Some clarifications on educational research and practice

This paper responds to some of the remarks made by Wyse et al. (2021) regarding
(Hordern, 2021), both of which were published as part of the Special Section on the Close-to-Practice (CtP) research initiative (BERJ, Volume 47, Issue 6). I discuss several claims made by Wyse et al. (2021) which have misrepresented my earlier paper (Hordern, 2021). I suggest that Wyse et al. (2021) have avoided tackling the principal criticisms of the close to practice initiative that I set out (Hordern, 2021), and instead focus their discussion on issues which are peripheral to my earlier arguments. Having responded to the substantive issues in the Wyse et al. (2021) paper, I briefly discuss the important contribution of another paper in the special section (Takayama & Nishioka, 2021) in the context of identifying a way forward for education as a professionally, or practice-orientated discipline. In the final section I explain why my earlier paper did not make allegations regarding imperialism and fetishism in relation to the participants in the CtP project or BERA itself (Wyse et al., 2021).