This paper questions the idea that there are two opposing paradigms of educational research, often called positivist versus interpretivist. It argues that the ‘paradigm’ term has been used to avoid philosophical discussions about the nature of educational research. This has been done by understanding ‘paradigms’ to reflect metaphysical positions about connected epistemological and ontological assumptions. Problems with this conception of ‘paradigms’ are discussed including how to justify combining different research methods. The paper also criticises treating pragmatism as a ‘paradigm’ by distinguishing between everyday pragmatism and philosophical pragmatism. Philosophical pragmatism is presented as a diverse approach that is naturalistic, fallibilistic and overcoming of false dichotomies, that can risk leading to a self‐defeating relativism. How these have been addressed is then discussed. This has involved introducing some transcendental or impersonal elements into pragmatism without reverting to a metaphysical realism. This involves a discussion of various philosophical perspectives, pragmatic realism, evolutionary epistemology and critical realism, as relevant to educational research. The final section draws on a version of Dewey's pragmatist model of enquiry. informed by some of Habermas's early and later epistemological ideas as the basis for thinking about educational research that encompasses flexible and combined methodological approaches. The paper places research methodology in a central focus in educational research with its links to epistemology and methods. It concludes that pragmatist assumptions contribute to understanding educational research, its methodologies and the design of plural and flexible research methods, even if there are continuing philosophical investigations.

中文翻译：

---

思考教育研究的本质：超越表面理论

本文对以下观点提出了质疑：教育研究有两个相反的范式，通常称为实证主义与解释主义。它认为“范式”一词已被用来避免对教育研究本质的哲学讨论。这是通过理解“范式”以反映有关关联的认识论和本体论假设的形而上学位置来完成的。讨论了这种“范式”概念的问题，包括如何证明结合不同的研究方法的合理性。本文还通过区分日常实用主义和哲学实用主义，批评将实用主义视为一种“范式”。哲学实用主义被认为是一种多样的方法，它是自然主义的，易犯错误的并且克服了错误的二分法，这有可能导致自相矛盾的相对主义。然后讨论如何解决这些问题。这涉及到将一些先验的或非个人的因素引入实用主义，而又不回到形而上学的现实主义。这涉及与教育研究有关的各种哲学观点，实用主义现实主义，进化认识论和批判现实主义的讨论。最后一部分借鉴了杜威实用主义的研究模型。哈贝马斯（Habermas）的一些早期和后来的认识论思想为我们提供了信息，这些思想是思考教育研究的基础，其中包括灵活和综合的方法论方法。本文将研究方法论与认识论和方法的联系放在教育研究的中心位置。结论是实用主义的假设有助于理解教育研究，