本文討論作者自身進行、指導教育質性研究及所閱讀之教育質性研究文本裡常見的創塑意義問題與難題。作者將分析視為一種切割，將詮釋看為再脈絡化的歷程，強調社會脈絡中之語言使用的建構性質，以此為基點，整理出所閱讀之教育質性研究在分析與詮釋實務上顯現的幾個問題，包括：過度切割，導致意義虛薄；整體擁抱，但對塑義歷程語焉不詳；陷入語言反映現實的迷思，或無法體現語言構築現實的認定；以及研究歷程中的過度分工。質性研究者缺乏語言學素養，以致難以敏察語言細節與情境/現實的互構；缺乏將現場工作轉化為貼近經驗的敘說能力，則是難以在短時間內快速解決的難題。點出問題與難題之外，作者介紹並討論Clandinin and Connelly（2000）的敘說探究和Gee（2000）的言談分析兩種不同取向的分析方式。最後,作者以「敘事式的言談分析」提醒自身及其他研究者在關注語用細節，清晰切割經驗與看重敘說意義，整體領受經驗之間持續來回穿梭與創塑意義。

　　　　　This article discusses some problems and difficulties in the sense-making process of educational qualitative research as encountered by the author and other researchers in Taiwan. Conceptualizing the process of analyzing data as cutting things apart and the process of interpretation as making attempts to recontextualize, the author points out some typical problems in doing analysis and interpretation, namely, over-categorization, over-dependence on intuitions, a neglect of the constituting property of language use and over-differentiation in doing qualitative research. A lack of sensitivity to linguistic details and being unable to transform the fieldwork into appealing narratives are seen as two major difficulties encountered by some qualitative researchers in Taiwan. The author then introduces and discusses two different ways of making sense in two research approaches: Clandinin and Connelly's (2000) narrative inquiry and Gee's (2000) discourse analysis. Having gained insights from both approaches, the author suggests using the concept of “doing discourse analysis narratively” as a reminder for qualitative researchers in shuttling back and forth between cutting off the experiences into parts and embracing the experiences as a whole.