be logically inconsistent. They they are they're not talking the same language epistemologically.

那你怎么可能将它们整合？因为它们在基础上就存在根本差异。

So how can you possibly bring them together? Because they're foundationally, they're quite different.

嗯。我不确定方法论和研究方法之间必然存在这种根本矛盾。如果我们并不真正信奉某种认识论，那么将其与方法论强行结合也会相当困难。

Yeah. I don't know if that's necessarily entirely the case with a method and a methodology. And then if we don't really believe in epistemology, then that's quite difficult to bring in there as well with the methodology.

所以我认为这相当激进，它确实是一种对成熟完善的方法论和定性研究思维方式的真正背离。我想问，我们是否必须——你开头简要回答过这个问题——但能否再详细谈谈，研究者是否可以借鉴PQI的部分内容来丰富和发展他们现有的工作，还是必须全盘接受、彻底转向？你的经历证明不必如此。但能否谈谈，我们是否能选取某些元素来支持现有定性研究，还是说这实际上行不通，必须真正深入其中？

So I guess it's all quite radical, and it's really moving it's a real departure from well established, well developed methodologies and methods and ways of thinking about qualitative research. And I suppose, do we have to and you you briefly are you did answer this in in in the beginning, but maybe just say a bit more about whether or not researchers can take away bits of PQI to to kind of embellish and develop their existing quo, or do we have to take all of it and jump ship completely and become I mean, you're evidence that you don't have to do that. But maybe just say a bit about about whether or not there are some element we can take bits of it to support our existing qual work, or actually that doesn't really work and you've gotta really, you know, dive in.

我认为就像大多数事物一样，存在纯粹主义者认为你应该全身心投入。我不是那种人，或许这对我自己来说不算什么卖点，但我确实是个喜欢混合搭配的人。如果你没有深入这些元素，就不能称之为后现代，但肯定可以从中汲取一些东西。这种方法变革的理念已被讨论很久，不仅在后定性语境中——我们常固守方法，过分追求‘正确’方式，这可能阻碍我们创造新观点或适合特定情境的方法。纯粹主义者会主张你需要阅读大量后结构主义理论才能真正理解其渊源。

I think like with just about anything, there's purists who think that you should go all in. I'm not one of those, and maybe that's not necessarily a good selling point for myself, but I'm certainly a mix and match kind of person. I don't think you could call it post if you're not sort of getting into a lot of these elements, but for sure, there's things you can take from it in that, you know, it's been discussed for a long time, not just in the post qual context, this method altering kind of thing that we get really stuck on methods and, you know, we're so caught up in doing things the right way that it might hold us back from creating different ideas or creating different methods or doing something that really suits the situation that you're in, for example. So I think you could take that idea there. But really, the purists would argue that you really do need to read a considerable amount of post structuralist theory to really understand where it's coming from.

这不是件容易的事。做统计学或扎根理论同样不易。这种世界观与我们多数人被教导的理解方式不同，因此需要相当的概念理解才能重新思考我们的习惯。

That is not an easy endeavour. It's not an easy endeavour to do statistics or to do grounded theory either. So I think it takes effort because this way of thinking about the world is not the way that most of us were taught to understand the world. So it does take a fair bit of conceptual understanding to sort of be able to rethink our habits.

我觉得你触及了一个关键点：某些传统已变得过于固化，人们不再质疑其中的步骤或...

I think you're onto something there about how it's becoming just set in stone, or there's kind of the some traditions have just become too crystallized, if you like, and people aren't necessarily questioning some of those steps or those So

我认为这是对抗那种固化趋势的运动之一，因为标准化虽有益处，但过度固化也极危险。这不是唯一的运动——我要特别提到批判性定性研究等长期致力于此的流派——它是抵抗量化研究中标准化概念主导的反弹力量之一。

I think it's one of the movements against that crystallization, because there's dangers. There's great things about standards, but there's great dangers in becoming really set as well. So I think it's one of the movements. Oh, it's definitely not the only movement, and I would definitely call out to critical qualitative research amongst others that have really been doing this work for a long time. It's one of the movements to try and push back against this kind of takeover of core research with some quite quant concepts of sort of standardisation, really.

这样做会丢失很多东西。并非说不能做这类研究，但我们不能只做这类。我说的‘我们’指整个研究群体——部分人做这类工作没问题，但若所有人都如此，将严重限制我们对世界的认知和行动可能。

And that a lot gets lost by doing that. It doesn't mean you shouldn't do that, but we shouldn't only do that. By we, I'm saying that the general research population, it's okay that some people do that type of work, but if we all do that type of work, it really constrains what can know and do in the world.

这正是我觉得它最有价值之处：正如你所说，它促使人们反思方法论背景和步骤。你会安于现状，比如认为‘我就是扎根理论学者，这就是我的立场’。对我来说，甚至这次对话前的预备阅读就让我感到不安——但这是好事。为什么这些方法会是现在这样？

And that's where I found it really useful is that it's just to, like you said, just to really encourage one to reflect on those methodological backgrounds and steps. And you do, you become comfortable, and you think, well, I'm I'm a grounded theorist, and this is what I'm about, and this is why I do it. And and I think I think for me, that's been even this conversation, but just the the kind of prereading before this has really made me kind of uncomfortable, but in a good way. Why why is that the case? And why is that you know, why are those methods the way that they are?

因此，即便我最终未必成为后质性研究者，这段经历确实为我提供了一个视角，让我理解自己为何从事当前的工作——这本身既引人入胜又极具价值，因为它揭示了那些被视为理所当然的研究方法所面临的批判。正如你所说，质性研究中某些做法逐渐变成不言自明、不容置疑的惯例，随着时间推移，人们不再质疑，仅仅因为前人都这么做。

And so even if I don't necessarily become a post qualitative researcher, there are certain you know, it's really offered me a a perspective into why I'm doing what I'm doing and which, yeah, it's been super super, you know, interesting and useful just to understand that there are criticisms against these kind of take because it becomes taken for granted in itself. The qual like you said, it becomes just assumed and self evident and unquestionable that these things are done because they are just part of qualitative research. And as time goes by, you tend not to question it. You just do it because it was done before you.

我认为这正是后现代思潮的宗旨所在。它们本质上是在对抗学术停滞，激励我们持续突破、保持思维创新。这是个非常值得铭记的核心观点，不是吗？

And I think, yeah, it's one of those and the posts are towards that. You know, they're really resisting sort of stagnancy, and they encourage us to keep moving, keep thinking differently. And that's a great, great take home message, right?

你认为后编码时代会如何发展？你觉得这个领域真的会蓬勃发展吗？

And where do you see it going post cod? Do you see it as really taking off?

很难预测。但后人类主义和后结构主义的概念不会消失——特别是后结构主义，自六十年代起就深刻影响着学界。福柯的思想已存在数十年，德勒兹与加塔利的理论至今仍极具影响力。

I don't know. I think the concept won't go away because posthumanism and poststructuralism is well and truly, you know, particularly poststructuralism, well and truly underway since the sixties, right? So Foucault's that's, been around for a long time. Well, he's died, but his ideas have been around a long time. Deleuze and Guattari is extremely popular.

当下像凯伦·巴拉德等后人类主义学者的著作在哲学和社会学领域非常前沿，这些理论正推动着学术边界。因此无论是否沿用'后质性'这个称谓，其内核不会消退——尽管这个命名本身还存在争议。

And then other, you know, posthumanists like Karen Burrard and, you know, various other work is very popular in terms of philosophy and sociology at the moment. So it's kind of on the cutting edge of that. So it's driven by that work. So I don't think it's going away. Whether it's called post qual or not, I think that's contested.

这是个存在争议的领域。'后质性'这个源自美国教育界的标签或许难以存续，就像其他学术概念争夺话语权那样。但名称本身可能被淘汰。

That's a contested space. So it may not That label may not exist. Like it came out of America, it came out of education. You know, pushes for its territories like other things do. But I don't think Yeah, so the name, maybe not.

不过这些理论概念会持续存在——它们目前处于学术边缘地带，或许正需要这样的位置。它们的作用就是冲击质性研究主流化的趋势，就像定量研究对质性的影响。我认为对标准化实践的抵抗将持续存在，支撑这些实践的理论基础也不会轻易消失。

But the concepts, I think, will live because live at the moment in the margins, which is where they sit and perhaps need to sit. And they're there to sort of, you know, push away at this mainstreaming action in the quoll space. Quoll does that for quad, I guess. So, yeah, I think that resistance to those standardised practices and qual will exist and that the elements of the theoretical elements that underpin them won't go away in a hurry.

珍妮，非常感谢你。

Jenny, thank you so much.

不客气。非常感谢你邀请我。

My pleasure. Thank you so much for inviting me.

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

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