The state of educational research is widely agreed to be disappointing. It is variously criticised for indulging itself in airy theory rather than the practicalities of the classroom, for being slow to emulate the theoretical advances of other disciplinary fields, for not focusing on ‘what works’ in schools, for leaving theory and practice in isolation from each other, for failing to match the achievements of medical research, for being insufficiently rigorous, and no doubt for numerous other sins. It will immediately be obvious that these criticisms do not all pull in the same direction.

While we too are disappointed by the current and recent condition of educational research, this is for rather different reasons than most of the above. We think that many of the problems of educational research stem from its frequent attempts to imitate scientific research, and especially the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that are often considered the ‘gold standard’ in medical research; from an ill-defined obsession with criteria such as ‘rigour’ and ‘robustness’; and, above all – and like so much here no doubt following on from the emulation of science – from the general sense that proper research is primarily or exclusively empirical. The good researcher, on this model of research, spends her time (pausing only to take a ‘research methods course’) out and about gathering data, rather than in reading, theoretical analysis and reflection.