本文对Nairn, Munro和Smith(2005)的文章进行了研究，目的是探讨研究的理论背景，参考相关文献，并批判性地回顾了研究方法和结果。它包括确定文章的优点和缺点。结论部分考虑了本文对教育社会学领域的贡献，并提出了一些有待进一步研究的领域。这篇文章出自一项更大的研究，该研究是关于新西兰学生如何看待他们在高中的权利(Nairn, Munro和Smith 2005)。作者注意到，一个系列的采访因为缺少口语文本而脱颖而出，因此他们决定调查为什么会发生这种情况，以及在这项研究的背景下它可能意味着什么。作者关注的一个理论是知识生产理论，以及定性研究中广泛使用的产生各种知识的方法。从这项研究中出现的另一个关键概念是“不适感的反身性”(Pillow, 2003，第187页)，这是在研究人员反思和思考工作过程中出现的错误和问题时产生的。此外，应该注意的是，在这篇研究论文的前几部分，作者曾说过“失败”，它具体指的是采访者的角色;她无法从参与者那里得到答案。它是定性研究的核心，它重视的是说了什么，而不是没说什么。这本与众不同的社会学研究期刊尤其引起了我的注意，因为定性访谈是我在未来的研究设计中非常想采用的方法之一。其次，我发现这篇社会学杂志从其他的学术著作中脱颖而出，因为它承认并讨论了一个“失败的”面试，而不是一个“成功的”面试。这在学术界是非常罕见的，主要是因为“成功”被称赞，“失败”被否定。然而，通过一个明显的“失败”的访谈，我们可以分析口语文本的缺失是如何使我们更好地理解在获取有用数据的过程中其他引人注目的因素(如体现、沉默和笑声)的重要性的。(Nairn, Munro and Smith，第221页)然而，在某些文化中，“沉默”可以被解释为在回答一个人的问题之前表现出严肃和尊重的行为。然而，在西方社会，“沉默”可以理解为被调查者无法理解问题或表达权力的方式.
This essay examines the article by Nairn, Munro and Smith (2005), with the aims to explore the theoretical background to the study, with reference to relevant literature, and critically reviews its methodology and results. It includes the identification of the article’s strengths and weaknesses. The conclusion considers the contribution that the article makes to the field of sociology in education and suggests some areas where further research is needed. This article emerged out of a larger study about how students in New Zealand perceive their rights in high school (Nairn, Munro and Smith 2005). The authors had noted that one interview in a series stood out from the rest because of a lack of spoken text, they have therefore decided to investigate why this happened and what it could mean in the context of this research. One theory that the authors focus on is that of knowledge production, and the methods that are widely used in qualitative research to generate different kinds of knowledge. Another key concept that had emerged from this research was “reflexivities of discomfort” (Pillow, 2003, p. 187) which arise when researchers reflect upon and think about errors and problems that arise in the course of their work. Besides, it should be made aware that in the earlier parts of this research paper, the authors had stated that by ‘failure’, it referred specifically to the role of the interviewer; her inability to obtain answers from her participants. One that lies at the core of qualitative research in that places value on what is said rather than what is not being said.This distinguishable sociological research journal in particular had caught my attention, as qualitative interviews are one of the methods that I would like to engage greatly in my future research design. Second, I find this piece of sociological journal to stand out from the rest of academia work, as it acknowledges and discusses a ‘failed’ interview as oppose to a ‘successful’ one. This is highly uncommon in the academics field, chiefly as ‘success’ is acclaimed and ‘failure’ is dismissed. Through an apparent ‘failed’ interview however, we can analyse how the absence of spoken text can enable our better understanding of the importance in other compelling factors such as embodiment, silence and laughter in acquiring useful data. (Nairn, Munro and Smith, p.221) Nevertheless, ‘silence’ in certain cultures can be interpreted as the act of demonstrating seriousness and respect before answering to an individual’s query. In western societies however, ‘silence’ is conceivably interpreted as the respondent’s inability to comprehend the question or a way of expressing power