HEALTH 健康

Care 护理
Disability 残疾
Trauma 创伤
Reflexivity 反身性
Feminist methods 女权方法

Data analysis is part self-analysis.
数据分析是自我分析的一部分。
—Kakali Battacharya, Embedding Critical, Creative and Contemplative Data Analysis in Interview Studies
卡卡利-巴塔查里亚，《在访谈研究中嵌入批判性、创造性和沉思性数据分析》

In the midst of a massacre $\dots$$\dots$dots\ldots as a storyteller opens her heart to a story listener, recounting hurts that cut deep and raw into the gullies of the self, do you, the observer, stay behind the lens of the camera, switch on the tape recorder, keep pen in hand?
$\dots$$\dots$dots\ldots 在一场大屠杀中，当一个讲故事的人向一个听故事的人敞开心扉，讲述那些深深切入自我沟壑的伤痛时，作为旁观者的你，是否会躲在摄像机的镜头后面，打开录音机，握紧手中的笔呢？
—Ruth Behar, The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart
露丝-贝哈尔，《脆弱的观察者》：让你心碎的人类学

In early 2020, I was poised to begin a study that aimed to better understand the experiences of spousal caregivers caring for an ill or disabled partner at home. I designed a study that would take place where I live, New York City. My plan was to recruit spousal caregivers for an interview study through a local spousal caregiver support group that met monthly. From there, I thought it might snowball to others who were caring for their spouse, but might not attend the group. As I garnered more participants, I would narrow down a subgroup to conduct participant observations with, which would mean inclusion of the ill spouse. I wanted to keep this subgroup small, perhaps around five couples, so I could spend time with them in their homes. I had envisioned a series of home visits over the course of a year or so. I hoped to spend time learning their daily routines, what life was like getting care, obtaining services, but also I wanted to get to know my participants in a way that let me understand their emotional experiences, how they navigated the intimacies of home and relationship.
2020 年初，我准备开始一项研究，旨在更好地了解配偶照顾者在家照顾患病或残疾伴侣的经历。我设计的研究将在我居住的纽约市进行。我的计划是通过当地的配偶照顾者支持小组招募配偶照顾者参加访谈研究，该小组每月举行一次会议。从那里开始，我想这可能会像滚雪球一样扩大到其他照顾配偶但可能不参加小组活动的人。随着参与人数的增加，我将缩小参与观察的分组范围，这就意味着将患病配偶也包括在内。我希望这个分组的人数不要太多，可能在五对左右，这样我就可以在他们的家中与他们共度时光。我设想在一年左右的时间里进行一系列家访。我希望花时间了解他们的日常生活，了解他们在接受护理和获得服务时的生活状况，同时我也希望通过这种方式来了解我的参与者，让我了解他们的情感经历，了解他们是如何处理家庭和人际关系中的亲密关系的。

Of course, that version of the study never happened. Like others, I had to completely re-imagine my fieldwork when the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in the US. The IRB office and myself both knew I was not going anywhere, least of all to ill or disabled folks’ homes, who were considered high risk, during this time. So, instead of recruiting through the local support group, I ended up sending recruitment materials for online or phone interviews to the national organization that ran it. They circulated these materials to not just the New York City group, but to group leaders across the country. My study was also posted to online spousal caregiver support groups via Facebook as well. I ended up with a national sample of approximately 44 caregivers across 22 states. I conducted all my interviews via video or phone, whichever was doable for them. I interviewed all but two of the participants at least twice, and some an additional few times. I also conducted contextual interviews with advocates, policy makers, and activists, which all added up to more than one hundred interviews.
当然，这个版本的研究从未实现过。和其他人一样，当 COVID-19 大流行在美国爆发时，我不得不重新规划我的实地工作。移民与难民事务局办公室和我本人都知道，在这段时间里，我哪儿也不能去，更不能去被视为高风险的病人或残疾人家中。因此，我没有通过当地的支持小组进行招募，而是将在线或电话访谈的招募材料寄给了管理该小组的全国性组织。他们不仅向纽约市的小组，还向全国各地的小组负责人分发了这些材料。我的研究还通过 Facebook 发布到在线配偶照顾者支持小组。最后，我在全国范围内抽取了 22 个州的大约 44 名照顾者。我通过视频或电话对所有受访者进行了访谈，以方便他们。除两人外，我对所有参与者都进行了至少两次访谈，有些人还进行了多次访谈。我还对倡导者、政策制定者和活动家进行了背景访谈，总共进行了 100 多次访谈。

While I ended up talking with many more people across a much
虽然我最终与更多的人进行了交谈，但却跨越了更多的领域。

wider geography, I missed the intimacy that came from visiting people in person for interviews. I always got so much information from where people live, what their homes look like, how their worlds felt. So to try and mitigate the lack of being in physical space together, I had participants send me photos of caregiving objects and tools. It could be anything they deemed important to care. I wanted to get creative: how could I see my participants’ worlds without actually entering them? In total, participants sent nearly 500 photos that included the inside and outside of their homes, their daily care objects and technologies. Our second interview was dedicated to the photos; we discussed them at length how these objects are used, who paid for them, and what they mean for them as they work to make their worlds accessible and livable.
在更广泛的地理范围内，我怀念亲自去采访的亲切感。我总是能从人们的住处、他们的家的样子、他们的世界的感觉中获得很多信息。因此，为了缓解在物理空间上的缺失，我让参与者给我发一些护理物品和工具的照片。可以是任何他们认为对护理很重要的东西。我想发挥自己的创造力：如何才能在不进入参与者世界的情况下看到他们的世界？参与者总共发送了近 500 张照片，其中包括他们家的内外环境、日常护理物品和技术。我们的第二次访谈专门讨论了这些照片；我们详细讨论了这些物品是如何使用的，谁为它们支付了费用，以及这些物品对他们来说意味着什么，因为他们正在努力使自己的世界变得无障碍和宜居。

After about a year of talking with spousal caregivers and keeping in touch with them, I asked a subset if I could visit. Vaccines had come and things were calming a bit. Five agreed to this and I flew or drove to see them, staying overnight in their home when necessary. This meant I could now pull in the disabled spouses to the research, getting their take in on it all and interviewing them as well. In all, I found myself doing fieldwork that was different from anything I could have imagined designing prior to the pandemic.
在与配偶照顾者交谈并保持联系大约一年后，我问其中一部分人我是否可以去看望他们。疫苗已经接种，情况也稍有缓和。有五个人同意了，我就坐飞机或开车去看他们，必要时在他们家过夜。这意味着我现在可以让残疾配偶参与研究，了解他们对这一切的看法，并对他们进行访谈。总之，我发现自己所做的实地调查与大流行病发生前我所能想象的任何设计都不同。

That is the context, the details of how the research ended up being done. But I will spend the rest of this article talking about how it felt to be researching care in the middle of a pandemic, where neither my survival nor theirs was guaranteed. Nor was it a given that our communities or government would enact collective care. It seemed we were left largely on our own to care for ourselves and each other. Meanwhile, several of my participants’ spouses died during the course of research (though not from COVID-19). One week they were alive, and by the time the next interview appointment came around, their partner had died. Some died later on, well after our interviews were concluded.
这就是研究工作的背景和细节。但是，我将用本文的其余部分来谈谈在大流行病中研究护理的感受，在这种情况下，我和他们的生存都没有保障。我们的社区或政府也不一定会采取集体护理措施。我们似乎只能靠自己来照顾自己和彼此。与此同时，我的几位参与者的配偶在研究过程中去世（虽然不是死于 COVID-19）。前一周他们还健在，等到下一次约见时，他们的伴侣已经去世了。有些人是在访谈结束后不久去世的。

In this way, the pandemic was just the first layer of crisis shaping fieldwork because participants were already dealing with their spouse’s serious illness and potential death from it. And my own history elevated this project to a potentially dangerous one for me. Because at age twenty-eight, I became a caregiver for my partner who had cancer. After about five years of intense caregiving, she died when I was thirty-three. Coming into this research then, I carried with me all the things that had previously broken me, all that I could not tell people, what I felt, how I coped, the darkness in that coping. I had some sense of what many of the participants were emotionally going through. At the same time, my partner had died in 2010; I was about a decade out from my own experiences, and I felt far enough away from it to safely do the work.
因此，大流行病只是影响田野工作的第一层危机，因为参与者已经在处理他们配偶的重病以及可能因此而死亡的问题。而我自己的经历也让这个项目对我来说具有潜在的危险性。因为在我 28 岁的时候，我成为了癌症伴侣的照顾者。经过大约五年的精心照料，她在我三十三岁时去世了。当时，我带着所有以前让我崩溃的事情、所有我无法告诉别人的事情、我的感受、我是如何应对的，以及应对过程中的黑暗，开始了这项研究。我对许多参与者的情感经历有一定的了解。与此同时，我的伴侣在 2010 年去世了；我从自己的经历中走出来大约十年，我觉得自己已经离那段经历足够远，可以安全地完成这项工作。

Throughout the project, I grappled with my own trauma and grief, alongside theirs. I simply could not have predicted how it was all going to feel. I am also convinced that I am not the only researcher to have experienced this; I am certainly not unique. And since how we feel about our work has implications across every aspect of it, I am also convinced that we must talk about it.
在整个项目过程中，我一直在与自己的创伤和悲伤作斗争，同时也在与他们的创伤和悲伤作斗争。我根本无法预料这一切会给我带来怎样的感受。我也相信，我不是唯一有这种经历的研究人员；我肯定不是唯一的。既然我们对工作的感受会影响到工作的方方面面，我也深信我们必须谈论这个问题。

Yet, strict sociological, disciplinary training can implore us to never let feelings seep in, to keep them contained and controlled in order to stay rigorous and “professional.” Claims about rigor are, among other things, sometimes just code for maintaining an imagined “cold” or “objective” relationship to our work. But being cold or stoic in interviews did not match my sense of ethics in this project, in this pandemic period, or, frankly, ever. I had to make sure the participants were centered and safe. Cool, unreflective detachment would not do that.
然而，严格的社会学和学科训练可能会恳求我们永远不要让感情渗入，要控制住感情，以保持严谨和 "专业"。除其他外，关于严谨的说法有时只是对我们的工作保持一种想象中的 "冷酷 "或 "客观 "关系的暗号。但是，在这个项目中，在这个大流行病时期，或者坦率地说，在任何时候，在采访中的冷酷或委曲求全都不符合我的职业道德。我必须确保参与者的中心地位和安全。冷漠、不加反思的疏离是做不到这一点的。

These broader debates about “professionalism” or “rigor” are important. The role of racism and coloniality in the maintenance of the illusion of rigor via “objectivity” is something Black feminist scholars (e. g., Collins, 2000; McKittrick, 2021), and indigenous scholars as well have long highlighted (e.g., Grande, 2015; Tuck, 2009). I have also commented about on this regarding this project elsewhere (Mauldin, 2023). But what I want springboard from here is how critiques of “objectivity” can also help us better lean into making sure our research is infused with care and is to keep participants and ourselves safe.
这些关于 "专业性 "或 "严谨性 "的广泛辩论非常重要。种族主义和殖民主义在通过 "客观性 "维持严谨假象中的作用是黑人女权主义学者（如 Collins, 2000; McKittrick, 2021）以及土著学者长期以来一直强调的问题（如 Grande, 2015; Tuck, 2009）。我在其他地方也就此项目发表过评论（Mauldin, 2023）。但是，我想在此引出的是，对 "客观性 "的批判如何帮助我们更好地确保我们的研究充满关爱，并保证参与者和我们自身的安全。
We can do that by taking care of ourselves and engaging in an ongoing assessment of our feelings, and being honest about them. For example, I had to carry the things participants told me. I had to hold them even when their stories triggered long buried memories of my own caregiving experiences, or triggered my own feelings of stress and loss about the pandemic. There were so many deep feelings I could not have foreseen. It became clear to me that as researchers, we must talk about our feelings and have a plan in place to help us know how to handle them.
要做到这一点，我们必须照顾好自己，不断评估自己的感受，并坦诚面对。例如，我不得不承受参与者告诉我的事情。即使他们的故事引发了我埋藏已久的对自己护理经历的回忆，或者引发了我自己对大流行病的压力和失落感，我也必须坚持下去。有太多我无法预见的深刻感受。我清楚地认识到，作为研究人员，我们必须谈论自己的感受，并制定计划帮助我们了解如何处理这些感受。

Certainly, I have my own unique circumstances, but so do each and every one of us committed to doing research that breaks our heart (Behar, 1996). And somehow, because of the experience of the pandemic, it feels urgently important now to confront these often-neglected realities of feelings in fieldwork. It also feels urgently important to counterbalance these feelings by deeply thinking about and planning for how to care for ourselves and our participants in our work. Because the pandemic brought to the fore that we are in the midst of a precarious world. And we must learn how to honestly confront and manage all that we bring with us, even in the face of disciplinary claims that our research practices should or could somehow be “neutral.”
当然，我有自己独特的情况，但我们每一个致力于从事研究的人也都会心碎（Behar，1996 年）。不知何故，由于这次大流行病的经历，我觉得现在迫切需要正视这些在实地工作中经常被忽视的现实感受。通过深入思考和计划如何在工作中关爱我们自己和我们的参与者，来平衡这些感受，也让人感到十分迫切。因为大流行病让我们意识到，我们正处于一个岌岌可危的世界之中。我们必须学会如何诚实地面对和处理我们所带来的一切，即使面对我们的研究实践应该或可以在某种程度上 "中立 "的学科主张。

Neutrality in our work is a delusion (Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008). It is always already true that each of us starts our work from our own experience. Even in C.W. Mills’ classic text, The Sociological Imagination, he argues the following:
我们工作中的中立是一种错觉（Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva，2008 年）。我们每个人都是从自己的经验开始工作的，这已经是不争的事实。即使在 C.W. 米尔斯的经典著作《社会学的想象力》中，他也有如下论述：

To say that you can ‘have experience,’ means, for one thing, that your past plays into and affects your present, and that it defines your capacity for future experience. As a social scientist, you have to control this rather elaborate interplay, to capture what you experience and sort it out; only in this way can you hope to use it to guide and test your reflection.
说你 "有经验"，首先意味着你的过去会影响你的现在，并决定你未来的经验能力。作为一名社会科学家，你必须控制这种相当复杂的相互作用，捕捉你的经验并加以整理；只有这样，你才有希望用它来指导和检验你的反思。

This basic assertion-that who we are shapes our work, thinking, and analyses-of course became a more explicit conversation in qualitative sociological methods decades later in the “reflexive turn” (Emerson, 2001; Jaggar, 2013). This happened largely thanks to feminist methodologists’ insistence that ethnographers and other qualitative researchers must consider interactions of power and positionality and think critically about knowledge production (Collins, 2000; Haraway, 1988; Sweet, 2020).
几十年后，在 "反思性转向"（Emerson, 2001; Jaggar, 2013）中，这一基本论断--我们的身份塑造了我们的工作、思维和分析--当然成为了定性社会学方法中更为明确的话题。这在很大程度上要归功于女性主义方法论专家的坚持，即民族志学者和其他定性研究者必须考虑权力和地位的相互作用，并对知识生产进行批判性思考（Collins, 2000; Haraway, 1988; Sweet, 2020）。

Consequently, reflexivity became a key feature of contemporary qualitative work, serving as a way to think through these politics of representation and establish ethnographic authority in the process. The result of all this reflexivity talk, however, is “increased attention to researcher subjectivity in the research process - a focus on how does who I am, who I have been, who I think I am, and how I feel affect data collection and analysis” (Pillow, 2003, p. 176). But of course, simply locating ourselves within social categories does not prevent our positionality from influencing our work (Pillow, 2003; Sweet, 2020). Nor does it release us from the discomfort that emerges as we grapple with fieldwork and the representation of what we find (Pillow (2003) calls these “reflexivities of discomfort”).
因此，反身性成为当代定性研究工作的一个重要特征，成为思考这些代表性政治并在此过程中建立民族志权威的一种方式。然而，所有这些反身性讨论的结果是 "研究者在研究过程中的主观性越来越受到关注--关注我是谁、我曾经是谁、我认为我是谁以及我的感受如何影响数据的收集和分析"（Pillow, 2003, p.176）。当然，仅仅将我们自己定位在社会类别中并不能阻止我们的立场影响我们的工作（Pillow, 2003; Sweet, 2020）。这也不能使我们摆脱在田野工作和表述我们的发现时所产生的不适感（Pillow (2003) 称之为 "不适感的反射性"）。

Others have taken reflexivity deeper and wrestled with discomfort too, such as St. Pierre and Adams (1997) idea of “folded subjectivity” which demands examining both our similarities and dissimilarities with participants when it comes to our experiences and pain. St. Pierre et al., (2014) go further, noting the need to embrace the ways data comes in forms outside of language - from emotion, dreams, senses-transforming the idea of data as something outside of us to be extracted, but instead as something we construct out of an assemblage of things both expected and unexpected, concrete and ephemeral. In short, data are not just the stories we gather, but the feelings that emerge from them. These feelings shape our understandings and our emotional lives, and ultimately construct what our work eventually becomes. We are
圣皮埃尔和亚当斯（1997 年）提出了 "折叠主观性 "的概念，要求在谈到我们的经历和痛苦时，研究我们与参与者的相似之处和不同之处。圣皮埃尔等人（2014 年）更进一步指出，有必要接受数据以语言之外的形式出现的方式--来自情感、梦境和感官--改变数据是我们之外的、需要提取的东西的观念，而是我们从预期的和意外的、具体的和短暂的事物组合中构建出来的东西。简而言之，数据不仅是我们收集的故事，也是从中产生的感受。这些感受塑造了我们的理解和情感生活，并最终构建了我们的作品。我们是
embedded in what we do.
蕴含在我们的工作中。
Feminist methodologists have particularly honed in on the role of feelings and relationality in the field, especially when sensitive and/or traumatic topics are involved. In her research on sexuality, Gonzalez-Lopez (2011) writes:
女权主义方法论专家特别关注情感和关系在研究领域中的作用，尤其是涉及敏感和/或创伤性主题时。冈萨雷斯-洛佩斯（Gonzalez-Lopez，2011 年）在她的性研究中写道：

I have become an introspective and critical observer of my own fieldwork experiences, which has helped me become more conscientious and alert to the emotional, physical and political safety and well-being of people participating in my research. I propose the concept of “mindful ethics” to keep researchers keenly aware of the taken-for-granted social contexts and circumstances that shape research participants’ lives (2011:449).
我对自己的田野工作经历进行了反省和批判性观察，这让我对参与研究人员的情感、身体和政治安全与福祉更加自觉和警觉。我提出了 "心智伦理 "的概念，使研究人员能够敏锐地意识到影响研究参与者生活的理所当然的社会背景和环境（2011:449）。

Gozalez-Lopez centers care and safety for ourselves as researchers and our participants, but suggests we need tools like mindfulness to help us stay engaged on that level while in the field. Her call for more attention to these matters is wise.
戈萨雷斯-洛佩斯将我们作为研究者和参与者的关怀和安全放在中心位置，但同时也建议我们需要像正念这样的工具，帮助我们在实地工作时保持这种参与度。她呼吁更多地关注这些问题，这是明智之举。

Likewise, Jackson (2021) argues that sensitive projects require a “relational ethics in practice … building good relationships and developing rapport with participants in an understanding, empathetic, and engaging manner is more suitable for researching sensitive topics” (Jackson, 2021, p. 3). Relational ethics in practice goes beyond standard ethical issues and questions of unequal relationships and instead point to the “hidden relational issues” that emerge as we respond to challenges and feelings during fieldwork and seek to “strike a balance between caring for the participants, answering the research questions, and other responsibilities” (Jackson, 2021, p. 2).
同样，Jackson (2021) 认为，敏感项目需要 "实践中的关系伦理......以理解、同情和吸引人的方式与参与者建立良好的关系并培养默契，更适合敏感话题的研究"（Jackson, 2021, p.3）。实践中的关系伦理超越了标准的伦理问题和不平等关系问题，而是指向 "隐藏的关系问题"，这些问题是我们在实地工作中应对挑战和感受时出现的，并寻求 "在关爱参与者、回答研究问题和其他责任之间取得平衡"（Jackson, 2021, 第 2 页）。

From these, we can see that care in the context of research has largely been approached within discussions of reflexivity and ethics in an attempt to address some of the emotional aspects of our work. Meanwhile, the reach of the work on the ethics of care in feminist scholarship has been enormous (e.g. Gilligan, 1982; Tronto, 1993) as these theorizations of care have traveled far and wide across disciplines. Yet, I struggled to find information about centering care in our research practices, although I routinely found discussions of “feminist ethics” or “care ethics” that emerge out of moral theories of care. However, these tended to emphasize ethical research practices that come from governing bodies like Institutional Review Boards or navigating dilemmas.
从中我们可以看出，研究中的关爱在很大程度上是在讨论反思性和伦理的过程中进行的，试图解决我们工作中的一些情感问题。与此同时，女权主义学术界关于关爱伦理的工作影响巨大（如吉利根，1982 年；特龙托，1993 年），因为这些关爱理论已经广泛传播到各个学科。然而，我却很难找到有关在我们的研究实践中以关爱为中心的信息，尽管我经常发现有关 "女权主义伦理学 "或 "关爱伦理学 "的讨论，这些讨论产生于关爱的道德理论。不过，这些讨论往往强调的是来自机构审查委员会等管理机构的伦理研究实践，或者是对两难困境的驾驭。

Overall, past feminist methodological considerations show that feelings in fieldwork are complicated and important to address. What I want to focus on here is how because of the topic or context, the experiences we bring may very well be far more complicated and intense in some projects than in others. When this is the case, these feelings require adequate consideration and reflection. Perhaps we are conducing our work while weathering a global pandemic, perhaps a climate crisis. These large-scale disasters can decimate us both collectively and individually.
总体而言，过去的女性主义方法论思考表明，田野工作中的感受是复杂的，也是需要解决的重要问题。在此，我想重点说明的是，由于主题或背景的不同，我们在某些项目中的体验可能会比在其他项目中复杂得多，强烈得多。在这种情况下，需要对这些感受进行充分的思考和反省。也许我们在开展工作的同时，正在经历一场全球性的大流行病，也许是一场气候危机。这些大规模的灾难会对我们的集体和个人造成严重影响。

When it comes to researching health, we also all share the commonality of having a body, and bodies are fallible. That fallibility is deeply feared; when our bodies or our loved ones’ bodies ultimately give out, we grieve. As such, heightened emotional complexity like grief and trauma are likely to be present in research exploring illness, disability, and care. But of course, such depths and traumas are not limited to illness-related topics. There are any number of crises in the world that scar us; racism, misogyny, poverty, abuse, neglect, and countless others that carry on. This is all to say that whatever the cause, emotional responses in fieldwork are appropriate and human.
在研究健康问题时，我们都有一个共同点，那就是我们都有一个身体，而身体是易损的。当我们或我们所爱的人的身体最终衰竭时，我们会感到悲伤。因此，在探索疾病、残疾和护理的研究中很可能会出现悲伤和创伤等复杂情绪。当然，这种深度和创伤并不局限于与疾病相关的主题。世界上有许多危机给我们留下了伤痕；种族主义、厌女症、贫困、虐待、忽视以及无数其他危机仍在继续。这一切都说明，无论起因如何，实地工作中的情绪反应都是适当的，也是人之常情。

But what happens then when we endeavor use social science (wherein talks of methods tend to be focused on taming the messiness around us) to understand a world that is indeed complex, painful, and messy? Law (2004) writes that we must “remake” social science so that it can be “better equipped to deal with mess, confusion and relative disorder” (2004:2). Furthermore, he suggests, our methods of inquiry often do not know what to do with the messiness, despite messiness being part and parcel of the work. Indeed, “pains and pleasures, hopes and horrors … are hardly caught by social science methods” (Law, 2004, p. 2).
但是，当我们努力利用社会科学（在社会科学中，关于方法的讨论往往侧重于驯服我们周围的混乱）来理解一个确实复杂、痛苦和混乱的世界时，会发生什么呢？Law（2004）写道，我们必须 "重塑 "社会科学，使其能够 "更好地应对混乱、困惑和相对无序"（2004:2）。此外，他还指出，我们的研究方法往往不知道如何处理混乱，尽管混乱是工作的一部分。事实上，"痛苦和快乐、希望和恐怖......很难被社会科学方法捕捉到"（Law, 2004, p.2）。
Perhaps, he suggests, we must consider our embodied, emotional responses as forms of knowledge because it is precisely our "“private’ emotions that open us to worlds of sensibilities, passions, intuitions, fears and betrayals” (2004:3).
他认为，也许我们必须将我们的身体和情感反应视为知识的形式，因为正是我们的"'私人'情感为我们打开了感性、激情、直觉、恐惧和背叛的世界"（2004:3）。

We need not fear the messiness, but rather we must learn to be more generous in our thinking and feeling about methods. We need not pretend the messiness is not there, it is what we do with that messiness that counts. Because how we feel about our research and in our fieldwork, including difficult or uncomfortable feelings, can be an asset. They give us insight. As Barbara Katz Rothman wrote of her research on prenatal testing and talking with women who had had abortions, “I could not have understood it intellectually, I don’t think, if I had not experienced it emotionally” (1986:53). What must be addressed then is how to deal with our feelings, and recognizing that they can bring both vulnerabilities and strengths to our work.
我们不必惧怕混乱，相反，我们必须学会在思考和感受方法上更加宽容。我们不必假装混乱不存在，重要的是我们如何对待这种混乱。因为我们在研究和实地工作中的感受，包括困难或不舒服的感受，可能是一种财富。它们能让我们洞察一切。正如芭芭拉-卡茨-罗斯曼（Barbara Katz Rothman）在谈到她对产前检查的研究以及与流产妇女的交谈时写道："如果没有情感上的体验，我想我不可能在理智上理解它"（1986:53）。因此，必须解决的问题是如何处理我们的情感，并认识到情感会给我们的工作带来弱点和优势。

And this is where I found myself in this project; both emotionally experiencing the pandemic alongside my participants, while also having had emotionally experienced similar caregiving circumstances that they faced. But social analysis is about taking the singular to the plural (Rosaldo, 1993). How do we learn to toggle between what we know emotionally and what we must understand and analyze structurally, culturally, in its plural form? How do we take the stories participants share with us and convey and confront the emotional force of them, but do so safely?
这也是我在这个项目中发现自己的地方：既在情感上与参与者一起经历了大流行病，又在情感上经历了他们所面临的类似的护理环境。但是，社会分析就是将单数变为复数（Rosaldo，1993 年）。我们该如何学会在我们感性认识的东西和我们必须从结构上、文化上、复数形式上理解和分析的东西之间切换？我们如何在安全的情况下，接受参与者与我们分享的故事，并传达和面对其中的情感力量？

All of these ideas and questions are my attempts to engage with the importance of bringing what is usually hidden in our research process, what we might even feel ashamed about feeling, to light. Reflexivity, considerations of our subjectivity, and emotions in fieldwork are all important. But knowing about these concepts did not provide relief from or guidance for navigating the collective trauma of the pandemic and the personal trauma I brought related to the topic. As Barbara Katz Rothman also wrote, “I began the project knowing there would be sad and unpleasant aspects, but not realizing the depth of it, nor how it would shake me” (1986:48). I recognized in that statement an act of care for other researchers. I needed to hear that, that someone else had been gutted by their project. But I also needed explicit guidance for how to have the courage to be vulnerable within my work, while at the same time adequately caring for myself and my participants in the process. That is, in the middle of all these crises, of all the trauma, I needed a care plan. This left me to draw from my experience with trauma to devise ways to cope with fraught and difficult feelings on my own, thus emerged what I call crisis methods. I hope this can become a care plan for others too.
所有这些想法和问题都是我的尝试，目的是让我们认识到将研究过程中通常被隐藏的东西，甚至是我们可能会感到羞愧的东西公之于众的重要性。反思性、对我们主观性的考虑以及田野工作中的情感都很重要。但是，对这些概念的了解并不能缓解或指导我们如何应对大流行病带来的集体创伤以及我个人与该主题相关的创伤。正如芭芭拉-卡茨-罗斯曼（Barbara Katz Rothman）也写道："我开始这个项目时知道会有悲伤和不愉快的方面，但没有意识到它的深度，也没有意识到它会如何震撼我"（1986:48）。我从这句话中体会到了对其他研究人员的关怀。我需要听到这句话，听到别人被自己的项目折磨得体无完肤。但我也需要明确的指导，告诉我如何在工作中鼓起勇气表现出脆弱的一面，同时在这一过程中充分关爱我自己和我的参与者。也就是说，在所有这些危机和创伤中，我需要一个护理计划。这让我不得不从我的创伤经验中汲取养分，设计出一些方法来独自应对充满焦虑和困难的情绪，于是就出现了我所说的危机处理方法。我希望这也能成为其他人的护理计划。

The continued global and local crises we face are marked by upheaval, uncertainty, messiness. And often times, whether we or our participants know it, trauma is present. As someone who lives with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, I knew that engaging in this research could be dangerous for me, pandemic or not. My experience was the reason I devised the project, and it deeply affected how I interacted with my participants, and threaded through everything from research design to analysis to writing.
我们所面临的持续的全球和地方危机的特点是动荡、不确定性和混乱。很多时候，不管我们或我们的参与者是否知道，创伤都是存在的。作为一个患有复杂的创伤后应激障碍的人，我知道参与这项研究对我来说可能是危险的，无论大流行与否。我的经历是我设计这个项目的原因，它深深地影响了我与参与者的互动方式，并贯穿了从研究设计、分析到写作的所有环节。

The first step is to understand that our closeness to a topic is a strength, not a hindrance. That is to say, our scars can give us greater competence and qualification to do our work (though it absolutely does not mean that we should do it, but nor does it mean that we should not). One reason our experiences can be a strength is that when we have closeness to trauma or grief, we are often able to overcome failures of imagination that those without it may have. We may know the questions that need to be asked or more carefully choose our framings, we may know how to access and explain meanings and behaviors that others without that closeness who are analyzing it can miss. Our experiences can be an asset, not a liability. But we must learn to safely and healthily conduct our work.
第一步是要明白，我们与某一主题的亲密关系是一种优势，而不是障碍。也就是说，我们的伤疤可以让我们更有能力和资格去做我们的工作（虽然这绝对不意味着我们应该去做，但也不意味着我们不应该去做）。我们的经历可以成为一种力量的原因之一是，当我们亲身经历创伤或悲伤时，我们往往能够克服那些没有经历的人可能会有的想象力上的失败。我们可能知道需要提出什么问题，或者更仔细地选择我们的框架，我们可能知道如何获取和解释意义和行为，而没有这种亲近感的人在分析时可能会忽略这些意义和行为。我们的经验可以成为一种资产，而不是负债。但我们必须学会安全、健康地开展工作。

Crisis methods are oriented around a trauma-informed frame, which sees the multifaceted nature of trauma as both deeply wounding, but also generative. And just a note: I certainly do not use the “t-word” lightly here; trauma can be a catch-all in the cultural discourse overly used, flippantly thrown around (Sehgal, 2022; Taylor, 2022). But crisis methods takes it seriously and uses a trauma-informed approach as a way to center care. While I noted in the previous section that other researchers have written about the ethics of researching sensitive topics as tools for attending to our emotions as well as our participants’ emotions, I see integrating a trauma-informed approach as extending these conversations into something more specific and specialized.
危机处理方法以创伤知情框架为导向，认为创伤具有多面性，既会造成严重伤害，也会产生影响。我在这里并不是随便使用 "t-word "这个词；在文化话语中，创伤可能是一个包罗万象的词，被过度使用，被轻率地抛来抛去（Sehgal, 2022; Taylor, 2022）。但是，危机处理方法会认真对待这个问题，并采用创伤知情方法作为护理中心。我在上一节中指出，其他研究人员已经撰文论述了研究敏感话题的伦理问题，并将其作为关注我们的情感以及参与者情感的工具。

A trauma informed approach first requires some basic knowledge of trauma, having an awareness of what types of experiences may cause trauma (and therefore asking oneself if their topic might be one that produces trauma), and how trauma manifests itself emotionally and psychologically (and therefore educating oneself with a basic understanding of the signs and symptoms of trauma and instituting an adequate plan for managing these). Judith Herman defined trauma in her landmark book Trauma and Recovery as such:
创伤知情方法首先需要对创伤有一些基本的了解，意识到哪些类型的经历可能会造成创伤（因此要自问他们的主题是否可能会产生创伤），以及创伤在情感和心理上是如何表现出来的（因此要教育自己对创伤的迹象和症状有基本的了解，并制定适当的计划来处理这些迹象和症状）。朱迪斯-赫尔曼（Judith Herman）在其具有里程碑意义的著作《创伤与康复》（Trauma and Recovery）中对创伤做出了如下定义：

Traumatic events are extraordinary, not because they occur rarely, but rather because they overwhelm the ordinary human adaptations to life. Unlike commonplace misfortunes, traumatic events generally involve threats to life or bodily integrity, or a close personal encounter with violence and death. They confront human beings with the extremities of helplessness and terror, and evoke the responses of catastrophe" (1992:33).
创伤事件之所以非同寻常，并不是因为它们很少发生，而是因为它们压倒了普通人对生活的适应能力。与普通的不幸不同，创伤事件通常涉及对生命或身体完整性的威胁，或者是与暴力和死亡的亲密接触。它们使人类面临无助和恐怖的极端处境，并引起灾难性的反应"（1992:33）。

Taking a trauma-informed approach means attending to the potential reality that our participants may have experienced what we are asking them about as trauma.
采取以创伤为基础的方法意味着要关注参与者的潜在现实，即他们可能经历过我们所询问的创伤。

This, however, does not require our participants to explicitly state their relationship with trauma, rather it is a framework for conducting research carefully, for accounting for this possibility. A crisis methods approach sees it as appropriate and careful to cultivate our awareness as researchers in case this is something we encounter in our participants and/or ourselves.
不过，这并不要求我们的参与者明确说明他们与创伤之间的关系，相反，这是一个谨慎开展研究、考虑到这种可能性的框架。危机研究法认为，作为研究人员，我们应该谨慎地培养自己的意识，以防我们的参与者和/或我们自己遇到这种情况。

Given my commitment to a trauma-informed approached, and my own history with PTSD, the first commitment I had to make was to protecting myself during the interviews, precisely because this would in turn protect the participants too. The need for this became painfully clear very early on. In some of the first interviews, I experienced memory floods, dissociation, and depression directly from them and during them. All the while, as I wrote elsewhere (Mauldin, 2023) I was already in a vulnerable state, as many of us were, with the pandemic context. Whether aware of it or not, we were all collectively navigating a massive societal trauma on top of everything else. This further cemented the need to honestly confront how my PTSD was going to affect me and others in the research process and creating a care plan. The context of the pandemic also meant that perhaps there was a burgeoning interest in taking seriously that trauma may exist. With millions of deaths happening around us, it seemed then to be a moment in which we could pause and acknowledge that there are things that shape us, and irrecoverably so.
考虑到我对创伤知情方法的承诺，以及我自己的创伤后应激障碍病史，我必须做出的第一个承诺就是在访谈过程中保护自己，因为这反过来也会保护参与者。很早以前，我就痛苦地意识到这样做的必要性。在最初的一些访谈中，我直接经历了记忆泛滥、解离和抑郁。同时，正如我在其他地方写到的（Mauldin, 2023 年），在大流行病的背景下，我已经处于一种脆弱的状态，就像我们中的许多人一样。无论意识到与否，我们都在共同经历一场巨大的社会创伤。这进一步坚定了我们在研究过程中诚实地面对创伤后应激障碍对我和其他人的影响以及制定护理计划的必要性。大流行病的背景也意味着，也许人们对认真对待可能存在的心理创伤的兴趣正在萌芽。随着数百万人的死亡在我们身边发生，我们似乎可以停下来，承认有些事情会塑造我们，而且是无法挽回的。

This is how I found myself explicitly developing and engaging with trauma-informed methods from a whole host of sources. Crisis methods, I determined, would sit with the complexities of trauma and grief, of our relationship to ourselves, our participants, and our research. Crisis methods would deliberately infuse care using a trauma-informed approach. Whether it be myself, my participants, or both, a protocol for care, a crisis method was needed.
就这样，我发现自己明确地发展并参与了来自各种来源的创伤知情方法。我决定，危机处理方法将考虑到创伤和悲伤的复杂性，以及我们与自己、参与者和研究之间的关系。危机处理方法将有意识地将创伤知情方法渗透到护理工作中。无论是我自己，还是我的参与者，或者是两者，都需要一个护理协议，一个危机处理方法。

Thus, I began in earnest to look for discussions of trauma-informed research methods in sociology. I needed a systematic approach, a way to think about what was happening to me and to my participants. I found that while traumatic aspects of field work (whether it is the trauma we carry or the trauma our participants carry) were sometimes mentioned, as Gonzalez-Lopez (2011) discussed in the mindful ethics piece and
因此，我开始认真寻找社会学中有关创伤知情研究方法的讨论。我需要一种系统的方法，一种思考发生在我和我的参与者身上的事情的方法。我发现，正如冈萨雷斯-洛佩斯（Gonzalez-Lopez，2011 年）在《心灵伦理》一文中讨论的那样，虽然有时会提到田野工作中的创伤问题（无论是我们自身携带的创伤还是参与者携带的创伤），但也有一些人认为，田野工作中的创伤问题是 "不可控的"。
Rothman (1986) discussed in her reminder that we must give ourselves space to grieve in fieldwork, I could not find much sociological work addressing trauma head on. Is the lack of robust engagement on this because we spend our disciplinary energy trying to perform a kind of flatness, trying to live up to the idea of a detached, distanced observer? This was not going to work.
罗斯曼（Rothman，1986 年）在提醒我们必须在田野工作中给自己留出悲伤的空间时提到，我没有发现多少社会学研究能够直面创伤。我们在这方面缺乏有力的参与，是因为我们花费了学科精力来试图表现出一种平面性，试图践行一个超脱的、有距离感的观察者的理念吗？这是行不通的。

I searched across disciplines for others who talked about trauma in their work. I pieced together a breadcrumb trail, simply wanting to know that I was not alone. I found Ellingson (1998), who works in communication. She wrote about conducting a study of cancer patient experiences as a cancer survivor herself. In triggering moments where the similarities in experiences were too painful and overwhelming, she notes that “the distance between us shortens dramatically” (1998:493) and goes on to say that while most researchers want readers to think their findings are “uncontaminated” and therefore "scientific, “I have as my goal the opposite: to reassure the reader that my findings are thoroughly contaminated. This contamination with my own lived experiences results in a rich, complex understanding of the staff and patients of the clinic in which I am observing” (1998:494). This resonated.
我跨学科寻找其他在工作中谈到创伤的人。我拼凑了一条面包屑线索，只是想知道我并不孤单。我找到了从事传播工作的 Ellingson（1998 年）。她写道，作为一名癌症幸存者，她对癌症患者的经历进行了研究。她指出，"我们之间的距离大大缩短了"（1998:493），并接着说，大多数研究人员都希望读者认为他们的研究结果是 "未受污染的"，因此是 "科学的"，而我的目标恰恰相反：让读者放心，我的研究结果已被彻底污染。这种与我自身生活经验的融合，使我对所观察诊所的工作人员和病人有了丰富、复杂的理解"（1998:494）。这一点引起了共鸣。

Ellingson wrote of flashbacks and waves of nausea in the middle of interviews (as I also experienced), and underscored the importance of caring for herself and empathizing with other survivors. She goes on to say, “I remember to be gentle with myself, and I grieve. My experiences and those of the patients and staff end up mixed together. When I weep for [participant], I weep for myself. And when I sit alone with my journal and grieve my pain, I also grieve the collective pain of cancer survivors.” (Ellingson, 1998, p. 507). Grief then, it seemed to me, was indeed method. And then I stumbled upon a geographer next, who outlined exactly that. Mitchell-Eaton (2019) writes: “Grief as method’ is an emotionally-inflected and vulnerable practice that recognizes, and affirms, its own vulnerability” (2019:1439). The result is a more empathetic researcher, “one who is more highly attuned to others’ emotions and to her own. Paradoxically, it is grief’s ‘highly attuned’ state that both enables more intimate connections and hinders our ability to engage at all. This conundrum poses no easy answers for fieldwork. ‘Grief as method’ sits with this unresolved tension, embracing its emotional complexity and the unique vantage it offers to researchers” (2019: 1439).
埃林森写道，在采访过程中，她会出现闪回和恶心的感觉（我也经历过），她强调了关爱自己和与其他幸存者产生共鸣的重要性。她接着说："我记得要温柔地对待自己，我感到悲伤。我的经历和病人及工作人员的经历最终会混杂在一起。当我为（参与者）哭泣时，我也为自己哭泣。当我独自坐在日记前，为自己的痛苦悲伤时，我也为癌症幸存者的集体痛苦悲伤"。(艾林森，1998 年，第 507 页）。在我看来，悲伤的确是一种方法。接下来，我又偶然发现了一位地理学家，他恰恰概述了这一点。米切尔-伊顿（Mitchell-Eaton，2019 年）写道："'作为方法的悲伤'是一种带有情感色彩的脆弱实践，它承认并肯定自身的脆弱性"（2019:1439）。其结果是研究者更具同理心，"对他人和自己的情感更加敏感。自相矛盾的是，正是悲伤的 "高度契合 "状态促成了更亲密的联系，同时也阻碍了我们参与其中的能力。这个难题并没有为田野工作提供简单的答案。'作为方法的悲伤'与这一悬而未决的矛盾共存，拥抱其情感的复杂性及其为研究者提供的独特优势"（2019: 1439）。

That is to say, our grief both expands our capacities as researchers, but also may inhibit us at times. We may know how to create an interview encounter in which people are more comfortable sharing because grief can render us more open. This gentleness that can come from knowing grief can create a space for interviewees to share more. As a result, they may be more vulnerable with us, precisely because our own vulnerability may be acknowledged-though not centered, which is an important distinction. But we must be careful; our shared trauma does not mean we have shared circumstances, Mitchell-Eaton warns. The point, however, is that our grief, our traumatic experiences, can allow us to connect more deeply with participants, particularly when the stories are themselves about grief and trauma.
这就是说，我们的悲伤既能扩展我们作为研究者的能力，但有时也会抑制我们。我们可能知道如何创造一个让人们更乐于分享的访谈环境，因为悲伤会让我们更加开放。这种因了解悲伤而产生的温和态度可以为受访者创造更多的分享空间。因此，他们在我们面前可能会更加脆弱，这正是因为我们自己的脆弱可能会得到承认--尽管不是以我们为中心，这是一个重要的区别。米切尔-伊顿警告说，但我们必须谨慎；我们有共同的创伤并不意味着我们有共同的境遇。然而，问题的关键在于，我们的悲伤、我们的创伤经历可以让我们与参与者建立更深的联系，尤其是当故事本身就是关于悲伤和创伤的时候。

In the field of nursing, Dempsey et al. (2016) focus on the trauma or distress that might be experienced by interviewees rather than by the researchers themselves. They highlight the need for a protocol for sensitive research topics, meaning those that might evoke more emotional responses than others. In these moments, rapport and trust are key, and interviews may be therapeutic for participants. I also found this to be true in my research. Most of my participants expressed gratitude for having a space to share their feelings, that no one had asked them to tell their story before, and at times they told me how they came to understand their experiences in a different way because of the interview. That is, the interview itself was experienced as care. And care is indeed required in these encounters. One way for researchers to do that, Dempsey et al. (2016) write, is to develop empathetic listening and have a distress protocol. This can simply be letting participants know they can stop, take a break, and ask them if they need any referrals to support resources (and to have these resources ready). I will say more about
在护理领域，Dempsey 等人（2016 年）关注的重点是受访者而非研究人员本身可能经历的创伤或痛苦。他们强调有必要为敏感的研究课题制定一个协议，即那些可能比其他课题更容易引起情绪反应的课题。在这种情况下，融洽的关系和信任是关键，访谈可能会对参与者起到治疗作用。我在研究中也发现了这一点。我的大多数参与者都对有这样一个空间来分享他们的感受表示感谢，他们说以前没有人要求他们讲述自己的故事，有时他们告诉我他们是如何通过访谈以不同的方式理解自己的经历的。也就是说，访谈本身就是一种关怀。在这些接触中，确实需要关怀。Dempsey 等人（2016 年）写道，研究人员要做到这一点，方法之一是培养移情聆听能力，并制定求救协议。这可以简单地让参与者知道他们可以停下来休息一下，并询问他们是否需要任何转介支持资源（并准备好这些资源）。我将详细介绍
these specifics in the following section.
下文将介绍这些具体细节。
Anthropology also offered ideas. Behar’s (1996) The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart advocates for work that requires vulnerability, work that demands our care, work that deeply and emotionally changes us. Ethnography, she writes, is a most bizarre form of witnessing. And fieldwork is a journey that includes “loss, mourning, the longing for memory … the fear of observing too coldly or too distractedly or too raggedly, the rage of cowardice, the insight that is always arriving late, as defiant hindsight, a sense of the utter uselessness of writing anything and the burning desire to write something” (1996:2).
人类学也提供了一些想法。贝哈尔（1996 年）的《脆弱的观察者：人类学让你心碎》一书主张人类学工作需要脆弱，需要我们的关怀，需要在情感上深刻地改变我们。她写道，人种学是一种最奇特的见证形式。田野工作是一段旅程，其中包括 "失落、哀悼、对记忆的渴望......对观察过于冷漠、过于心不在焉或过于粗糙的恐惧，对懦弱的愤怒，总是姗姗来迟的洞察力，就像蔑视的事后诸葛亮，对写任何东西都毫无用处的感觉，以及对写点什么的强烈渴望"（1996:2）。

Then I encountered Munyikwa (2019), a medical anthropologist, who took up the need to think about ethnography itself as care:
后来，我遇到了医学人类学家穆尼克瓦（Munyikwa，2019 年），他认为有必要将民族志本身视为一种关怀：

Medical anthropology is increasingly framed not only as the study of care, but as care itself; the ethnographer, here, is a kind of caregiver whose mode is witnessing … A critical role that ethnography plays is to provide testimony to those broader forces which constrain the lives of our interlocutors, to bear witness to their attempts to live, to thrive, to become otherwise.
医学人类学越来越多地不仅是对护理的研究，也是对护理本身的研究；在这里，人种志学者是一种护理者，其工作方式是见证......人种志所发挥的一个关键作用是为那些制约我们对话者生活的更广泛的力量提供见证，见证他们试图生活、茁壮成长、成为另一种人的努力。

But Munyikwa also notes, of course, that there are big implications for thinking this way, to care is complex, and to think about our work as care is complex too. We need more conversations these complexities, Munyikwa writes.
当然，Munyikwa 也指出，这样思考会产生很大的影响，因为关爱是复杂的，而把我们的工作视为关爱也是复杂的。芒伊克瓦写道，我们需要更多关于这些复杂性的对话。

I kept going, moving beyond these disciplines in search of more on trauma-informed approaches. I found that lot of this kind of approach appears in work related to developing best practices for interviewing victims of crimes in the course of detective work, or for providing trauma-informed care in human services work. Of course, we are not therapists, and we are not clinicians. We are sociologists, but we have to bear in mind that it is our responsibility to care for participants in the course of the research too.
我继续前进，超越了这些学科，寻找更多关于创伤知情的方法。我发现，很多这类方法都出现在与制定最佳实践相关的工作中，如在侦探工作中与犯罪受害者面谈，或在人类服务工作中提供创伤知情护理。当然，我们不是治疗师，也不是临床医生。我们是社会学家，但我们必须牢记，在研究过程中照顾参与者也是我们的责任。

Then, in the summer of 2020, it just so happened that the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute out of the University of North Carolina ran a webinar on trauma informed methods. This turned out to be incredibly important and shaped the crisis methods I devised, which I lay out in the next section. But it was after following these trails across disciplines that I realized, I indeed needed something more trauma-specific and trauma explicit.
然后，在 2020 年夏天，北卡罗来纳大学的北卡罗来纳转化与临床科学研究所恰好举办了一次关于创伤知情方法的网络研讨会。这对我来说非常重要，并影响了我所设计的危机处理方法，我将在下一节介绍这些方法。但是，在追随这些跨学科的足迹之后，我才意识到，我确实需要一些更具创伤针对性和创伤明确性的方法。

This is what led me to integrate ideas from “trauma stewardship” (Lipsky & Burk, 2009). Trauma stewardship first and foremost means being willing to pay attention to issues of trauma and talking plainly about how we come to do the work we do, how it affects us, and how we can learn from it. And I like the idea of stewardship; that we are responsible for taking something and moving it somewhere else, bringing it forth.
这促使我将 "创伤管理"（Lipsky & Burk, 2009）的理念融入其中。创伤管理首先意味着愿意关注创伤问题，并坦率地谈论我们是如何开展工作的，它是如何影响我们的，以及我们如何从中学习。我喜欢 "管理 "这个概念；我们有责任将某些东西带到其他地方，并将其发扬光大。

Trauma stewardship is also based on the contention that “The more personal our connection to our work, the greater the gifts we bring to it” (2009:19). And this, I think, is profoundly counterintuitive in sociology (and something we should probably sit with). But Lipsky and Burk echo sentiments I had found across methodological literatures; namely, that your history lets you connect more intimately, that your experiences give you deeper awareness of the complexities and issues, but that this awareness can also make you more vulnerable as you engage the work. I drew from trauma stewardship then to frame crisis methods, which reflect this approach:
创伤管理还基于以下论点："我们与工作的联系越紧密，我们的天赋就越大"（2009:19）。我认为，这与社会学的直觉完全背道而驰（我们或许应该接受这一点）。但是，利普斯基和伯克的观点与我在各种方法论文献中发现的观点不谋而合；也就是说，你的历史会让你与他人建立更紧密的联系，你的经历会让你对复杂性和问题有更深刻的认识，但这种认识也会让你在参与工作时更加脆弱。因此，我借鉴了 "创伤管理 "的方法来构建危机管理方法，这也反映了这一方法：

When we talk about trauma in terms of stewardship, we remember that we are being entrusted with people’s stories and their very lives … We understand that this is an incredible honor as well as a tremendous responsibility … we create a space for and honor others’ hardship and suffering, and yet we do not assume their pain as our own … We develop and maintain a long-term strategy that enables us to remain whole and helpful to others and our surroundings even amid great challenges … It means maintaining our highest ethics, integrity, and responsibility every step of the way. (2009:5)
当我们从管理的角度谈论创伤时，我们会记住，我们被赋予了人们的故事和他们的生命......我们明白，这是一种难以置信的荣誉，也是一种巨大的责任......我们为他人的艰辛和痛苦创造空间，并向他们表示敬意，但我们不会将他们的痛苦视为自己的痛苦......我们制定并维持一种长期战略，使我们即使在巨大的挑战中也能保持完整，并对他人和周围环境有所帮助......这意味着每一步都要保持我们最高的道德、正直和责任。(2009:5)
That is to say: paying close and honest attention to the role of trauma is the ethical thing to do. If we do not, we can slip into unethical acts unintentionally. This might look like making interviews about ourselves, centering our stories, or being unable to emotionally regulate. But talking about trauma head on is exactly the opposite approach. It acknowledges the reality of trauma. It requires knowing ourselves, knowing the bounds of our stories, and being able to enact boundaries and care simultaneously. Trauma stewardship then serves as a guide, it is a protective frame for ourselves and for our participants.
这就是说：密切而诚实地关注创伤的作用是符合伦理的做法。否则，我们就会在无意中陷入不道德的行为。这可能看起来像是在采访我们自己，把我们的故事放在中心位置，或者无法调节情绪。但直面创伤恰恰相反。它承认创伤的现实。它需要了解我们自己，了解我们故事的界限，并能够同时制定界限和给予关怀。因此，"创伤管理 "是一种指导，是对我们自己和参与者的一种保护。

While trauma stewardship is partly about recognizing trauma in ourselves when it is necessary, it is also about recognizing the role trauma plays in our participants’ lives if necessary. When you are interviewing or observing traumatized people, the presence of trauma cannot and should not be ignored. However, it can occur in subtle ways. For example, once I took on this frame, I could see the indicators, even if my participants never explicitly said they felt traumatized: the flat affect, the easy-to-come tears, the shape of the story (circles and repetitions, stories that were often not linear, participants who repeatedly asked if they were making sense, looked for comfort). Trauma in these encounters becomes a currency, something researcher and participant might both be operating within.
创伤管理在一定程度上是指在必要时认识到我们自身的创伤，同时也是指在必要时认识到创伤在参与者生活中所扮演的角色。在采访或观察受创伤者时，不能也不应忽视创伤的存在。然而，它可能以微妙的方式出现。例如，一旦我接受了这个框架，我就能看到各种迹象，即使我的参与者从未明确说过他们感觉受到了创伤：平淡的情绪、容易流泪、故事的形状（圆圈和重复、故事通常不是线性的、参与者反复询问他们是否有道理、寻求安慰）。在这些接触中，创伤成为一种货币，研究者和参与者都可能在其中运作。

Trauma stewardship is about acting responsibly within that context. It demands reflecting on your process, contextualizing your work within it, and subjecting your interpretations of data to skepticism. You do that by acknowledging the effects the work has on you, by always checking in on your own feelings. Stewardship helps us bear witness to our participants’ lives, but still doing so in a safe and rigorous way.
创伤管理就是在这种背景下负责任地行事。它要求反思自己的工作过程，将自己的工作融入其中，并对自己的数据解释持怀疑态度。要做到这一点，你必须承认工作对你产生的影响，时刻检查自己的感受。管理帮助我们见证参与者的生活，但仍要以安全、严谨的方式进行。

In sum, crisis methods recognize trauma on any scale, from collective trauma like the pandemic to personal trauma that may be present in our research topic. Taking a trauma-informed approach results in explicitly centering care in our methods as well, because once we have acknowledged the pain in ourselves and others, we must attend to it. This gives us tools for working within future crises. That is, deliberate attention to the role of trauma and care for all of us who were conducting research during the pandemic is not just backward looking, because there are certainly more crises to come. Crisis methods are thus methods for the future. Next, we will look at specific ways to integrate care throughout the research process.
总之，危机处理方法可以识别任何规模的创伤，从像大流行病这样的集体创伤到可能存在于我们研究课题中的个人创伤。采取以创伤为基础的方法也会使我们的方法明确以关怀为中心，因为一旦我们认识到自己和他人的痛苦，我们就必须关注它。这为我们在未来的危机中开展工作提供了工具。也就是说，对于我们所有在大流行病期间开展研究的人来说，刻意关注创伤和关爱的作用并不仅仅是向后看，因为未来肯定还会有更多的危机。因此，危机方法是面向未来的方法。接下来，我们将探讨在整个研究过程中融入关爱的具体方法。

Now that we have grounded crisis methods in past literature and I have described how their ethos has been developed by drawing from various sources, what exactly does it mean to enact care in our research process for both ourselves and the research participants? In this section, I lay out concrete steps that can be taken to center care and attend to the potential presence of trauma, particularly in the data collection process. While this is written mostly towards fieldwork based on doing interviews, these things can be adapted to observations as well. The key idea here is that crisis methods require not just an intention to enact care, they require delineated and deliberate practices to carry it out.
既然我们已经将危机处理方法建立在过去的文献基础之上，而且我也描述了危机处理方法是如何从各种来源中发展起来的，那么在我们的研究过程中对我们自己和研究参与者实施关怀到底意味着什么呢？在本节中，我将列出一些具体步骤，以便在数据收集过程中，尤其是在数据收集过程中，以关爱为中心，关注可能存在的创伤。虽然这主要是针对以访谈为基础的实地工作而写的，但这些内容也可适用于观察。这里的关键思想是，危机处理方法不仅需要有实施关怀的意图，还需要有明确和深思熟虑的做法来实施关怀。

Contemplating, writing, and researching distressing topics or experiences of trauma and crisis requires developing a plan to take care of yourself. Track what times of the day you feel most emotionally settled. For a while, I needed to start later in the day, when my parasympathetic system was more engaged. As a result, I scheduled interviews later in the day, or within a certain window on a consistent basis. I also strategically scheduled interviews for times where I had the greatest buffer; this allowed me to build in a ritual before or after interviews that was calming, focusing, or distracting (depending on the need and whether I was doing it before or after the interview). What are calming things you can do for yourself? What are focusing things? Distracting? Make a list
在思考、写作和研究令人痛苦的主题或创伤和危机经历时，需要制定一个照顾自己的计划。追踪一天中你感觉情绪最稳定的时间。有一段时间，我需要在一天中的晚些时候开始工作，这时我的副交感神经系统会更加活跃。因此，我把面试安排在一天中的晚些时候，或在某个时间段内。我还策略性地把面试安排在我缓冲时间最长的时候；这样我就可以在面试前或面试后做一个仪式，让自己平静下来、集中注意力或分散注意力（取决于需要以及我是在面试前还是面试后做）。你能为自己做哪些镇静的事情？什么是集中注意力的事情？分散注意力？列出清单
and use them to bookend interviews as needed.
并根据需要将其作为采访的结尾。
My care plan also included writing exercises, or other modes of getting out my thoughts, taking advantage of the therapeutic effects of journaling. Sometimes I recorded voice memos about what I was feeling. Sometimes I wrote as a form of “writing about the writing” or simply writing about how the project was feeling. I did this by borrowing from advice for people writing about trauma or coaching people who do. Some key takeaways were to: slow everything down. Take a deep breath. Put your hand on your chest. Sometimes I used writing prompts like: What do you remember about your own experience? What is unique about your story? What is unique about your participants’ stories? Are there any universals across the stories?
我的护理计划还包括写作练习或其他发泄想法的方式，利用写日记的治疗效果。有时，我会录制语音备忘录，讲述自己的感受。有时，我把写作作为一种 "关于写作的写作 "的形式，或者仅仅是写项目的感受。为此，我借鉴了写创伤日记的人或指导写创伤日记的人的建议。一些重要的启示是：让一切都慢下来。深呼吸。把手放在胸前。有时我会使用一些写作提示，比如关于你自己的经历，你还记得什么？你的故事有什么独特之处？参与者的故事有什么独特之处？这些故事有什么共同点吗？

I also engaged external supports. I identified a couple of friends or colleagues that I knew I could talk about these struggles with in an honest way. I talked with them about how they were part of my care plan, and asked if it would be okay if I reached out if I was anxious. I knew it might be unpredictable, and I gave myself permission to practice learning my limits, to practice my awareness of when I needed support and to identify what form that support needed to take.
我还寻求外部支持。我找到了几个朋友或同事，我知道我可以和他们坦诚地谈论这些挣扎。我与他们谈及他们是我护理计划的一部分，并询问如果我感到焦虑，是否可以向他们求助。我知道这可能是不可预知的，我允许自己练习了解自己的极限，练习意识到什么时候我需要支持，并确定支持需要采取什么形式。

When participants respond to recruitment materials for the study, this is the first point of contact they have with you and moment to engage care tactics. That is, responses to the recruitment materials are the first moment of building rapport and extending care towards the potential participant. Once participants contacted me, I asked them to have a pre-interview phone call with me. For this call, I asked them to set aside about 15 min to talk with me and explained that I would go over the project, make sure they met the study criteria, and talk about the consent forms and other logistics. This was all especially necessary because nothing was happening in person. Everyone was doing things remotely, and it took longer and it was different from any other projects I had done before. This let us all settle in with a short call, a small commitment to build to more.
当参与者回复研究招募材料时，这是他们与您的第一个接触点，也是采取关怀策略的时刻。也就是说，对招募材料的回复是与潜在参与者建立融洽关系并给予关怀的第一时刻。一旦参与者与我联系，我就会要求他们与我进行一次访谈前电话沟通。在这次通话中，我要求他们留出 15 分钟左右的时间与我交谈，并解释说我将详细介绍项目，确保他们符合研究标准，并讨论同意书和其他后勤事宜。这一切都特别必要，因为没有任何事情是当面进行的。每个人都是远程操作，这需要更长的时间，而且与我之前做过的任何其他项目都不同。这让我们都能在简短的通话中安顿下来，这只是一个小小的承诺，以后还会有更多。

In the phone call, I went over what the study was about and revealed to my participants that I had been a caregiver to my partner before she died. Disclosing this positionality was part of keeping them safe. I was going to be asking them questions about things that may potentially be very traumatic, or something they are actively grieving about. I wanted them to know that they would not need to do the additional work of managing my responses or worrying about being judged. This came from my own experience; when my partner was alive, I was hesitant to talk to people who “didn’t get it.” So I just generally explained to my participants that I had been a caregiver for five years before my partner died; I did not go into any detail. Participants all told me that it was a relief to talk with a researcher who might “get it.”
在电话中，我讲述了研究的内容，并向参与者透露，在我的伴侣去世前，我一直是她的照顾者。透露这一身份是为了保证他们的安全。我将向他们提出一些问题，这些问题可能会给他们带来很大的创伤，或者是他们正在经历的悲痛。我想让他们知道，他们不需要做额外的工作来管理我的回答或担心被评判。这源于我自己的经历；当我的伴侣还活着的时候，我对与那些 "不理解 "的人交谈感到犹豫。因此，我只是向参与者大致解释了一下，在我的伴侣去世前，我已经做了五年的照顾者；我并没有详细说明。参与者都告诉我，能和一个可能 "理解 "我的研究人员交谈，我感到很欣慰。

Another part of keeping participants safe and caring for them was being clear on the details. Since many were in complex and traumatic situations, stressed out by caregiving and by the pandemic, I would care for them by telling them that they would not have to remember any of the details from the consent form I was about to go over because they would receive a copy of it. I assured them I would email them with clear instructions for attending the interview. I went over the information smoothly and conversationally, and we often agreed to go ahead and set the date for the interview at the end of the call. I let them know that again they would not have to remember, I would remind them the day before the interview by contacting them via phone or email, whatever they preferred. I then followed up after the phone call with an email that summarized what we talked about, had all the attached documents, and what was next in terms of the appointment date. I created an email template that I used for all participants with very clear instructions. Clear communication is care. Finally, I gave them my cell phone number and encouraged them to call or text with any questions.
保证参与者安全并关心他们的另一个方法是明确细节。由于许多人都处于复杂和痛苦的境况中，因照顾他人和大流行病而倍感压力，因此我会告诉他们，他们不必记住我将要复述的同意书中的任何细节，因为他们会收到同意书的副本。我向他们保证，我会通过电子邮件向他们发送参加访谈的明确说明。我以对话的方式顺利地向他们介绍了相关信息，我们通常都同意在通话结束时确定采访日期。我让他们知道，他们也不必记住，我会在面试前一天通过电话或电子邮件提醒他们，只要他们愿意。电话结束后，我又给他们发了一封邮件，总结了我们的谈话内容，附上了所有文件，并说明了接下来的预约日期。我为所有参与者创建了一个电子邮件模板，并附有非常清晰的说明。清晰的沟通就是关怀。最后，我给了他们我的手机号码，鼓励他们有任何问题都可以打电话或发短信。

Researchers had to shift online or to the phone for the pandemic. As such, remote connection emerged as a mode of ethnographic work. But there is an intense juxtaposition here:
研究人员不得不转移到网上或电话上进行大流行病的研究。因此，远程连接成为人种学工作的一种模式。但这里有一个强烈的并列关系：

Sometimes the work we are doing from a distance is deeply intimate. Remote connection is that distanced, mediated thread between us that facilitates conversations that may be steeped in potentially shared trauma. To put it simply, it all felt a bit odd. Commiserating with participants on that front was a key way to build rapport.
有时，我们从远处进行的工作非常亲密。远程连接是我们之间的一条有距离、有媒介的线，它促进了可能沉浸在潜在的共同创伤中的对话。简单地说，这一切都让人感觉有点奇怪。在这方面，与参与者共勉是建立融洽关系的重要方式。

I was excited to be able to use remote methods to recruit and sample nationally rather than just locally for the first time. But at the same time, I felt like there needed to be acknowledgment of the fact that we were to be talking about things like illness and care in the middle of a pandemic that was especially terrifying for the people in my study. Their ill or disabled partners were high risk, and they might also be themselves. That is, we were talking about topics that lie at the heart of the human experience, all while doing so from outside of what felt like normal time and space.
我很高兴能够首次使用远程方法在全国而非本地进行招募和取样。但与此同时，我觉得需要承认这样一个事实，即我们要在大流行病期间讨论疾病和护理等问题，这对我的研究对象来说尤其可怕。他们患病或残疾的伴侣是高危人群，他们自己也可能是。也就是说，我们是在谈论人类经历的核心话题，而这一切又是在感觉像是正常的时间和空间之外进行的。

But remotely connecting felt safe. And that in itself felt good to myself and the participants. The other thing interviews offered was a break from the social isolation. So many of my participants had been isolated already, for years prior to the pandemic due to not being able to leave their partner alone. Scheduling a series of interviews where we got to talk and they got to tell their story was therapeutic and relieving for many of them. And the pandemic was an amazing moment where the shift online offered so much in terms of opportunities for connection. One note: My sample ranged in age from 27 to 87 , so there were varying levels of familiarity with online platforms. Sometimes an old-fashioned phone call was best. Just like in person interviews where you offer to meet the participant where they are comfortable, we must endeavor to do the same with remote methods.
但远程连接感觉很安全。这本身对我和参与者来说都是件好事。访谈提供的另一个好处是打破了社会隔离。在大流行之前的几年里，我的许多参与者由于无法离开他们的伴侣而与世隔绝。安排一系列访谈，让我们进行交谈，让他们讲述自己的故事，对他们中的许多人来说是一种治疗和解脱。大流行病是一个神奇的时刻，网络的转变为他们提供了很多联系的机会。需要注意的是：我的样本年龄从 27 岁到 87 岁不等，因此对网络平台的熟悉程度也各不相同。有时，老式的电话是最好的方式。就像在面对面访谈时，你会主动提出在受访者舒适的地方与他们见面一样，我们也必须努力在远程方式上做到这一点。

Not only did the pandemic impede traditional modes of in-person research, it also demanded that we care for one another by creating a warm interview space online or over the phone. This can be a bit different from in person interviewing where nonverbal cues may be more easily read. What if a participant cannot see you, whether you are on a phone call or they do not know how to get the video to work, or the connection is bad so video has to be turned off? This is where it is important to have honed your affect, your projection of warmth and non-judgmental responses. If they cannot see your face and your receptiveness to them, you must make sure to soften your voice so that they can hear it.
大流行病不仅阻碍了传统的面对面研究模式，还要求我们在网上或电话中营造一个温暖的访谈空间，互相关心。这可能与当面访谈有些不同，因为当面访谈可能更容易读懂非语言线索。如果参与者看不到你，不管你是在打电话，还是他们不知道如何让视频正常工作，或者连接不好，所以必须关闭视频，那该怎么办？这时候，重要的是要磨练你的感染力，投射出温暖和非批判性的回应。如果他们看不到你的脸和你对他们的接纳，你就必须确保放柔你的声音，让他们能够听到。

Going remote also often means living at work. And this means it can be tempting to think you can schedule more interviews because there is no commuting. But this is not the case. It is important to schedule things strategically. That is, going remote should not be an excuse to schedule too many interviews in a day. For me, interviews were limited to one, sometimes two, a day because I found them emotionally exhausting. I suggest regularly reminding yourself that depending on the crisis and your emotional states, your energy level for work may be lower than we want it to be.
远程办公通常也意味着住在工作地点。这就意味着，你可能会认为因为没有通勤，你可以安排更多的面试。但事实并非如此。有计划地安排时间非常重要。也就是说，远程办公不应成为一天内安排太多面试的借口。对我来说，一天只能安排一次面试，有时甚至两次，因为我觉得面试会让人精疲力竭。我建议定期提醒自己，根据危机和自己的情绪状态，你的工作精力可能会比我们希望的要低。

Plan for this and draw boundaries around your work hours. Decide on the hours/days when you can realistically do interviews and commit to yourself that you will keep them scheduled within that time frame. When I did this, it was comforting for me to know I had boundaries around my day and when things would begin and end. I only did interviews during the day on a weekday, preferably in the afternoon. Having this boundary made it easier for me to accommodate participant schedules when I needed to, such as for those as far away as Hawaii or California who simply couldn’t fit within that time frame or folks who could only talk while their spouse was sleeping.
为此制定计划，划定工作时间界限。决定你实际可以接受采访的时间/日期，并向自己承诺，你将把采访安排在这个时间段内。当我这样做的时候，我很欣慰，因为我知道我的一天有界限，知道什么时候开始，什么时候结束。我只在工作日的白天进行面试，最好是下午。有了这个界限，我就更容易在需要的时候满足参与者的时间安排，比如那些远在夏威夷或加利福尼亚的参与者，他们根本无法在那个时间段内完成采访，或者那些只能在配偶睡觉时进行交谈的人。

Remotely interviewing in a pandemic when people are less likely to have other demands on their time or need to leave also means that interviews may have room to go on for longer. I always left room for interviews to go very long. In fact, one of my first interviews was one of my
在大流行病期间进行远程访谈，人们不太可能有其他时间需求或需要离开，这也意味着访谈可能会持续更长时间。我总是给采访留有余地，让它进行得很长。事实上，我的第一次采访是我的
longest: two and a half hours. So as a practice, I started blocking off two and a half hours on my calendar for any interview. Most did not go that long of course, but it was a nice open space on the calendar that helped me go slower and it significantly lowered my anxiety. Finally, there are many other aspects to going remote that might be new for researchers and because everything is happening digitally, it can require new tools. In an essay I wrote for [removed], I outline three key systems (the spreadsheet, calendaring systems, and file management) for managing remote work that might also be helpful (Mauldin, 2020).
最长：两个半小时。因此，作为一种练习，我开始在日历上为任何面试预留两个半小时的时间。当然，大多数采访都没有那么长的时间，但这是日历上一个很好的开放空间，有助于我放慢采访速度，也大大降低了我的焦虑。最后，对于研究人员来说，远程工作还有许多其他方面可能是全新的，而且由于一切都在数字化中进行，因此可能需要新的工具。在我为[删除]撰写的一篇文章中，我概述了管理远程工作的三个关键系统（电子表格、日历系统和文件管理），它们可能也会有所帮助（Mauldin, 2020）。

There are a number of ways to design trauma-informed interviews that center care. When it came time to do the interviews, I worked hard to create a safe interview environment through specific techniques, including the warm and non-judgmental affect I mentioned above. But drawing explicitly on trauma-informed interviewing techniques, I told them up front that I might ask questions that were upsetting or the conversation could get into areas that were difficult. I told them that we could stop at any time and that it was okay if they did not want to answer something.
设计以关爱为中心的创伤知情访谈有很多方法。在进行访谈时，我努力通过特定的技巧来营造一个安全的访谈环境，包括我上面提到的温暖和不带批判性的情感。但在明确借鉴创伤知情访谈技巧的同时，我事先告诉他们，我可能会问一些令人不快的问题，或者谈话可能会涉及到一些困难的领域。我告诉他们，我们可以随时停止，如果他们不想回答某些问题也没关系。

I also started out from the idea that they are a whole person. I found it useful to open with getting a picture of their lives, how and when they met their partner, how they cared for each other. That is to say, we cannot only operate from a “damage” narrative (Tuck, 2009). This helped participants to remember who they were, who their partner was, and all the ways they have built their lives. At the same time, it also gave me information about their personality, their class or education background, and so on in the process.
我也是从他们是一个完整的人这一理念出发的。我发现，首先了解他们的生活，了解他们是如何以及何时与伴侣相识的，了解他们是如何互相照顾的。也就是说，我们不能只从 "损害 "的角度出发（Tuck，2009 年）。这有助于参与者回忆起他们是谁，他们的伴侣是谁，以及他们构建生活的所有方式。同时，在这一过程中，我还了解了他们的个性、阶级或教育背景等信息。

The ordering of questions is extremely important in a traumainformed approach. There is a shape, a contour, to an interview that is conducted with trauma-informed practices in mind. First, opening with questions about their lives and developing a sense of them as a person is a good way to start out because it is easy, it lets you get to know them and establishes rapport and connection. The interview is where you get into the harder topics. By this time they have settled in, you have helped them feel comfortable, and you have used affective techniques of staying open and warm, curious and non-judgmental. This creates safety.
问题的排序对基于创伤信息的方法极为重要。根据创伤知情做法进行的访谈有其形状和轮廓。首先，以询问他们的生活和了解他们的为人作为开场白是一个很好的方式，因为这很容易，可以让你了解他们，并建立融洽的关系和联系。访谈是进入较难话题的地方。这时，他们已经适应了，你已经让他们感到舒适，而且你已经使用了情感技巧，保持开放和热情、好奇和不做评判。这样就会产生安全感。

The middle part when they get into the harder things can be highly emotional. Know this and prepare for it. This is where affective labor in interviews is especially important. I stayed open and soft; I would ask a question but let them talk about what they wanted. It was important to let things unfold and to be patient. I also made sure to expect nonlinearity. Trauma refracts time through a prism in ways where events can be split off and their stories might jump around in time or be told in circuitous ways. I did not problematize this or try to shape it into something linear when they were in the middle of talking. Rather, I gently tried to piece together any timeline puzzles, sometimes going back later in an interview and saying I wanted to clarify something. Most of all, I created space. It was okay to be silent, to cry. I followed them where they went while balancing this with moving through interview questions.
在中间部分，当他们进入更困难的事情时，情绪会非常激动。了解这一点并做好准备。这也是面试中情感劳动尤为重要的地方。我保持开放和柔和的态度；我会问一个问题，但让他们谈论他们想要的东西。让事情发展下去并保持耐心非常重要。我还确保了对非线性的预期。创伤通过棱镜折射时间，事件可能被分割开来，他们的故事可能在时间上跳跃，或以迂回的方式讲述。在他们说话的时候，我并没有将其问题化，也没有试图将其塑造成线性的东西。相反，我温和地试着拼凑时间线的拼图，有时会在采访结束后回头说我想澄清一些事情。最重要的是，我创造了空间。可以沉默，可以哭泣。我跟随他们的脚步，同时在回答访谈问题时保持平衡。

Many of the participants’ stories reminded me of my own as a caregiver. Their stories sometimes sent me into a flashback, and even caused the recovery of some memories I had long buried. I had to take deep breaths. I had to let myself cry if I needed to, but quietly. They also sometimes cried a lot, and this caused me to cry too. There was no need to draw attention to the fact that I was crying. I simply kept tissues next to my laptop and reached over and dabbed my eyes when needed. Mostly, I tried not to panic that I was having feelings. Even though the first time this happened, I immediately felt like I was doing something wrong and pushed it down. I felt like it was a failure of some kind. But I learned to not respond so negatively to my own responses and to allow myself the freedom to grieve with my participants or in their presence. Ultimately, they shared more with me because of it. Which of course, this just continued the machinations of coping with the data coming in, all while feeling it was successful that they felt they could share in the first place. That is, if we create warm and caring environments where participants see you as a human and they feel comfortable sharing, they will likely tell you even more, which can increase the triggering.
许多参与者的故事让我想起了自己作为护理人员的经历。他们的故事有时会让我恍然大悟，甚至让我恢复了一些埋藏已久的记忆。我不得不深呼吸。如果有必要，我必须让自己哭，但要安静地哭。他们有时也会大哭一场，这让我也哭了起来。没有必要让别人注意到我在哭泣。我只是把纸巾放在笔记本电脑旁边，需要时就伸手擦擦眼睛。最重要的是，我尽量不去惊慌自己的感情。尽管第一次发生这种情况时，我立刻觉得自己做错了什么，并把它压了下去。我觉得这是一种失败。但我学会了不对自己的反应做出如此消极的回应，并允许自己与参与者一起或在他们在场的情况下自由地悲伤。最终，他们因此与我分享了更多。当然，这只是继续应对数据的机制，同时让他们觉得他们能够分享是成功的。也就是说，如果我们创造了温暖和关爱的环境，让参与者把你当成一个人，让他们觉得分享很舒服，他们就可能会告诉你更多，这可能会增加触发性。

I also found that my similar experiences could be leveraged to glean more of theirs, but it is important to do that without centering yourself. One strategy I used, when participants shared particularly difficult, shocking, or even controversial things, I would simply say, “Yes, I know what you mean” or “Yes, I am familiar with that.” This let them know they were not telling me anything I was shocked about, that I was entirely comfortable hearing this, but yet did not reveal anything about myself in the moment.
我还发现，可以利用我的类似经历来收集他们更多的经验，但重要的是，这样做时不要把自己放在中心位置。我使用的一个策略是，当参与者分享特别困难、令人震惊甚至有争议的事情时，我会简单地说："是的，我知道你的意思 "或 "是的，我很熟悉"。这让他们知道，他们并没有告诉我任何让我震惊的事情，我完全可以放心地听他们说，但同时也不会在这一刻暴露自己的任何事情。

Finally, I ended the interview with demographics or other questions that were “easy,” because everyone was tired by then. It was important to not ask participants to answer traumatic questions at the end when they are tired. It’s a way to come down, to ground them back in reality. Reciting easy facts is an excellent way to calm things down and close out an emotional interview.
最后，我以人口统计或其他 "简单 "的问题结束了访谈，因为那时每个人都累了。重要的是，不要在参与者疲惫的时候让他们在最后回答创伤性问题。这是一种降温的方式，让他们回到现实中来。背诵简单的事实是平复情绪、结束情绪化访谈的绝佳方式。

Debriefing is key for a trauma-informed approach. Developing a ritual for taking care of yourself prior to the interview, like what I talked about previously, is one way to accomplish self-care, but there is also the work we need to do after an interview. As such, I would always build in time after interviews to decompress and memo immediately afterwards. I used these memos to log my emotional responses as well as my intellectual responses or ideas. It was important to me to create a running log or running memo throughout the process that traced both my emotional responses to the interviews and my intellectual thinking. And sometimes I would call or text the appointed colleague or friend in order to talk it out. Debriefing helped to move through the data, the fieldwork, and my feelings. And then of course, I would often close it all out and just cry.
汇报工作是创伤知情方法的关键。像我之前谈到的那样，在面试前制定一个照顾自己的仪式，是实现自我照顾的一种方法，但面试后我们还需要做一些工作。因此，我总是会在面试后安排时间减压，并在面试后立即写备忘录。我用这些备忘录来记录我的情绪反应以及我的智力反应或想法。对我来说，在整个采访过程中建立一个流水账或流水备忘录，记录下我对采访的情绪反应和我的理智思考，是非常重要的。有时，我会给指定的同事或朋友打电话或发短信，以便把问题说清楚。汇报工作有助于了解数据、实地工作和我的感受。当然，我还会经常把这一切都结束，然后大哭一场。

Establishing this simple ritual meant that I always knew there was a plan in place to care for myself, that I would have a place after it was over to put it. Like Jean E. Jackson (1990) writes in I am a Fieldnote, “… fieldnotes are not by any means limited to nuts-and-bolts matters. The subject is clearly complex, touchy, and disturbing for most of us.” (5).
建立这种简单的仪式意味着，我始终知道有一个照顾自己的计划，在计划结束后，我会有一个地方来放置它。正如让-杰克逊（Jean E. Jackson，1990 年）在《我是田野笔记》一书中写道："......田野笔记绝不仅限于细节问题。对我们大多数人来说，这个主题显然是复杂、敏感和令人不安的"。(5).

Building upon the feminist methodologists who came before, this essay has considered more expansive aspects of reflexivity, aspects that move beyond social location and into the role of feelings in fieldwork. Further elaborating on other feminists who have noted the need to attend to our feelings, especially when doing research on sensitive or traumatic experiences that we may or may not share with participants, I have attempted to make the case for confronting our feelings and viewing the emotional landscape we are working within as an important shaper of our work. I have advocated for delving into our own experiences when necessary, and planning for grief and trauma when we do research in or on crises. I have asked that we simply accept the “mess” in social science work and discuss it head on. I have positioned traumainformed methods that center explicit practices of care as tools that can sustain us. These are crisis methods.
在前辈女性主义方法论专家的基础上，本文对反思性的更多方面进行了思考，这些方面超越了社会位置，进入了田野工作中情感的角色。其他女权主义者曾指出，我们需要关注自己的感受，尤其是在研究我们可能会或可能不会与参与者分享的敏感或创伤性经历时。在此基础上，我试图提出正视我们的感受的理由，并将我们所处的情感环境视为我们工作的重要影响因素。我主张在必要时深入了解我们自身的经历，并在危机中或就危机开展研究时为悲伤和创伤做好规划。我要求我们接受社会科学工作中的 "混乱"，并对其进行正面讨论。我将以明确的关爱实践为中心的创伤知情方法定位为能够支撑我们的工具。这些都是应对危机的方法。

In the context of a discipline that equates detachment with rigor, it is difficult to speak honestly amongst ourselves as researchers. But it is necessary to do so, both for assuring one another we are not alone in our struggles, and in order to learn from each other. This is how we maintain rigor in our work, without sacrificing care for ourselves and others. Care must be our central, guiding ethos as we move into a future that is far more likely to be characterized by crises than not. As we adjust to new modes of ethnographic work that are necessary for the foreseeable future, this paper puts forward new and specific ideas for taking crisis methods with us into it.
在一门将超脱与严谨等同起来的学科中，作为研究人员，我们之间很难坦诚交流。但是，这样做是必要的，因为这样做既能让我们彼此确信，我们并不是在孤军奋战，又能相互学习。这样，我们才能在工作中保持严谨，同时又不牺牲对自己和他人的关爱。在我们迈向危机四伏的未来时，关爱必须成为我们的核心指导精神。在我们适应可预见的未来所必需的新的民族志工作模式时，本文提出了新的具体想法，让我们把应对危机的方法带入未来。

Finally, our aim must be to produce rigorous sociology. However, if we do not deeply attend to the realities of trauma all around us, this can unwittingly lead to unsafe research encounters for ourselves and for our participants. Therefore, I have argued that we must slow down and be deliberate with how we design our studies and interact with our participants, that we must build in care more explicitly. Crisis methods value honesty and attention to feelings and trauma, employing traumainformed approaches, and centering practices of care in our work. Crisis methods might be able to see us through.
最后，我们的目标必须是研究出严谨的社会学。然而，如果我们不深入关注我们周围的创伤现实，就会在不知不觉中导致我们自己和参与者的研究遭遇不安全。因此，我认为我们必须放慢脚步，慎重考虑如何设计我们的研究以及如何与我们的参与者互动，我们必须更明确地建立关爱。危机处理方法重视诚实，关注感受和创伤，采用创伤为导向的方法，在工作中以关怀实践为中心。危机处理方法或许能帮助我们渡过难关。

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
作者声明，他们没有任何可能会影响本文所报告工作的已知经济利益或个人关系。

Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press.
Behar, R. (1996).脆弱的观察者：让人心碎的人类学》。波士顿：灯塔出版社。
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2000).Black feminist thought：Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.).New York：Routledge.
Dempsey, L., Dowling, M., Larkin, P., & Murphy, K. (2016). Sensitive interviewing in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 39(6), 480-490. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/nur. 21743
Dempsey, L., Dowling, M., Larkin, P., & Murphy, K. (2016)。定性研究中的敏感访谈。护理与健康研究》，39（6），480-490。https://doi.org/ 10.1002/nur.21743

Ellingson, L. L. (1998). ‘Then you know how I feel’: Empathy, identification, and reflexivity in fieldwork. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 492-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 107780049800400405
Ellingson, L. L. (1998).Then you know how I feel'：Empathy, identification, and reflexivity in fieldwork.定性探究》，4（4），492-514。https://doi.org/10.1177/ 107780049800400405
Emerson, R. M. (2001). Contemporary field research : Perspectives and formulations (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Pr Inc.
Emerson, R. M. (2001).Contemporary field research : Perspectives and formulations (2nd ed.).Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Pr Inc.
Gilligan, Carol. (1982). a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, Carol.(A Different Voice：心理理论与女性发展》。Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
González-López, G. (2011). Mindful ethics: Comments on informant-centered practices in sociological research. Qualitative Sociology, 34(3), 447. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11133-011-9199-8
González-López, G. (2011).Mindful ethics：关于社会学研究中以信息提供者为中心的实践的评论。定性社会学》，34（3），447。https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11133-011-9199-8
Grande, S. (2015). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Rowman & Littlefield.
Grande, S. (2015).Red pedagogy：Native American social and political thought.Rowman & Littlefield.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. https://doi.org/ $10.2307/3178066$$10.2307/3178066$10.2307//317806610.2307 / 3178066
Haraway, D. (1988).Situated Knowledges：The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.https://doi.org/ $10.2307/3178066$$10.2307/3178066$10.2307//317806610.2307 / 3178066 .
Jackson, J. E. (1990). ‘I Am a fieldnote’: Fieldnotes as a symbol of professional identity. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), 3-33 in fieldnotes: The Makings of anthropology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Jackson, J. E. (1990).I Am a fieldnote'：Fieldnotes as a symbol of professional identity.In R. Sanjek (Ed.), 3-33 in fieldnotes：人类学的形成》。纽约州伊萨卡：康奈尔大学出版社。
Jackson, K. (2021). ‘What should I do now?’: Navigating relational ethics in practice as an early career researcher as illustrated by a qualitative interview study about women’s drinking practices. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, Article 1609406920986044. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920986044
Jackson, K. (2021).我现在该做什么？通过对女性饮酒习惯的定性访谈研究说明，作为一名早期职业研究人员，在实践中驾驭关系伦理。定性方法国际期刊》，20，第 1609406920986044 条。https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920986044

Jaggar, A. M. (2013). Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (2nd ed.). Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Jaggar, A. M. (2013).Just methods：跨学科女性主义读本（第 2 版）。Boulder：Paradigm Publishers.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
Law, J. (2004).After method：社会科学研究中的混乱。London：Routledge.
Lipsky, L.van D., & Burk, C. (2009). Trauma stewardship: An everyday guide to caring for self while caring for others. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Lipsky, L.van D., & Burk, C. (2009)。创伤管理：在关爱他人的同时关爱自己的日常指南》。加利福尼亚州旧金山：Berrett-Koehler 出版社。
Mauldin, L. (2020). Research during covid (Part 1): Taking care of each other scatterplot. Scatterplot, 3, 2023. Retrieved January hittps://scatter.wordpress.com/ 2020/11/24/research-during-covid-part-1-taking-care-of-each-other/.
Mauldin, L. (2020).科维德期间的研究（第一部分）：互相照顾散点图。Scatterplot, 3, 2023.Retrieved January hittps://scatter.wordpress.com/ 2020/11/24/research-during-covid-part-1-taking-care-of-each-other/.
Mauldin, L. (2023). On trauma in research on illness, disability, and care. In M. Mills, & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Crip authorship: Disability as method (pp. 131-141). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Mauldin, L. (2023).On trauma in research on illness, disability, and care.In M. Mills, & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Crip authorship：Disability as method (pp. 131-141).New York, NY：New York, NY: New York University Press.
McKittrick, K. (2021). Dear science and other stories. Durham: Duke University Press Books.
McKittrick, K. (2021).亲爱的科学和其他故事》。Durham：杜克大学出版社。
Mitchell-Eaton, E. (2019). Grief as method: Topographies of grief, care, and fieldwork from northwest Arkansas to New York and the Marshall Islands. Gender, Place & Culture, 26(10), 1438-1458. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1553865
Mitchell-Eaton, E. (2019).Grief as method：Grief as the method: Topographies of grief, care, and fieldwork from northwest Arkansas to New York and the Marshall Islands.Gender, Place & Culture, 26(10), 1438-1458.https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1553865
Munyikwa, M. (2019). On gratitude, ethnography, & care. SYNAPSIS. https://medicalh ealthhumanities.com/2019/10/27/on-gratitude-ethnography-care/. (Accessed 3 January 2023).
Munyikwa, M. (2019).On gratitude, ethnography, & care.SYNAPSIS。https://medicalhealthhumanities.com/2019/10/27/on-gratitude-ethnography-care/.(Accessed 3 January 2023).
Pierre, S., & Adams, E. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 175-189. https:// doi.org/10.1080/095183997237278
Pierre, S., & Adams, E. (1997).Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data.https:// doi.org/10.1080/095183997237278.
Pierre, S., Elizabeth, A., & Jackson, A. Y. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715-719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414532435
Pierre, S., Elizabeth, A., & Jackson, A. Y. (2014)。编码后的定性数据分析。定性探索》，20（6），715-719。https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414532435
Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0951839032000060635
Pillow, W. (2003).Confession, catharsis, or cure?Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196.https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0951839032000060635
Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Rosaldo, R. (1993).Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis.马萨诸塞州波士顿：灯塔出版社。
Rothman, B. K. (1986). Reflections: On hard work. Qualitative Sociology, 9(1), 48-53.
Rothman, B. K. (1986).Reflections：On hard work.Qualitative Sociology, 9(1), 48-53.
Sehgal, P. (2022). The case against the trauma plot. The New Yorker. January 3.
Sehgal, P. (2022).The case against the trauma plot.纽约客》。January 3.
Sweet, P. L. (2020). Who knows? Reflexivity in feminist standpoint theory and bourdieu. Gender & Society, 34(6), 922-950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243220966600
Sweet, P. L. (2020).Who knows?女性主义立场理论和布尔迪厄的反身性。Gender & Society, 34(6), 922-950.https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243220966600
Taylor, B. (2022). Emotional support trauma plot. Sweater Weather. https://blgtylr.subst ack.com/p/emotional-support-trauma-plot. (Accessed 3 January 2023).
Taylor, B. (2022)。情感支持创伤情节。毛衣天气。https://blgtylr.substack.com/p/emotional-support-trauma-plot.(Accessed 3 January 2023).
Tronto, Joan. (1993). Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge.
Tronto, Joan.(1993).Moral Boundaries：A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care.New York：Routledge.
Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409-427.
Tuck, E. (2009).暂停损害：A letter to communities.哈佛教育评论》，79（3），409-427。
Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (2008). White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (2008).White logic, white methods：Racism and methodology.Lanham：Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.