I 2002, the National Research Council (NRC) released a report that articulated its vision about education research (Eisenhart & Towne, 2003; Feuer et al., 2002), which focused on scientifically based research methods. The release of the report was followed by an extensive debate and is broadly understood as part of the long-standing “paradigm war”1 in the field (Fischman & Tefera, 2014; Munoz-Najar Galvez et al., 2019). Some of the scholars defending the criteria advanced by the report had somewhat traditionally dismissive views of education research “as something of a stepchild, reluctantly tolerated at the margins of academe and rarely trusted by policy makers, practitioners, or members of the public at large” (Lagemann, 2000, p. x). A similar perspective was advanced by Grover Whitehurst, the influential director of the Institute of Education Sciences from 2002 to 2008, who claimed that the

中文翻译：

---

超越范式战争：教育研究的新兴方法

2002 年，国家研究委员会 (NRC) 发布了一份报告，阐明了其关于教育研究的愿景（Eisenhart & Towne，2003；Feuer 等，2002），该报告侧重于基于科学的研究方法。报告发布后进行了广泛的辩论，被广泛理解为该领域长期存在的“范式战争”1 的一部分（Fischman & Tefera，2014 年；Munoz-Najar Galvez 等人，2019 年）。一些为报告提出的标准辩护的学者在传统上有些不屑一顾，认为教育研究“像是继子，在学术界不情愿地被边缘化，很少被政策制定者、实践者或广大公众信任” （拉格曼，2000 年，第 x 页）。Grover Whitehurst 提出了类似的观点，