When reading a submitted article, I am often struck by the apparent omniscience of the authors with regard to the context where they undertake their research. However, the origins of this omniscience are seldom explained: researchers insouciantly describe what they did and how they did it, yet ignore their own preparation for the research and the process that they followed to acquire relevant knowledge. For instance, an author who has undertaken a case study, action research or ethnography seldom troubles to explain in any detail either how s/he gained access to the research site, or how s/he acquired sufficient knowledge of the context to be able to interact meaningfully with its inhabitants. I suggest that these are important considerations, for the researcher and for readers: not only does the context matter, but so too does the acquisition of context-specific knowledge by the researchers (Davison & Martinsons, 2016). There may be a number of reasons for this lack of explanation, among which are the reluctance to ‘waste’ space on these details and the failure to appreciate that readers might find it useful. If the review team does not request this information, it may never be provided. When a researcher has extensive emic knowledge of and familiarity with the context and the practices of its inhabitants, then these may be regarded as self-evident and not worthy of a detailed treatment. However, as a reader who can only see the world through the eyes of the researcher, I would greatly appreciate learning exactly what the researcher did, not only when in the field but also before entering the field. Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig (2007) suggest 32 criteria for reporting qualitative research, several of which are germane to this discussion. For instance, ‘What experience or training did the researcher have?’ and ‘What characteristics were reported about the interviewer?’. Reporting all 32 criteria may seem excessive: instead, a few lines may suffice so long as they do help the reader to understand the preparation of the researcher. For instance, Thompson (2002) reported how his first task in the field was to obtain ‘a high-level understanding of the reporting process across several clinics’. Meanwhile, Shah, Eardley, and Wood-Harper (2007) reported that ‘the first author spent a considerable amount of time building up knowledge of the organisation’. But even such modest accounts are few and far between. In this editorial, I suggest that there is a need for a new reporting standard regarding the way in which researchers present how they develop their knowledge of the field. Chughtai and Myers (2017) examine the specific case of the ethnographer who is preparing to enter the field in which she or he will spend a considerable period of time. They write at length about the activities that field researchers may undertake before they attempt entry to a field site. A key activity is developing ‘some understanding of the world where she is to be thrown’. The notion of being thrown refers to Heidegger's (2011) concept of ‘thrownness’, that is, ‘the [spatial] state one finds oneself in’ (Chughtai & Myers, 2017). They explain that this preentry development of context-specific knowledge will ensure that, on arrival, the researcher can have sensible conversations with the indigenous inhabitants of the field. While the ability to engage in those conversations may reflect the background knowledge that the researcher has acquired over many years, it also reflects the more recently acquired knowledge that is predicted to be useful. However, all those preparations that the field researcher makes in advance, all the knowledge developed, may come to naught. Descola (1996) lamented his own situation when engaged in anthropological research in Ecuador. In preparation for entry to the field, he had spent many years acquiring knowledge relating to method and theory. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12308

中文翻译：

---

从无知到熟悉：背景知识和实地研究人员

在阅读提交的文章时，我经常被作者对他们进行研究的背景所表现出的无所不知所震惊。然而，这种无所不知的起源很少被解释：研究人员漫不经心地描述了他们做了什么以及他们是如何做的，却忽略了他们自己为研究所做的准备以及他们获得相关知识所遵循的过程。例如，进行案例研究、行动研究或民族志研究的作者很少会费力地详细解释他/她是如何进入研究站点的，或者他/她如何获得足够的背景知识以能够与其居民进行有意义的互动。我建议这些对于研究人员和读者来说都是重要的考虑因素：不仅上下文很重要，但研究人员获取特定于上下文的知识也是如此（戴维森和马丁森斯，2016）。这种缺乏解释的原因可能有很多，其中包括不愿在这些细节上“浪费”空间，以及未能意识到读者可能会发现它有用。如果审核团队不要求提供此信息，则可能永远不会提供。当研究人员对其居民的背景和实践具有广泛的主位知识并熟悉时，这些可能被认为是不言而喻的，不值得详细讨论。然而，作为一个只能通过研究人员的眼睛看世界的读者，我将非常感谢了解研究人员所做的一切，不仅在该领域，而且在进入该领域之前。汤，塞恩斯伯里，和 Craig (2007) 提出了 32 项定性研究报告标准，其中一些与本次讨论密切相关。例如，“研究人员有什么经验或培训？” 和“关于采访者的报告有哪些特征？”。报告所有 32 条标准似乎有些过分：相反，只要能帮助读者理解研究人员的准备工作，几行就足够了。例如，Thompson (2002) 报告了他在该领域的第一个任务是如何获得“对多个诊所的报告过程的高级理解”。与此同时，Shah、Eardley 和 Wood-Harper（2007 年）报告说，“第一作者花了大量时间来建立对组织的了解”。但即使是这样不起眼的账户也很少见。在这篇社论中，我建议需要一个新的报告标准，关于研究人员展示他们如何发展他们在该领域的知识的方式。Chughtai 和 Myers（2017）研究了准备进入她或他将花费相当长一段时间的领域的民族志学者的具体案例。他们详细描述了现场研究人员在尝试进入现场之前可能进行的活动。一项关键活动是发展“对她将被扔到的世界的一些理解”。被抛出的概念指的是海德格尔 (2011) 的“被抛出”概念，即“一个人发现自己所处的 [空间] 状态”(Chughtai & Myers, 2017)。他们解释说，这种上下文特定知识的进入前发展将确保，在到达时，研究人员可以与该领域的土著居民进行明智的对话。虽然参与这些对话的能力可能反映了研究人员多年来获得的背景知识，但也反映了最近获得的预计有用的知识。然而，田野研究者事先做好的一切准备，积累的所有知识，都可能化为泡影。Descola (1996) 在厄瓜多尔从事人类学研究时，感叹自己的处境。为了准备进入该领域，他花了很多年时间获取有关方法和理论的知识。DOI：10.1111/isj.12308 它还反映了最近获得的预计有用的知识。然而，田野研究者事先做好的一切准备，积累的所有知识，都可能化为泡影。Descola (1996) 在厄瓜多尔从事人类学研究时，感叹自己的处境。为了准备进入该领域，他花了很多年时间获取有关方法和理论的知识。DOI：10.1111/isj.12308 它还反映了最近获得的预计有用的知识。然而，田野研究者事先做好的一切准备，积累的所有知识，都可能化为泡影。Descola (1996) 在厄瓜多尔从事人类学研究时，感叹自己的处境。为了准备进入该领域，他花了很多年时间获取有关方法和理论的知识。DOI：10.1111/isj.12308