Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications

在美国教育研究协会刊物上发表经验社会科学研究报告的标准

American Educational Research Association

美国教育研究协会

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is pleased to provide guidelines for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. These guidelines apply to reports of education research grounded in the empirical traditions of the social sciences. They cover, but are not limited to, what are commonly called qualitative and quantitative methods. Other forms of scholarship equally important to education research include reviews of research; theoretical, conceptual, or methodological essays; critiques of research traditions and practices; and scholarship more grounded in the humanities (e.g., history, philosophy, literary analysis, arts-based inquiry). The latter forms of scholarship are beyond the scope of this document.

美国教育研究协会（AERA）乐意为在AERA刊物上发表经验社会科学研究报告提供指南。这些指南适合社会科学研究中的基于经验传统的教育研究报告。这些研究方法包括了常说的质化和量化方法，但不仅限于此。其他的一些学术形式，对于教育研究也相当重要，包括研究评论；理论性的、概念性的、方法论的文章；对研究传统的批判和实践；以及更多的在人文科学（比如历史，哲学，文学分析，艺术研究等）中被熟知的学术形式。但，所有后面的这些学术形式不属于本指南涵盖的范围。

The aim of specifying reporting standards for empirical research in education is to assist researchers in the preparation of manuscripts that report such work, editors and reviewers in the consideration of these manuscripts for publication, and readers

in learning from and building upon such publications. The primary audience for these standards is researchers who wish to publish reports of empirical research and who review such research for AERA publications.

制定这些教育经验研究的报告标准的目的是帮助研究者准备报告这些研究工作的稿件，也方便编辑和审稿人为刊物斟酌这些稿件，也方便读者从刊物中学习和改进。这些标准的主要对象还是研究者，那些想在AERA刊物发表经验研究报告的研究者和评审这些研究的研究者。

In adopting these standards, AERA emphasizes that the standards are intended to provide a framework of expectations, or rules of thumb, about what a report of empirical work ordinarily should address. The standards are not intended to define the conduct of empirical research. Although research reporting and research conduct are necessarily related, decisions about how to conduct empirical research are the researcher’s responsibility. The standards are also not intended to define or determine the format for writing empirical work. Reports of different kinds of empirical research can take different forms, and authors working in different methodological or intellectual traditions may vary in the modes, order, or form of presentation. Finally, the acceptability of a research report does not rest on evidence of literal satisfaction of every standard in this document, and acceptability cannot be determined by using a checklist. In a given case, there may be a sound professional reason why a particular standard is inapplicable. The purpose in specifying these standards is to provide guidance about the kinds of information essential to understanding both the nature of the research and the importance of the results.

采用这些标准，美国教育研究协会强调，这些标准是打算提供一个经验研究报告一般要达到的一个期望的框架或者说是一些首要的原则。这些标准不打算规定经验研究的行为，尽管研究报告和研究行为是有必然联系的，但决定如何进行经验研究是研究者的职责。这些标准同样不打算规定或决定撰写经验研究工作的格

式。不同种类的经验研究报告可以用不同的形式，并且，一个研究报告的作者，他运用不同方法或者思维传统进行研究工作，也会在呈现方法、顺序、形式上有所不同。总之，研究报告是否达标不依赖于完美遵守本指南的每一条标准，是否达标也没有一个（标准答案式的）审核列表。在某些情况下，一个特定的标准不适用，往往会有一个正当、专业的理由。制定这些标准的目的是，对于帮助理解研究的本质和研究结果的价值提供一些必不可少的信息。

While these standards are directed to authors, editors, reviewers,and readers of AERA journals, the substance of the standards and the breadth of methodological coverage are not particular to education research. Thus, in publishing these standards, the Association seeks to offer an educational document that can be useful to other research societies and journal publishers that disseminate empirical work using these same social science methods. Also, as part of AERA’s broader educational mission to advance high-quality research in education and to foster excellence in reporting on empirical research, the Association commends use of these standards in the training and preparation of researchers in publishing research.

这些标准面向AERA杂志的作者、编辑、审稿人、读者，而，这些标准的主旨和方法涵盖的范围却不仅仅针对教育研究。因此，发布这些标准，协会追求提供一份教育性的文档，能对其他的一些使用相同社会科学方法传播经验研究的研究协会和杂志出版商也有所助益。同时，作为美国教育研究协会的更广泛的教育任务（增强教育领域内的高质量研究和打造优秀的经验研究报告）的一部分， 协会提倡在发表研究工作的研究者的培养和准备中使用这些标准。

Preamble to Standards

序言

Two overarching principles underlie the development of these reporting standards: the sufficiency of the warrants and the transparency of the report. First, reports of empirical research should be warranted; that is, adequate evidence should be provided to justify the results and conclusions. Second, reports of empirical research should be transparent; that is, reporting should make explicit the logic of inquiry and activities that led from the development of the initial interest, topic, problem, or research question; through the definition, collection, and analysis of data or empirical evidence; to the articulated outcomes of the study. Reporting that takes these principles into account permits scholars to understand one another’s work, prepares that work for public scrutiny, and enables others to use that work. These standards are therefore intended to promote empirical research reporting that is warranted and transparent.

这些报告标准的开发基于两条重要的原则：充分的证据性和报告的清晰性。首先，经验研究的报告应该是可以被证明的，也就是说，要提供充足的证据来证明结果和结论的正确性。其次，经验研究的报告应该是清晰、一目了然的，也就是说，报告应该在探究和实践中运用明确的逻辑来指导整个过程，从最初的兴趣、选题、疑问或研究问题的发展；到通过定义、收集和分析数据或经验证据；一直到研究产生明确的结果。贯彻这两个原则的报告，便于其他学者们理解另一个学者的工作，也准备好便于公众审查，还能够让其他人使用这些成果。因此，这些标准的目的在于提高经验研究报告的证据性和清晰性。

The reporting standards are divided into eight general areas: problem formulation; design and logic of the study; sources of evidence; measurement and classification; analysis and interpretation; generalization; ethics in reporting; and title, abstract, and headings. Each of these areas is considered in detail in the sections that follow. Each

section starts with a general discussion of that area followed by specific numbered standards that pertain to that domain. In some instances, the discussion provides additional detail to clarify the meaning of the standards and how they might apply to different research traditions.

这份报告标准分成八大块：问题表述；研究的设计和逻辑；证据来源；测量和分类；分析和解释；归纳；报告中的道德规范；标题，摘要和段落标题。每一块会有后续部分进行细节表述。每个部分会以一个常规论述开始，接着是一些从属于这些大块的详细编号的标准。在某些情况下，论述会提供更多的细节说明这些标准的意思以及他们可能会应用于哪些不同的研究传统。

1.Problem Formulation

1、问题表述

A research problem is an issue, topic, or question that motivates a study. Such problems may be theoretical, practical, or a combination thereof. The problem formulation answers the question of why the results of the investigation would be of interest to the research community and how an investigation is linked to prior knowledge and research.

一个研究问题是引发一次研究的一个值得讨论的问题、一个主题或者一个疑问。这样的问题可能是理论方面的，也可能是实践方面的，或者是兼而有之。问题表述回答了这样的问题，为什么研究的结果会让研究共同体感兴趣，以及这个研究和以前的知识和研究有怎样的联系。

Problem formulation can vary in scope and inclusiveness of questions and issues. Authors need to make clear how their formulation defines the limits of what can be addressed and the extent to which it is inclusive of diverse populations or circumstances. A thorough formulation of the problem typically includes a clear statement of the topic, issue, or question; a review of what others have written that bears directly on the problem; a rationale for the conceptual, methodological, and theoretical choices made in addressing the problem; and a consideration of how the study contributes to knowledge or understanding about the problem. These choices can have a significant influence on how a problem is understood, what generalizations can be made, and the extent to which a work can contribute to addressing significant issues. Reporting needs to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible of what the problem is about and how it has been approached.

问题表述随着问题或者论题的范围和内容的改变而改变。作者需要明确，他们的

表述确定了研究所能解决问题的界限以及涉及不同人群或环境的范围。一个完整的问题表述基本上包括了对主题、论题或者疑问的一个清晰的陈述；对与此问题直接相关的其他人的文献的评述；说明为何选择某些概念、方法和理论来解决这个问题的理由；以及说明本研究如何对知识或者理解该问题产生贡献。这些信息对问题的理解、归纳的产生以及这项研究对解决此重要问题究竟有多大贡献有重要的影响。报告必须对这个问题关于什么、如何解决提供尽可能全面的描述。

1.1. The problem formulation should provide a clear statement of the purpose and scope of the study. It should describe the question, problem, or issue the study addresses, situate it in context, describe the approach taken to addressing it, and explain why it is important to address.

1.1. 本问题表述应提供研究目的和范围的明确的表述。包括，研究要解决的问题及其背景的描述，解决问题采用的方法的描述，阐释解决问题的重要性。

1.2. Reporting should make clear how the study is a contribution to knowledge.

1.2. 报告应说明本研究对知识有怎样的贡献。

1.2.a. If the study is a contribution to an established line of theory and empirical research, it should make clear what the contributions are and how the study contributes to testing, elaborating, or enriching that theoretical perspective.

1.2.a 如果研究对已经建立的理论或者经验研究产生贡献，那么要说明该贡献是什么以及研究是如何对检验、说明或者丰富理论观点产生贡献的。

1.2.b. If a study is intended to establish a new line of theory, it should make clear what that new theory is, how it relates to existing theories and evidence, why the new theory is needed, and the intended scope of its application.

1.2.b 如果研究是试图建立一个新的理论，那么要说明新理论是什么，与已经存在的理论和证据有什么关联，为什么需要新理论以及它的预期的应用范围。

1.2.c. If the study is motivated by practical concerns, it should make clear what those concerns are, why they are important, and how this investigation can address those concerns.

1.2.c 如果研究是因实践问题而产生的，那么要说明哪些问题是什么，为什么重要，研究为什么能解决这些问题。

1.2.d. If the study is motivated by lack of information about a problem or issue, the problem formulation should make clear what information is lacking, why it is important, and how this investigation will address the need for information.

1.2.d 如果研究是以因某些问题的信息不足产生的，那么要说明缺少的是什么信息，他们的重要性，以及研究如何解决对这些信息的需求。

1.3. Reporting should include a review of the relevant scholarship that bears directly on the topic of the report. It should include a clear statement of the criteria used to identify and select the relevant scholarship in which the study is grounded. A review should make clear how the study contributes to, challenges, and/or extends theory, practice, methodology, research results, knowledge and/or understandings within an arena of inquiry.

报告应有与本报告主题直接相关的文献述评。研究会基于一些相关文献，报告中要包含一份关于鉴别和挑选这些文献的标准的明确表述。一份述评要明确这项研究是如何帮助、质疑、和【或】扩展理论、实践、方法、研究成果、知识和【或】对某个探究领域的理解的。

1.4. The rationale for the conceptual, methodological, or theoretical orientation of

the study should be described and explained with relevant citations to what others have written about it.

对于研究的概念、方法或理论定位的基本理由需要引用他人相关的内容进行描述和解释。

1.5. A rationale should be provided for the problem formulation as it relates to the groups studied (especially with respect to relevant features of the historical, linguistic, social, and cultural backgrounds of the group) where questions about appropriateness of the connections may arise.

当问题表述中牵涉到群体研究，关联的适当性问题会增加（译者注：这里有些不清楚），那么需要提供一个基本依据，特别是关于该群体的历史、语言、社会和文化背景的相关特征。

2.Design and Logic

2.设计与逻辑

The design and logic of a study flows directly from the problem formulation. It is shaped by the intellectual tradition(s) in which the authors are working and the ways in which they view the phenomenon under study. This in turn influences the identification of questions, the choice of methods of data collection, the approach to analysis and interpretation, and the format of reporting. These decisions constitute the logic of inquiry that researchers report.

研究的设计与逻辑直接源自问题表述。它是由作者研究的思维传统和观察研究现象的方法形成的。它会依次影响问题的确认，数据采集方法的选择，分析与解释的方法以及报告的格式。这些决定组成了研究者报告中探究的逻辑。

Many different study designs are used in education research and different designs are appropriate for different problems. Some studies are concerned with drawing causal inferences regarding intended treatments, such as estimating the effects of reducing class size on student achievement. Other studies are concerned with describing particular occurrences and the meanings people give them in a single setting, such as how early literacy is taught and understood in a particular preschool. Some studies describe how a given phenomenon changes over time, such as how the number of women enrolled in doctoral programs in the physical sciences changes across several decades. Other studies examine the subjective experience of a particular group of research participants, such as what it is like, on a daily basis, to be a student in a “last chance” algebra class in a comprehensive high school. Still other studies examine the multiple layers that support or constrain the opportunities afforded to students and teachers, the distribution of resources within a school district, or the symbols and language of reform discourse. These examples illustrate only some of the range of empirical research problems in education research.

许多不同的研究设计被用于教育研究，并且不同的设计适用于不同的问题。一些研究关注揭示某个预设环境下的因果关系，例如评估通过缩小班级规模对学生成绩所产生的影响。而另一些研究则关注在某一种环境下发生的特定事件及其人为赋予的含义的描述。例如在特定的学前学校里，早期的读写教育是如何被教授和理解的。（译者：上面的是对应的两种研究：一种是预设环境，一种是原生态环境下） 一些研究描述一个现象如何随时间而变化，例如数十年间在物理科学博士班女生的入学人数变化。而另一些研究则检测一个特定的被试组的主观经验，比如在综合高中里，“最后机会”的代数班的一个学生每天有什么感受。（译者：上面的是对应的两种研究，一种是记录客观数据，一种是记录主观数据） 还有其他的研究检测支持或迫使向学生、老师提供机会的多种层面，在学区内的资源分布或是改革论著中的语言、符号。这些实例仅仅是教育研究中经验研究问题的一些方面。

2.Design and Logic

2.设计与逻辑

The design and logic of a study flows directly from the problem formulation. It is shaped by the intellectual tradition(s) in which the authors are working and the ways in which they view the phenomenon under study. This in turn influences the identification of questions, the choice of methods of data collection, the approach to analysis and interpretation, and the format of reporting. These decisions constitute the logic of inquiry that researchers report.

设计与逻辑是一项由问题模式延伸出的研究。作者致力于思想传统的研究和观察研究现象的方法共同塑造了这一命题。它转而影响了问题的定义，数据采集的方法选择，分析与解释的手段，报告的形式。这些决定组成了研究者报告中问题的逻辑。

Many different study designs are used in education research and different designs are appropriate for different problems. Some studies are concerned with drawing causal inferences regarding intended treatments, such as estimating the effects of reducing class size on student achievement. Other studies are concerned with describing particular occurrences and the meanings people give them in a single setting, such as how early literacy is taught and understood in a particular preschool. Some studies describe how a given phenomenon changes over time, such as how the number of women enrolled in doctoral programs in the physical sciences changes across several decades. Other studies examine the subjective experience of a particular group of research participants, such as what it is like, on a daily basis, to be a student in a “last chance” algebra class in a comprehensive high school. Still other studies examine the multiple layers that support or constrain the opportunities afforded to students and teachers, the distribution of resources within a school district, or the symbols and language of reform discourse. These examples illustrate only some of the range of empirical research problems in education research.

许多不同的研究设计被用于教育研究并且不同的设计适用于不同的问题。一些研究用来揭示实行某个措施后的成果推论，例如通过评估学生的成绩来减少学生课程所产生的影响。一些研究关系着一些对特殊事件的描述，人们给它一个单独的分类，例如在特教的学前班，是从几岁开始教授读写的。一些研究揭示了一个特定的现象随时间的变化过程，例如在数十年间在物理科学领域中妇女参与到医学项目的人数变化。此外有些研究对一个特定的实验参与者（组）的主观经历行测量，例如在日常基础上，一个综合性高中的学生在上最后的代数课是有什么感受。还有其他的研究对为学生和教师提供或约束的条件、在学校区域内的资源贡献或是改良论著中的语言、符号进行了多层次的剖析。这些实例仅仅是教育领域经验主义研究问题的一些方面。

Designs for studies with such differing aims require very different approaches to data collection and analysis, from the construction of large-scale experiments or sample surveys to in-depth interviewing of a small number of subjects or the preparation of

detailed transcripts of naturally occurring classroom talk. In some situations and in some forms of research, aspects of designs can be well specified in advance; in other circumstances, these may evolve, and the initial research questions become more elaborate or focused, as researchers become more familiar with the contexts in which they work. Moreover, research designs often take account of constraints; some designs are more feasible or practical in certain research situations than others, independent of their suitability in the abstract.

有着不同目标的研究设计对数据采集和分析的手段是非常不同的，由大规模实验或样本测试的全面研究型到一些非常小的课题或者只是准备记录一些日常课堂对话。在某些情境或者调查形式中，设计的一些方面可以在事先详细说明；在某些情况下，这些只有在过程中才能体现，当研究者开始熟悉他们的课题时，最初的研究问题将会变得更复杂或集中。此外，研究设计也通常考虑到一些限制；在某些研究环境中一些设计会比另外一些更为可行或实用，脱离于他们理想中的实际情况。

Whatever the study’s central purpose and circumstances might be, description of its design needs to make clear its logic of inquiry, showing how and why the methods and procedures that were used were appropriate for the problem as formulated. It is important as well that significant changes or developments in the design be clearly described, that reasons for changes be provided,

and that any substantial implications for interpretation of the results be discussed.

不论这个研究的核心目标和实验条件如何，它对其设计的描述都要澄清对问题的逻辑，能够解释如何/为何对这个模式化的问题来说这样的方法和处理过程是合适的。同樣在設計中对重要的變化和发展的清晰描述、提供变化的原因、讨论任何能影响结果的重要参数也是至关重要的。

2.1. Research reporting should follow a clear logic of inquiry that allows readers to

trace the path from the initial statement of the problem, issue, or interest; to the review of the relevant scholarship and intellectual orientation of the study; to the research questions initiated and/or developed in the study; to the description of the site, group, and/or participants (demographic information); to the methodology guiding collection and analysis of evidence; to the interpretation and presentation of outcomes and understandings gained from the research process. There should be a coherent presentation of these aspects of the study, and it should be clear how the different parts of the study are related to each other.

2.1研究报告应该遵循一个清晰的探究逻辑使之能引导读者从最最初的问题、事件或令人感兴趣的事情的建立开始，到去简约相关的学术研究和研究的思想方向，再由此去探究由这个研究所开创并/或发展出的问题，对一个场所、群体、或参与者的描述（成员统计信息），直到由某一研究方法指导下来收集和分析现象，直到揭示并展示由研究过程所得到的体会和结果。这必须是一个对研究的各方面逻辑缜密的展示，并且它也必须说明在这个研究中不同的研究分支是如何相关联的。

2.2. There should be a specific and unambiguous description of the design—the way the data collection or data identification activities were organized in the investigation. Significant developments or alterations in the research questions or design should be described and a rationale for the changes presented.

2.2一定要有一个特定的清晰的设计描述，这个描述是针对在调研中是如何组织数据采集或数据识别的。在研究中的重大的进展或变数应该被阐明并且提出变化最基本的原因。

3. Sources of Evidence

3.证据来源

“Sources of evidence” refers to both the units of study and the data or empirical materials collected or identi?ed to address the research question or problem. Thus, reporting on sources of evidence includes describing relevant characteristics of the site, group, participants, events, or other units studied; the processes and judgments through which they were selected; and a rationale for these choices. It also includes speci?cation of the data or empirical materials that were collected, the processes and judgments through which they were collected, and a rationale for these choices.

“证据来源”即指研究的单位又指那些经过收集和鉴定用于解释研究问题与疑难的数据或经验材料。因此，报告证据的来源包括了描述地点、组、参与者、事件、或者其他单位研究的相关特点；选择这些证据经过的过程与判断；以及做出这些选择的逻辑依据。报告证据的来源还包括了对所收集的数据和经验资料、选择这些证据经过的过程与判断以及做出这些选择的理由的详细说明。

Data sources typically include participant and nonparticipant observations; unstructured or semi structured interviews; documents and other artifacts; audio- or video-recordings; and standardized instruments like surveys or tests, structured interview protocols, and categorical demographic information that permit aggregation of data across cases or units of analysis. These data can be newly collected for a study or based on secondary sources of evidence. Since the role of the researcher and the relationship between the researcher and the participants can in?uence the data collected, this relationship is addressed in descriptions of sources of evidence.

数据来源通常包括参与者与非参与者的意见、未组织的或半组织的访谈、文件和

其他文献、声音或影像记录；还有像调查与访问之类的标准文书、有计划的访谈议案、准确的人员统计信息以此来明确数据整体所能够涉及到的分析案例与单位。这些数据可以在研究时临时收集，或者就作为辅助证据来源。由于研究者的身份以及他们与参与者的关系会影响到数据的收集，所以在描述证据来源时需要把这种关系强调一下。

3.1. The units of study (sites, groups, participants, events, or other units) and the means through which they were selected should be adequately described.

对于研究的单位（地点，组，参与者，事件或者其他单位）和选择它们的方法应当有足够的描述。

3.1.a. Descriptions should include relevant characteristics of the site, group, participants, events, or other units of study that bear directly on reporting and interpreting outcomes. The social, historical, or cultural context of the phenomena studied should also be described. The number of participants or other units of analysis (e.g., classrooms, schools) should be described unless circumstances make that impossible (e.g., some forms of observation in public places), and where relevant their relation to the more general population from which they were selected should be provided.

描述应当包括对地点，组，参与者，事件，或者研究的其他单位的相关特点，这些都直接与报告和阐释结果有关系。所研究现象的社会，历史，或者文化背景也应当予以描述。参与者的数量以及分析的单位（比如像教室，学校）需要有所交代，除非是客观环境不允许（比如像一些在公众场合的观察形式），同时，还要提供参与者与他们来自的更广泛的群体之间相关的关系。

3.1.b. The means of selection of the sites, groups, participants, events, or other units of study should be described and a rationale provided. This includes the processes and judgments through which the units of study were sampled or selected, the agreements made with participants, and a rationale for these choices. Descriptions

should include how access, selection, and consent of participants were addressed; how rapport was established; what roles were taken by the researcher (e.g., interviewer, observer) and participants (e.g., respondent, informant) in the data collection; and what signi?cant changes, if any, in relationships and roles of researcher and participants occurred over time. If in order to use certain forms of data or information consonant with guarantees of con?dentiality, speci?c techniques have been used to mask or perturb the data or generate synthetic data from the original data, these processes should be noted.

3.1.b. 选择地点、组、参与者、事件或者其他研究单位的方法应当描述出来并且提供基本的原理。这里包括对研究单位的抽样以及选择的过程和评判标准，与参与者达成的协议，以及做出这些选择的基本原理。描述应当包括是如何处理访问，选择以及参与者的同意；如何建立良好的氛围；研究者（比如像采访者，观察者）和参与者（像调查对象、提供资料的人）在数据收集中分别扮演着怎样的角色；随着研究的进程，研究者和参与者的关系与角色如果有的话都发生了什么重大的变化。如果为了用一些符合保证保密的数据和信息的形式，就需要用一些特殊的技术对数据进行掩饰和干扰或者从原始的数据中形成合成的数据，这其中的过程应当被记录下来。

3.1.c. Reporting on studies that compare groups as a central feature of their design (e.g., student participants in different community organizations, teacher turnover rates in rural, urban, and suburban schools) should describe those individuals, groups, or entities in sufficient detail to make the salient attributes, choices, and conceptual rationale clear. In laboratory or ?eld studies, if the researcher has recruited participants and made any assignments to groups, the process, rationale, and outcome of assignment should be described.

当对照组作为设计的主要特点时（像不同社区组织的学生参与者，在乡村、城市和郊区学校的教师流动率），研究报告应当描述出个人，群体或者实体的详细细

节从而弄清楚哪些重要的属性，选择，和概念上的理论。在实验室或者领域研究中，如果研究者雇用了某些参与者或者对研究组进行了分配，这其中的过程，基本原理，以及分配的结果应当描述出来。

3.1.d. When an intervention or treatment is implemented, the intervention or treatment should be described in sufficient detail so that its key features can be identi?ed and used to account for results, and be compared with related interventions or treatments. Similarly, features of control or comparison groups should be described so that they can be understood and examined in relation to interventions or treatments.

当一个干预或者处理完成以后，这个干预或者处理也应有详细的细节描述以便它的主要特征可以被识别并用于解释结果，以及可以与相同类别的干预或处理相比较。类似的，控制组或者对照组的特点应当被描述出来从而它们和干预或者处理之间的关系可以被理解以及检验。

3.2. The collection of data or empirical materials should be clearly described, including how and when they were gathered, by whom, and for what purposes. Description should also address salient processes and judgments that went into speci?cation of data collection and a rationale for these choices. The description should be precise and sufficiently complete to enable another researcher, where appropriate, to understand what was done and, where appropriate, to replicate or reproduce the methods of data collection under the same or altered research circumstances. The relevance of evidence to the research problem, topic, or question should be clear. The sources and schedules of evidence may be speci?ed in text, tables, or diagrams.

数据以及实证材料的收集应当有清楚地描述，包括怎样以及何时、何人、为了什么目的收集它们的。描述也应当强调那些数据收集规格和选择原因的显著过程以

及判断。这个描述应当很准确以及充分完整以确保另外的研究者在适当的时候理解你到底做了哪些工作，适当的时候在相同或者改变了的环境中重复你这种数据收集的方法。研究难题、主题或者问题的相关证据应当很清楚。证据的来源和编制应当在文本中、表格、图表中加以详细说明。

3.2.a. Descriptions should include information such as the time and duration of data collection; the schedule, context, and focus of data collection and how it was done (e.g., structured inventory, ?eld notes, audio or video recording); the protocol for the administration of any instruments; the documents, records, or artifacts gathered and the ways in which they were identi?ed. Where secondary data sources were used, reference to where the original description can be found may be sufficient.

描述应当包括这些信息例如数据收集的时间和持续时间；数据收集的时间表、环境以及关注的焦点并且要说明是如何收集的（像结构化存档、户外记录、声音或者录像记录。）；所有工具的管理协议；收集的文档、记录以及文献，另外还有鉴定它们的方法。辅助数据来源用在了什么地方，原始描述的索引需要很充分。

3.2.b. With structured or semi structured interviews, open-ended surveys, or observational inventories, there should be sufficient description of these guides or protocols to convey their properties; with open-ended or informal interviews, there should be sufficient information to place participants’ responses in the context of what was asked and of what preceded it. Structured surveys; data collection protocols; or standardized tests, measures, or instruments should similarly be described in sufficient detail to convey the development process and provide evidence of their technical quality. Information on access to these surveys, instruments, protocols, inventories, and guides should be speci?ed. References should be included for instruments used in a reported study previously developed by the authors or by other investigators.

在结构化或半结构的访谈、开放式的调查或者观察存档中，应当有足够的传达它们特点的指南与协议的描述；在开放式或者非正式的访谈中，应当有充分的信息来说明受试者在被问及问题以及之前的情境下的反应。结构化的调查，数据收集协议，或者标准化测试，测量，工具应当有相类似的详细细节的描述以用来传达发展进程以及提供它们技术品质的证据。与这些调查相关的信息，工具、协议、存档以及指南应当有详细说明。参考文献应当包含在一个报告研究中用到的以前其他作者或者研究者开发出来的工具。

4. Measurement and Classi?cation

测量和分类

Empirical studies typically entail some process of data selection, reduction, or translation to enable analysis and reporting of outcomes. Measurement is the process by which behavior or observation is converted into quantities, which may, in turn, then be subjected to some kind of quantitative analysis. Classi?cation refers to processes of segmenting data into units of analysis and categorizing or coding them.

经验研究通常要进行数据的选择、筛减、或者解释以完成结果的分析和报告。测量是把行为或观察转化为数量的概念然后用以量化的分析。分类是指把数据分割成可以分析的单元或是对它们进行编码的过程。

With qualitative methods in particular, classi?cation is often considered integral to the data analysis. Thus, it is addressed here and referred to again under data analysis standards. The validity of empirical studies depends, in part, on the claim that classi?cations and measurements preserve important characteristics of the phenomena they represent. The practices of classi?cation and the development of measurement instruments are typically iterative, as researchers seek to provide representations or translations of the data that are most meaningful in light of the phenomena studied and the research questions addressed. Descriptions of the development of classi?cations and measurements, as well as evidence of their meaningfulness and appropriateness for capturing important characteristics of the groups or participants studied, are important elements of research reporting.

特别是定性方法，分类经常被认为是对于数据分析所不可缺少的东西，所以它被写在了这里并且在数据分析标准中被再次提到，经验研究的有效性部分在于分类和测量是否保护了它们要呈现现象的重要特征。分类的实践和测量仪器的发展是

反复的，就像研究者寻求为他们所要研究的想象和问题提供最有意义的表现和解释。分类和测量的进行的描述以及参与者所研究问题的特点的有效性和合适性的证据，是研究报告的重要元素。

Empirical investigations often involve a large number of data elements, some of which are more important to the logic of inquiry and interpretation of the investigation than others. It is important to distinguish key data elements that are crucial to the logic and interpretation of the outcomes. Such elements will typically include those that are directly involved in the quantitative or qualitative analyses on which interpretations are based. They will also include those that are crucial to any intended extrapolations or generalizations of the results beyond the social phenomena studied.

经验研究经常包括很大数量的数据元素，这其中的很多数据对于调查的逻辑和调查的解释来说更为重要。这些数据对于辨别对结果的逻辑和解释关键的数据元素具有至关重要的作用。这些元素一般包括那些、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、

4.1. The development of measurements and classi?cations should be clearly described, showing how the measurement or classi?cation preserves important characteristics of the phenomena under study. When a previously developed measurement instrument or classi?cation scheme is used, reference to a publication where these descriptions are provided may be sufficient.

测量和分类的进行情况应该清楚的表述出来，以表明测量和分类是怎样保护所要研究现象的主要特征的。当使用一个以前被发展过的测量仪器或被使用过的分类计划时，出版物提供的描述参考也许是充分的。

4.2. Any classi?cation scheme should be comprehensively described and illustrated with concrete examples that represent the range of phenomena classi?ed.

每一个描述计划都应该用可以表现所要分类现象范围的具体实例来描述和说明。

4.2.a. When the classi?cation involves only parts of the data, the means through which those parts were selected should be described and a rationale provided.

当一个分类仅仅包括部分数据时，这部分数据被挑选的原因应该说明和提供。

4.2.b. When exhaustive analysis of the relevant data is desirable and appropriate, especially when such analysis is necessary to support the main conclusions that are drawn (e.g., about the “typicality” of an event or the pervasiveness of a pattern), the classi?cation scheme and frequencies of items in each classi?cation should be presented in a table, chart, or appendix, or the information on their availability should be otherwise provided by the author.

当相关数据的详细分析是可取并且恰当的时候，尤其是当这种分析对于支持得出主要结论是必须的时候，分类计划和分类的频率应该在每个图表、表格和附录中给出，或者是作者给出关于它们有效性的信息。

4.2.c. If coding processes are used, the description should include, as relevant, information on the backgrounds and training of the coders; inter-coder reliability or outcomes of reviews by other analysts; and, where relevant, indications of the extent to which those studied (participants) agree with the classi?cations.

如果使用编码过程，描述应该包括：关于编码的背景和背景信息，编码的有效性和其他分析人员结果的回顾以及这项研究切合这个分类的迹象。

4.3. When measurement is entailed, reporting should describe data elements and organization in a speci?c and unambiguous way.

当测量是必要的时候，报告应该包括一个以特定和明确的方式描述的数据元素和组织。

4.3.a. Relevant descriptive statistics (such as means and standard deviations for continuous variables, frequencies for discrete variables with few categories, and correlation matrices) may be provided in tables if the analyses depend on having this information accessible; otherwise, they should be available from the author upon request.

如果分析是在数据信息具备的条件下进行的，有关描述性统计的数据(如手段和标准差连续变量离散变量,频率与几个分类和关联矩阵)可以提供在表中。否则它们应该由作者根据要求给出

4.3.b. If key data elements are derived from others, as with scale and composites, their derivation should be presented in a speci?c and unambiguous way. If these derived data elements are conventional (such as a well-known scale or a score on an established test), then a citation to an external reference is sufficient.

如果主要的数据元素师来自别人，还包括比例和组成，那么他们的来源应该以一个特定、明确的方式呈现。如果这些数据元素是耳熟能详的，那么做一个引文的解释就足够了。

4.3.c. Sufficient detail should be provided to make clear that measures are being used appropriately, have suitable dependability (reliability) properties, and are interpreted properly for the groups studied. If the data were reduced or scales, scores, or measures were developed through data reduction techniques or statistical methods, the data reduction procedures should be fully described. Evidence of appropriate use, dependability, or valid interpretation of measures (particularly key measures) should be provided in circumstances where a knowledgeable scholar

might reasonably have questions.

必须提供足够的细节来说清楚使用方法的正确性，可靠性以及研究小组使用的合理性。如果数据被筛减了，或者是研究方法在数据的筛检和统计中得到了发展，那么数据的筛减方法应该给予充分的描述。对于一个研究专业人士可能经常会有问题的地方，数据使用的合适性，有效性或者是方法的合理使用应该给出证据。

4.4. When transcriptions of audio- or video-recordings are provided, the conventions and symbols used to represent the discourse or characterize the actions or interactions should be clearly described and a rationale provided.

当提供视频和音频资料的时候，用以描述研究或者描绘动作和相互作用的标志和惯例应该给出。

4.5. A rationale should be provided for the relevance of a measurement or classi?cation as capturing important characteristics of the group studied (especially with respect to relevant features of the historical, linguistic, social, and cultural background of the group) where questions about appropriateness might readily arise.

在合理性问题经常出现的地方，对于与研究的重要特点联系比较紧密的方法和分类应该给出理由。

5. Analysis and Interpretation

5.分析和解释

An important aspect of reporting is to provide evidence that the outcomes and conclusions are warranted and that disconfirming evidence, counter-examples, or viable alternative interpretations have been appropriately considered. This entails a clear statement of the process and outcomes of data analysis and a discussion of how they address the research questions or problem. Because the processes of analysis tend to follow somewhat different paths in quantitative and qualitative methods, specific standards are discussed for each, after discussion of the general standards. When reporting on multiple methods or research that is not easily classified as quantitative or qualitative, relevant standards from both sets need to be addressed.

报告很重要的一部分就是提供用以正面或反面论证的证据，反例以及可行的代替解释都应妥善纳入考虑范围。这必然涉及到对此过程的清晰陈述、数据分析的结论和研究问题该如何陈述的讨论。因为分析过程常依靠某些不同的定性、定量的方法途径，所以在基本标准的讨论结束后，需分别讨论特定的标准。如包含多种方式或是不能轻易归类为定性、定量的研究时，那么两方面的相关标准都需要陈述。

In general:

大体上：

5.1. The procedures used for analysis should be precisely and transparently described from the beginning of the study through presentation of the outcomes. Reporting should make clear how the analysis procedures address the research question or problem and lead to the outcomes reported. The relevance of the analysis procedures to the problem formulation should be made clear.

5.1 分析步骤应当准确清晰，涵盖从研究之初到做出结论的整个过程。分析步骤如何陈述研究问题和得出结论，这是报告应该明确的。分析步骤与问题模式化的相关性也应当明确。

5.2. Analytic techniques should be described in sufficient detail to permit understanding of how the data were analyzed and the processes and assumptions underlying specific techniques (e.g., techniques used to undertake content analysis, discourse or text analysis, deliberation analysis, time use analysis, network analysis, or event history analysis).

5.2 分析技巧是指在详实基础上理解如何分析数据以及这其中的过程和假设中潜在的特定技巧（例如：用来进行文意分析，论文、文本分析，网络分析或是历史事件分析的技巧）。

5.3. The analysis and presentation of the outcomes of the analysis should make clear how they support claims or conclusions drawn in the research.

5.3 分析以及结论的得出都应明确它们是如何支持研究中得出的申明和结论的。

5.4. Analysis and interpretation should include information about any intended or unintended circumstances that may have significant implications for interpretation of the outcomes, limit their applicability, or compromise their validity. Such circumstances may include, but are not limited to, key actors leaving the site, changes in membership of the group, or withdrawal of access to any part of the study or to people in the study.

5.4 分析和解释应该包括任何有关意料之中和意料之外的情形。这些情形可能影响到对结论的解释，限制其适用范围，或降低其有效性。类似情况有关键人员离

职、小组人事变动以及任何研究方面或人员的调查许可被取消，当然还有其他情况。

5.5. The presentation of conclusions should (a) provide a statement of how claims and interpretations address the research problem, question, or issue underlying the research; (b) show how the conclusions connect to support, elaborate, or challenge conclusions in earlier scholarship; and (c) emphasize the theoretical, practical, or methodological implications of the study.

5.5 结论的得出应当（a）提供一份为何研究此问题的申明，陈述引起该事件的缘由及解释；（b）阐释结论是如何支持、衔接和挑战早前学识的论点；（c）强调研究中理论的、实践的或是方法论的含意。

With quantitative methods:

用定量的方法

With quantitative methods, statistical analyses are typically undertaken and reported and then discussions of the results developed. The results of statistical analysis typically involve both a quantitative index of a relation between variables or a magnitude and an index of its uncertainty. While statistical signi?cance testing has a long history and a useful place in education research, statisticians have long warned against overreliance on signi?cance testing to the exclusion of other methods of interpreting statistical analyses. Statistical signi?cance tests combine both magnitude of relations (or estimates) and their uncertainty into the same quantity. Interpretation of statistical analyses is enhanced by reporting magnitude of relations (e.g., effect sizes)and their uncertainty separately.

统计分析通常是用定量的方法来进行报告的，然后形成了这样的讨论结果。统计

分析的结果通常涉及一个关系的定量指标在变量、大小和指数的不确定度之间。统计意义测试有很长的历史，并在教育研究上也有很有利的位置，统计员对一直针过度依赖意义测试去排斥其他阐述的统计分析方法进行了警告。统计意义测试把两者的关系（估计）大小和它们的不确定度连结到同一数量上。统计分析的解释分别通过调查报告关系的大小和他们的不确定度来加强的。

While many statistical analyses may be carried out in a study, typically only a subset is critical to the eventual results and interpretations. It is important to report the results of analyses that are critical for interpretation of ?ndings in ways that capture the magnitude as well as the statistical signi?cance of those results. Quantitative indices of effect magnitude (effect size indices) are a useful way to do this.

然而，许多统计分析可能被用在一项通常只有一个子集对最终结果和解释至关重要的研究中。报告那些捕捉重要性的解释方式分析结果以及统计学意义的结果是很重要的。定量指标的影响效果大小(效应指标)是很容易做到这一点的。

5.6. Reporting should clearly state what statistical analyses were conducted and the appropriateness of the statistical tests, linking them to the logic of design and analysis and describing them in enough detail that they could be replicated by a competent data analyst. When central to the research, tests of rival hypotheses and alternative interpretations should be reported.

报告应该清楚地陈述进行了统计检验的适用性的统计分析,,将他们与设计与分析的逻辑联系起来，并且主管数据分析师能足够详细地描述他们,。在以研究为中心时，,应该报告对手的假设检验和不同的解释试验。

5.7. Descriptive and inferential statistics should be provided for each of the statistical analyses that is essential to the interpretation of the results.

为每一个统计学分析提供描述性与推论性统计，这对结果解释而言是非常必要的。

5.8. Any considerations that arose in the data collection and processing (e.g., attrition, missing data, ceiling or ?oor effects, deviations from standard administration or instruments, suspected cheating) that might compromise the validity of the statistical analysis or inference should be reported.

出现在数据采集和加工的任何主观动机(例如,摩擦,缺失数据,上限或下限的影响,与规范的管理或仪器的偏差，,涉嫌作弊), 这些可能危及统计分析的有效性或推论应该被告知。

5.9. Any considerations that are identi?ed during the data analysis (e.g., violations of assumptions of statistical procedures, failure of iterative statistical procedure to converge, changes in data analysis models necessitated by unexpected data patterns) that might compromise the validity of the statistical analyses or inference should be reported.

任何数据分析被识别的主观动机 (如，违反假设统计程序,失败的迭代收敛统计方法，数据分析模型在不可预料的数据模型中的变化,)这些可能危及统计分析的有效性或推论应该被告知。

5.10. For each of the statistical results that is critical to the logic of the design and analysis, there should be included:

对于每一种统计结果而言，那些至关重要的分析和设计的逻辑也应该包括在内:

? An index of the quantitative relation between variables(an effect size of some kind such as a treatment effect, a regression coefficient, or an odds ratio) or, for studies that principally describe variables, an index of effect that describes the magnitude of

the measured variable.

指数变量之间的定量关系(某种效果尺寸等,例如回归系数的处理效果或者一个可能性的比值),否则，对于研究主要描述变量,指数效应,它们描述了测量的大小是可变的。

? An indication of the uncertainty of that index of effect (such as a standard error or a con?dence interval).

一个想法的那个不确定性的指标的效应(如一个标准误或置信区间)。

? When hypothesis testing is used, the test statistic and its associated signi?cance level.

当假设检验被使用时,统计测试及其相关的显著性水平。

? A qualitative interpretation of the index of the effect that describes its meaningfulness in terms of the questions the study was intended to answer. This interpretation should include any quali?cations that may be appropriate because of the uncertainty of the ?ndings (e.g., the estimated effect is large enough to be educationally important but these data do not rule out the possibility that the true effect is actually quite small).

定性指标效应的解释等方面详细阐述了富有意义的研究是为了回答该系统的问题。由于发现的不确定性，这个解释应该包括任何适当的资格(例如,估计效果大到足以教育很重要,然而这些数据并不排除这种逼真的效果在实际中却相当小的可能性)。

With qualitative methods:

定性的方法

With qualitative methods, analyses typically occur during as well as after data collection. Early analyses can help inform subsequent data collection by, for instance, identifying categories of events, actions, or people for further analysis with in the ongoing study or for further study.

用定性的方法,典型地分析了发生在期间和之后的数据采集。早期的分析能有助于告知随后的数据采集工作,例如，通过识别类事件、行动,或人,用正在进行的研究或深层次研究去进一步分析。

As indicated in the Measurement and Classi?cation section above, during the initial stages of analysis, researchers may develop ways of segmenting the data (e.g., by person; by action, activity, event, or narrative; by time period) and sets of substantive categories or codes into which segments of data can be organized. These classi?cations help the researcher identify patterns within the data. Patterns refer to con?gurations of events or other observations that occur repeatedly or consistently in a characteristic arrangement.

以上的衡量尺度和分类部分表明,在初始阶段的分析中,研究人员可能找出一种的分离数据的方法（例如,被人;行动,活动、事件或叙事，时间），并且在其实质性的类别或代码段数据处理上,要有条理。这些分类能帮助研究员在数据中更好的识别模式。模式涉及结构的事件或其他的关于一再出现展现特色安排的言论。

Sometimes analysis is intended to provide comprehensive in-depth interpretations of a particular text, recording, or other artifact rather than pattern descriptions of extended or multi-component empirical materials. Whatever the approach to initial data analysis, it is important that researchers fully characterize the processes they used so that others can trace their logic of inquiry.

有时分析的目的是提供全面深入的解释特定的文本、记录、或其他加工，而不是对延长或多分量实证材料解释的模式。无论什么初始数据分析的方法，但重要的是，研究人员能完全描述他们使用过程，以便别人能追溯到他们的调查推理方法。

Once initial classi?cations, pattern descriptions, or in-depth interpretations are developed, researchers may review the corpus of available data to locate all relevant instances to support the claims, to search for con?rming and discon?rming evidence, and to try out alternative interpretations.

一旦最初的分类、模式描述,或深入的解释形成,研究人员可以检查有效资料的汇编，指出相关实例来支持寻找确认和否认证据的主张，以及去尝试其他的解释。

They may also return to data collection if additional evidence is needed to con?rm or discon?rm a pattern. This process results in an initial set of claims or interpretations which represent the preliminary conclusions or learnings from the research. The available sources of evidence may be re-reviewed, and alternative interpretations may be tried out, in the process of developing the ?nal conclusions or learnings that will be reported.

如果附加的证据是如果另一个证据能确认或否认这个模式，他们也可以返回数据采集中。这个过程的结果导致了一个初步的主张,或解释为代表的初步结论或学习的研究。在发展的最后结论或将报告经验和教训的过程中，证据提供的来源可能会被再次回顾，不同的解释被试用。

This iterative process of developing claims or interpretations, seeking con?rming and discon?rming evidence in the data, sometimes collecting additional evidence, and trying out alternative claims or interpretations, supports the development of warrants for claims or conclusions. Data analysis ceases when researchers are satis?ed and can provide evidence that their interpretations meaningfully and

comprehensively characterize the data analyzed in light of the problem formulation.

这种发展的主张或诠释，寻求确认和否认的数据，反复的过程中，有时收集更多的证据，要求或尝试另类的解释，支持主张或结论认证的发展历程。研究人员分析数据时，不再感到满意，并能提供证据证明他们的解释意义，全面描述了数据的根据问题制定的分析。

It is the researcher’s responsibility to show the reader that the report can be trusted. This begins with the description of evidence and analysis supporting each claim described above.

向读者显示该报告是可信的是研究人员的责任。这与相互支持的证据和主张开始描述上述分析。

The warrant for the claims can be established through a variety of procedures including triangulation or comparison of evidence from different sources, asking participants to evaluate pattern descriptions and claims, having different analysts examine the same data (independently or collaboratively), searches for discon?rming evidence and counter-interpretations, and representations of differing perspectives among participants and researchers, including attention to their location in the broader social structure. When the evidence does not converge ,differences should be noted. Critical examination of the preexisting perspective, point of view, or standpoint of the researcher(s), of how these might have in?uenced the collection and analysis of evidence, and of how they were challenged during the course of data collection and analysis, is an important element in enhancing the warrant for each claim.

为宣称令能够成立，经过了包括三角或证据比较不同来源的各种手续，要求参与者评估模式描述及要求，有不同的分析研究相同的数据（独立或合作），搜寻证

据和否认反诠释，以及参与者和研究者的不同观点，包括关注他们在更广泛的社会结构中的位置交涉。在证据不收敛，差别应该加以注意。严格审查预先存在的观点，角度，或研究员立场的如何将这些可能影响证据的收集和分析，以及他们是如何在数据收集和分析过程中的挑战，是一重要的元素来加强对每一项要求的保证。

The following standards are intended to make the process of analysis transparent for reviewers and readers.

下列标准是为了使分析过程的评论家和读者清楚。

5.11. The process of developing the descriptions, claims, and interpretations should be clearly described and illustrated. The description should make it possible to follow the course of decisions about the pattern descriptions, claims, and interpretations from the beginning to the end of the analysis process. Sufficient detail should be included to make the process transparent and engender con?dence that the results are warranted.

引述发展的描述，要求过程中，应明确地描述解释和说明。描述应使人们尽可能从一开始就遵循的有关模式的描述，要求并解释当然了分析过程的结束。应包含足够的细节，使人产生信心，使过程清晰的结果是必要的。

5.12. The evidence that serves as a warrant for each claim should be presented. The sources of evidence and the strength and variety of evidence supporting each claim should be described. Qualifications and conditions should be speci?ed; signi?cant counter-examples should be reported. Claims should be illustrated with concrete examples (e.g., field note excerpts, interview quotes, or narrative vignettes) and descriptions of the social context in which they occurred should be provided. If a warranted claim entails a generalizing statement (e.g., of typicality), it should be supported with evidence of its relative frequency. Speculations that go beyond the

available evidence should be clearly represented as such.

该证据表明，由于每次主张应提交保证供应。证据，实力和相互支持该要求的证据品种来源应进行描述。资格和条件应被指定，而重要的反例应该被报告。主张应当说明与具体的事例（例如，现场注意摘录，采访摘引，或叙事插图）和社会环境在其发生，应提供说明。如果需要一个值得推广的声明要求（例如，典型性），它应该支持与其相对频率的证据。去超越现有的应明确表示这样证据的猜测。

5.13. Practices used to develop and enhance the warrant for the claims should be described, including the search for discon?rming evidence and alternative interpretations of the same evidence. Signi?cant limitations due, for instance, to insufficient or con?icting evidence, should be described.

实践用于开发和加强对权证的要求应予以说明，包括对否认证据和寻找同样的证据的不同的解释。例如,由于证据不足或相互矛盾, 很大的局限性应该予以说明。

5.14. Interpretive commentary should provide a deeper understanding of the claims—how and why the patterns described may have occurred; the social, cultural, or historical contexts in which they occurred; how they relate to one another; how they relate to (support or challenge)theory and ?ndings from previous research; and what alternative claims or counter-claims were considered.

解释性评论应提供的主张，如何以及为什么描述的模式可能已发生深刻的理解;在社会，文化，或发生的历史背景，他们相互之间怎样的关系，它们与（支持或挑战）从理论和前人的研究成果，以及有什么其他的主反主张进行了审议。

6. Generalization

6.归纳

All investigations involve specific participants, take place in specific contexts, and involve specific activities, data collections, or manipulations. However, some investigations are intended to have implications beyond most, if not all, of the specifics occurring in the investigation itself. Where there is an intent to generalize beyond the specifics studied, it is incumbent on the author to indicate the individuals, contexts, activities, data collections, and so forth (the domains) to which the generalization is intended to apply and (at least implicitly) those to which it may not apply. It is also incumbent on the author to provide a justification for the generalization. To justify such generalizations, it is necessary to articulate both the details of the investigation itself and the logic by which the findings of the investigation should apply to the domains intended.

所有的调查研究牵涉到具体的参与者，发生在特定的背景下，涉及到具体的活动，数据收集，或者操控。然而，有些调查试图把暗示凌驾于大多数，即使不是全部，在调查本身中发生中的事件之上。无论在哪有目的去归纳在被研究的详情之上，在作者上去表明个人，背景，活动，数据收集都是义不容辞的，以及所以向前到这个有意的归纳被应用到（至少含蓄地）和可能应用不到的领域。在作者上为归纳提供一个正当的理由也是义不容辞的。去为这些归纳作辩护，清楚地表达调查本身的详细情况和通过调查结果应当应用于想要达到的领域的逻辑是必需的。

Sometimes the generalization intended is from a sample to a sampling frame (a population or universe). In this case, one logic that could support the generalization is embodied in the sampling theory of generalization. If the investigation is carried out using a probability sample drawn from the population, statistical theory provides guidelines about the uncertainty appropriate for generalizations to the population. Note that this logic involves very strong assumptions about the way in which the

sample used in the investigation is chosen, but the validity of this logic depends very little on knowing the specific characteristics of the individuals in the investigation or in the population.

有时候有意的归纳来自于一个样本到抽样总表（全部或者环球的）。在这种情况下，一个能支持归纳的逻辑具体表现在归纳的抽查法原理中。如果调查被执行，使用一个概率样本从全体中抽出来，统计学原理提供关于不确定性对全体的归纳相称的指导。请注意逻辑学涉及到很强的关于在调查中所使用的样本选择方法的假设，但是逻辑的有效性细微地取决于知道在调查中的或者全体中的个体的详尽的特性。

Sometimes the generalization intended is from a sample to a population, but the sample is not a probability sample from that population. In this case, an argument that is similar to the probability sampling argument is used, an argument that involves a claim that the sample is “representative,” a nontechnical term that usually means that the sample supports the same kind of generalization as a probability sample. Such claims of representativeness are typically bolstered by evidence that the sample is similar to the population in all important respects. Note that, to be persuasive, this logic requires more evidence about both the population and sample than is necessary to support claims of generalization from probability samples to populations.

有时候意图达到的归纳从样本到全体中来，但是这个样本不是那个全体中的概率样本。在这种情况下，是在使用类似于概率抽样争论的争辩的，涉及到断言样本就是“代表” 的争辩，一个非技术术语通常意思是样本支持同一种的归纳作为概率样本。这些典型性的断言就像典范一样被支撑在样本类似于全体的证据的各个重要方面。注意到，想要具有说服力，这个逻辑学需要比支持从概率样本到全体的归纳是必需的断言更多的关于全体和样本的证据。

Sometimes the generalization intended is from contexts or cases studied to

unstudied contexts or cases. Generalizations from studied sites, situations, groups, or social processes require an explicit justi?cation that features of the studied context are suf?ciently similar to unstudied contexts to make plausible such inferences. In other instances, the intent is to generalize more broadly based on cases reported in the literature. This logic requires the researcher to draw explicit comparisons to published research that focuses on similar phenomena.

有些时候有意的归纳是从已研究的背景或案例到还未被研究的背景或案例中。贯穿在研究的场所、情形、群体、和社会进程中，归纳都需要一个清晰的证据来说明已被研究的背景和还未被研究的背景是有足够的相似之处，从而使得那些推论看起来是真实的。在其他的例子中，这样做的目的是在文献中已报道过的例子的基础上使得归纳更广泛。这样的逻辑需要研究者拿已发表的相关现象的研究做详细的对照。

Sometimes an intended generalization is not speci?ed by the author; rather, generalization to a new context is considered to be an empirical matter whose determination is made by the reader.

有时候作者没有对有意的归纳做清晰的说明。然而，读者把该归纳运用到新的背景下被看做是一件经验研究的事件。

With such studies, it is the obligation of the researcher to describe the phenomena in sufficient detail that readers of the article can draw appropriate comparisons to their own contexts of interest; in other words, it is the specificity of descriptive reporting that allows the reader to decide whether the processes identi?ed in the reported case may also be found in an analogous situation known ?rsthand by the reader.

在这样的研究中，研究者有义务对现象进行详细的描述，使得该文章的读者可以根据自己的兴趣来和他们自己的文章进行合适的对比。换句话说，描述性报告的

准确性使得读者可以决定：在已报告的案例中的那些已经证明的过程是否也可以被读者在已知的相似情景中找到。

Whenever a claim of generalization beyond the reported case is speci?ed or implied, it is the obligation of the researcher to build an explicit argument for that claim.

无论那个超越报告案例得出来的归纳宣言是已经明确说明还是含蓄的，研究员都有义务为那个宣言进行清晰的论证。

6.1. Whether generalization is intended by the author or not, it is crucial to make clear the specifics of the participants, contexts, activities, data collections, and manipulations involved in the study. This includes all of the specifics that are relevant either to the logic by which the study should apply to the generalizations or to permit readers to draw the necessary comparisons to their own contexts of interest.

无论作者是否有意归纳，对研究中所涉及的参与者，背景，数据收集，操作程序进行明确说明是很重要的。这包括所有的说明，这些说明要么和该研究进行归纳所采用的逻辑有关要么使得读者可以根据自己的兴趣对他们自己的文章做有必要的对照有关。

6.2. When generalization is intended, the author should make clear the intended scope of generalization of the ?ndings of the study. It may be helpful to delineate the situations (or domains) in which the ?ndings of the investigation do not apply to identify the scope of intended generalization.

当归纳是有意时，作者应该对该研究的发现归纳的范围进行详细说明。这有助于描述情景或范围（在这些情景或范围中，调查的发现不适用于有意归纳的鉴定范围）

If the primary generalization is to theory, reporting should make clear speci?cally

how the ?ndings falsify, support, extend, or elaborate the relevant line(s) of existing theory.

如果主要是对理论归纳，报告应该对发现是怎样假设、证明、延伸、进行详细说明，或者对已有的相关理论进行详细说明。

If the primary generalization is to identi?able problems or practical issues, reporting should make clear the situations in which the ?ndings have applications, implications, or practical consequences and why this is plausible.

如果主要是对可分辨的问题或实践问题进行归纳，那么报告应该对情境（在那些情境中，发现具有应用，暗含或实践结果）和它为什么是真实的进行详细说明。

6.3. Generalization that is intended by the author should make clear the logic by which the ?ndings of the study should apply within the intended scope of generalization. The logic should provide a clear and persuasive rationale supporting the generalization from the study to the domain to which generalization is intended. The logic should also identify and present evidence that may be necessary to support the validity of the claims of generalizability (such as evidence that the individuals in the study resemble those in the domain of generalization in relevant respects).

归纳（是作者有意进行的）应该对研究中的发现物所运用的逻辑进行说明，那些逻辑应该是贯穿在有意进行归纳的范围内。该逻辑应该提供一个清楚的和有说服力的理由来支持该归纳（从研究到归纳所要想到达的领域的归纳）。该逻辑也应该辨别和呈现证据来证明可能需要支持的有效性研究的要求(如证据表明,个人在研究领域与归纳的相关方面有相似之处)。

7. Ethics in Reporting

AERA has developed and issued a set of ethical standards for the conduct of research to which its members and those who participate in all AERA programs, including publishing, are expected to adhere (see Ethical Standards of AERA at /aboutaera/?id=222). It is assumed that authors seeking publication in AERA journals are familiar with and adhere to these ethical standards. This section describes only those ethical issues that are directly relevant to reporting research. Authors need to address these and any other issues they consider germane to the transparency and ethics of reporting.

报道的道德

美国教育研究协会为它的成员和所有参加美国教育研究协会的人发展和发行（包括出版）了一套研究行为的道德标准,沿袭的(见的道德标准在/aboutaera/?id=222区域)。它假定那些试图在AERA 在发表文章的作者对那些道德标准很熟悉也很遵守。这部分只论述那些和研究报告直接相关的道德问题。作者必须遵守这些准则以及其他一些和该报告的清晰性、道德准则有关的问题。

In reporting research, authors have an opportunity and responsibility to address ethical decisions that shaped how the inquiry was designed or undertaken or how the empirical evidence or data were organized, maintained, or analyzed. These include, for example, key considerations with respect to consent (or a waiver of consent) or con?dentiality agreements (including any agreement with participants to reveal their identities).

在报告的研究中，作者有机会和责任来遵守那些道德性的决定（即关于如何进行调查设计、展开以及经验证据、数据如何组织、保存、分析）。这些包括,例如,

重要的考虑项目就同意(或放弃同意)或者保密协议(包括任何协议参赛者来显示自己的身份)。

Discussion of any incentives for participation that were provided and how they were managed would typically also be reported. Research reporting needs to be undertaken consonant with con?dentiality guarantees and data protection plans. In cases where researchers may have eliminated or altered descriptions or used other disclosure limitation techniques to mask or perturb the data, these processes need to be noted.

关于任何的激励提供了参与以及他们是如何管理的讨论也通常会报告。研究报告需要待进行保密的辅音保证和数据保护计划。在以下情况下,如研究人员可能已经消除或改变说明或使用其他的披露限制技术来篡改或扰乱数据,这些程序需要被重视。

If a condition of access or other criteria led to decisions to mask the identity of locations, institutions, or other sites in data ?les and in data dissemination, these decisions would also be described.

如果一个状况查阅或其他标准导致决定掩盖身份的场所、机构或者其他网站数据文件和数据传播,这些决策也会进行了描述。

Reporting of research is expected to reflect the highest standards of ethical practice both with respect to human participants and with respect to the execution of professional conduct and judgment in research. Reporting should avoid descriptions that underrepresent or distort differences within and among individuals and groups.

报告的研究将反映最高标准的伦理实践两方面（对实验参与者的尊重和对在研究中进行专业行为的执行和判断的尊重）。报告应该避免描述那些在个人和团体中的 扭曲的或还未描述的内在差异。

Reporting must be accurate and without falsification or fabrication of data or results; reflect the work of the authors with appropriate attribution to others; be free of any plagiarism or misappropriation of the writing or ideas of others; and be sufficiently accessible to be subject to verification, replication, or further analysis.

报告必须准确、没有伪造或制造的数据、成果;反映应该作者的工作是用适当的归因于别人,是没有任何抄袭或滥用别人的写作或思想；也应该是容易受验证,复制或进一步的分析。

Any prior review of the manuscript by research participants, those providing access to sites, or those funding the research that could have limited the author’s autonomy to publish the research or how it was reported would typically also be described. In addition, funding sources or other sources of support that may raise issues of conflict of interest should be noted.

任何事先审查的手稿,通过研究参与者提供进入网站,或者那些资助他们的研究可能只有有限的作者的自治出版科学研究和它是如何报道也通常会被描述。此外,资金来源或其他来源的支持那就可能会引发的利益冲突的问题应注意。

7.1. Ethical considerations involved in data collection, analysis, and reporting should be explicitly addressed. Not all ethical issues in the conduct of the study or about human research protection need to be addressed in an article, but those relevant to understanding the study, analyses, and results should be set forth. Study approval in accordance with an Institutional Review Board (IRB) should be stated.

在数据收集、分析、报告中应考虑的道德因素应该是清晰表述的。并不是所有的在研究行为或关于人类研究保护中的道德问题都必须在文章中得到解决,而是那些与理解,分析和研究结果的道德问题应该阐述。按照批准院校评审板(IRB)的研究应该说明。

7.2. Reporting on research and ?ndings should be presented in a way that honors consent agreements with human participants and any other agreements with respect to gaining access to research sites or data. Reporting includes all writing (e.g., text of the article, quotes, excerpts of interactions), pictures, maps, or graphical displays that could inadvertently compromise guarantees of anonymity of human participants and the con?dentiality of information about them or con?ict with other promises made as a condition of access (e.g., masking the identity of school districts). Even when direct identifying information is not used, inadvertent disclosure of research participants can happen indirectly.

关于研究和调查结果的报告应该以某种方式呈现，这种方式同意尊重参加者的协议和有其他就进入研究网站或得到数据的协议。报告包括所有的写作(例如,文本的文章,引号,摘录的相互作用)、图片、地图、或图形的显示,可能会不慎妥协的保证,匿名性的人体实验参与者的保密资讯或抵触到其它承诺作为条件的访问(举例来说,掩蔽学区的身份)。即使直接识别信息是没有被使用,也有可能间接不慎披露研究参与者。

7.3. Reporting should include a description of any potential con?icts of interest or biases of the researcher that may have in?uenced or could have the appearance of in?uencing the research, along with a description of how they were managed in the conduct of the study.

报告应该包括一个对任何潜在的利益冲突或研究者的歧视的描述,因为那些可能会影响形状研究,以及对他们是如何进行研究的描述。

7.4. Reporting of research should be accurately stated and attention should be given to ensure that there are no omissions or inclusions of information that are false or that fabricate, mislead, or misrepresent how the research or analyses were done.

报告研究应该准确地说明,需要注意确保没有遗漏或包裹虚假,伪造、误导的信息、或对研究、分析是怎样进行的做虚假陈述。

7.5. The data or empirical materials relevant to the conclusions should be maintained in a way that a quali?ed researcher with a copy of the relevant data and description of the analysis procedures could reproduce the analysis or trace the trail of evidence leading to the author’s conclusions.

数据或经验材料有关的结论应以某种方式保持，使得一个合格的研究员通过一份相关数据和分析方法的描述能复制分析证据或微量的踪迹得出作者的结论。

7.6. Funding support should be acknowledged in a publication note. In special circumstances, where sponsors cannot be acknowledged by name, a description of the nature of the sponsor should be provided.

资助基金应在出版摘记里注明。在特殊情况下,在那里不能注明广告赞助商的名字,应该提供一个关于赞助商的自然的描述 。

8. Title, Abstract, and Headings

题目 摘要 标题

A well-constructed title and abstract help readers in locating articles relevant to their interest. Since concepts in the title and abstract are typically indexed and searched electronically, it is important that the words be carefully chosen to convey the contents of the article. Using terms likely to be understood both within and beyond one’s immediate research community helps to make the work accessible to a broad audience. Well-constructed headings help readers follow the logic of inquiry in an article.

标题和摘要做的很好的文章能帮助读者锁定他们感兴趣的内容。因为标题和摘要里的概念经常被人们搜索，所以这些词语是否经过谨慎的选择以呈现文章的内容是很重要的。用那些圈内和圈外人士都能看懂的字词能吸引跟广泛的读者。好的标题能帮助读者按照文章的逻辑来阅读文章。

8.1. The title should clearly convey what the article is about.

标题应该清楚的表述文章所指

8.2. The abstract should provide a summary of the article that is self-contained, concise, and accurate. Preparation of the abstract should be in accordance with the format and structure required for AERA publications generally or for the speci?c AERA journal to which the article is submitted. Whenever feasible, it should set forth the research question or problem; descriptions of the research sites, objects, or participants; the conceptual orientation of the study; the methods used for collecting sources of evidence or data; procedures used for analyzing the evidence; and the main conclusions and implications.

摘要应该提供一个自己创作的、清晰、简练的总结。摘要的准备应该符合AERA的结构要求。可行的时候，他应该提供研究的问题或问题的描述，研究场所，或参与者，以及研究的方向定位，收集数据和资源的方法，分析证据的方法和主要的结论。

8.3. Headings and subheadings should make clear the logic of inquiry underlying the report.

标题和子标题应该清楚的给出报告中运用的逻辑。