Phan-Le Nhat Tram, Brennan Linda, Parker Lukas
School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
PLoS One. 2022 May 4;17(5):e0264924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264924. eCollection 2022.
There are on-going debates about what is and is not 'mindfulness'. These debates are stifling rigorous academic research as scientific precision is a precursor to shared meaning. While mindfulness is a growing field of research, these divergent and conflated meanings are limiting deeper interdisciplinary research. Interventions designed in one practice context may not be useful in other contexts because meaning is not transferred between settings. This review clarifies the various research domains that study mindfulness and the conceptual and operational definitions in each domain. This two-stage study comprises a scoping review of mindfulness classifications and a comparative content mapping of mindfulness studies from 2015 to 2021. The initial comprehensive search strategy followed the preferred reporting items for scoping reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) method. The comparative analysis was conducted using Leximancer. Findings illustrate a complex growing research corpus on mindfulness that is somewhat confused. The results from the scoping review show three shared domains in mindfulness classifications: short-term effects of mindfulness, long-term effects of mindfulness, and mindfulness practices. The results from the content mapping show four domains of mindfulness research: mental health, behavioural change, cognitive neuroscience, and ethical mindfulness. Operational definitions of mindfulness are not articulated clearly in these domains. Conceptual and operational definitions in the 'ethical mindfulness' domain are not yet developed. To enhance scientific progress in mindfulness research, further investigations of mindfulness classifications need to be developed. Content mapping and semantic typology is a potential candidate for future classification. More attention should be paid to developing operational definitions according to specific research domains. Scholars in the ethical mindfulness domain will need solid conceptual and operational definitions to support their research efforts.
关于什么是“正念”以及什么不是“正念”，目前存在着持续的争论。这些争论阻碍了严谨的学术研究，因为科学的精确性是达成共同意义的前提。虽然正念是一个不断发展的研究领域，但这些不同且相互混淆的含义限制了更深入的跨学科研究。在一种实践背景下设计的干预措施在其他背景下可能并不适用，因为意义无法在不同情境之间传递。本综述阐明了研究正念的各个研究领域以及每个领域中的概念性和操作性定义。这项两阶段研究包括对正念分类的范围综述以及对2015年至2021年正念研究的比较性内容映射。最初的全面搜索策略遵循了范围综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）方法。使用Leximancer进行了比较分析。研究结果表明，关于正念的研究文献日益复杂且有些混乱。范围综述的结果显示，正念分类中有三个共同领域：正念的短期影响、正念的长期影响以及正念练习。内容映射的结果显示了正念研究的四个领域：心理健康、行为改变、认知神经科学和伦理正念。在这些领域中，正念的操作性定义并未明确阐述。“伦理正念”领域的概念性和操作性定义尚未形成。为了促进正念研究的科学进展，需要进一步开展对正念分类的研究。内容映射和语义类型学是未来分类的一个潜在候选方法。应更加关注根据特定研究领域制定操作性定义。伦理正念领域的学者需要坚实的概念性和操作性定义来支持他们的研究工作。
