It is well-established in early childhood research that knowledge may be considered a contestable construct. From a period of developmentalism into sociocultural thinking, postmodernism, post-foundationalism and now post-humanism, the literature is increasingly clear that how research is conceived, constructed and interpreted shapes how knowledge ‘about’, ‘with’ and ‘for’ young children is positioned, and by extension mediated in policy and practice (Doucet & Adair, 2018). However, what is less clear is the extent to which an understanding of knowledge as contestable, works to generate a communicable body of research concerning young children in a way that promotes discussion across diverse viewpoints, rather than centralising accepted value positions within relatively separate research communities. Research communities typically represent disciplines, or established areas of knowledge, with associated ontological standpoints, conceptual frameworks, methods, and approaches to analyses. Disciplines themselves tend to centralise their own development, through publication in field-specific journals and conference presentations, and self-citation among their own members (Van den Besselaar & Heimeriks, 2001). When this occurs, even in situations where two disciplines are likely able to shed light on a similar problem, the articulation of discipline-based knowledge in practice or policy becomes contested. Which view is most correct?

中文翻译：

---

社论

在儿童早期研究中已经公认，知识可以被认为是一种可竞争的建构。从发展主义到社会文化思维，后现代主义，后基础主义和后人本主义的时期，文学越来越清楚地表明，研究的构想，建构和解释方式如何塑造知识“关于”，“与”和“为”儿童的方式。定位，并在政策和实践中进行调解（Doucet＆Adair，2018）。但是，还不清楚的是，对知识的理解是具有竞争性的，可以在多大程度上促进有关幼儿的研究交流，从而促进跨各种观点的讨论，而不是将公认的价值立场集中在相对独立的研究社区中。 。研究社区通常代表学科或已建立的知识领域，并具有相关的本体论观点，概念框架，方法和分析方法。学科本身倾向于通过在特定领域的期刊和会议上发表论文以及在自己的成员中进行自我引用来集中自己的发展（Van den Besselaar＆Heimeriks，2001）。当发生这种情况时，即使在两个学科很可能能够阐明相似问题的情况下，在实践或政策中对基于学科的知识的表达也会引起争议。哪种观点最正确？通过在特定领域的期刊和会议上发表论文以及他们自己的成员之间的自我引用（Van den Besselaar＆Heimeriks，2001）。当发生这种情况时，即使在两个学科很可能能够阐明相似问题的情况下，在实践或政策中对基于学科的知识的表达也会引起争议。哪种观点最正确？通过在特定领域的期刊和会议上发表论文以及他们自己的成员之间的自我引用（Van den Besselaar＆Heimeriks，2001）。当发生这种情况时，即使在两个学科很可能能够阐明相似问题的情况下，在实践或政策中对基于学科的知识的表达也会引起争议。哪种观点最正确？