“教育政策活动”是涉及范围广泛、影响年代久远的实践活动。每项教育政策的制定都必须相当严谨，而教育研究是保障教育政策科学性的一项相当重要的活动。20世纪80年代初，我国要求在教育政策制定之前加强相关的教育研究作为政策辅助，时值今日，我国在此问题上还存在一些困惑。本文以20世纪90年代初期R市初中招生办法改革政策为对象，对我国现有教育政策制定过程中研究基础的问题开展个案研究。 与西方不同，在我国，对教育政策制定活动及教育研究活动关系的研究，不能仅从研究人员与政策人员的互动，或研究成果被利用的途径等问题进行考察。这是因为我国的教育研究领域还处于亟待发展的状态，所以我们的反思必须从研究活动本身开始。本文将研究基础划分为三个问题：第一，在该项教育政策的制定过程中，是否存在相关研究？第二，如果存在相关研究，那么这些研究的质量是否达到一定的标准？为什么？第三，如果存在相关研究，那么这些研究是否得到了教育政策的利用？为什么？ 通过对案例的反复解读，本研究从“认识论维度”与“政治学维度”对此问题进行分析： 首先，从认识论维度考察，论文主要分析：在初中招生政策制定过程中，人们对研究问题的分析是否准确、对研究方法的选取是否妥当。 就研究问题而言，人们将初中招生改革定位为教育领域内部的制度变革。于是，有关研究的问题集中在：替补原有招生办法的招生方案问题；对初中招生改革过程施行管理的问题；有关初中教育资源的均衡问题。随着改革的进行，人们开始对如下问题产生兴趣：学校教师如何进行差异性教学，招生改革引发的价值观转变等问题。 就研究方法而言，在改革实践活动中，限于当时的研究水平，人们更倾向于采取经验总结的方法来获取问题的答案。教育管理的人员通过查询文献资料、参观访问等方式收集间接经验，通过试点试验、调查研究等方式获取直接经验，通过座谈会、讨论会等方式进行经验的交流。在实践的过程中，这种被简约化的经验总结法所得出的结论将取决于该方法自身的完善性以及运用者的能力。被简约化的经验总结法可能给研究结论带来危险。 其次，从政治学维度考察，论文主要分析：在初中招生政策制定的过程中，研究主体的定位与构成是否合适，研究主体之间的沟通活动是否合理。 就研究主体的构成而言，在初中招生政策制定过程中，研究主体是一个复合体。而起主要作用的是教育政策制定人员（即教育管理人员），其他研究主体则被作为“被邀请群体”，发挥说服、服务或改进的作用。在政策制定的过程中，政策制定人员具备面对实践的应对能力，拥有获取大量信息的便利性，他们的研究活动与政策制定活动是统一的。这些都决定了政策制定人员作为研究主体的合理性。与此同时，政策制定人员在研究精力方面有所欠缺，在职业立场存在一定的偏颇，而且其研究结果也没有接受公开评估，这使得他们的研究具有一定缺陷。 就研究主体之间的沟通而言，教育研究人员在政治上对政策制定人员具有依附性，而且在自身的专业领域方面还有待发展，这造成了沟通的前提性缺失。就研究主体的沟通方式而言，在本次案例中，R市教育管理人员突破制度限制，在政策制定过程中通过非正式的渠道邀请其他职业的研究人员参与研究。但是，这种非制度化的沟通也给研究活动带来困难，不利于研究问题的解决。 针对教育政策制定的研究基础必须以有效解决政策问题为取向。在上述分析的基础上，本文最后试图采用问题的追溯法重建有关初中招生问题的研究基础，并针对全文的出发点以及终点进行价值的澄清——教育政策制定过程中应该追求研究基础。

Educational policy-making is a kind of practical action which has an important effect on education. Each education policy should be based on the serious procedure. And educational research is one of the most important works for it. Since 1978, the Chinese government highlighted that educational policy-making should be based on the educational research, though it is difficult to do that. This article is a case study on the reform on admission to junior high school in city R. The aim is to explore the characters of the educational research for the admission policy in China.It is different from western countries to analyze the educational research for the educational policy-making in China. The researchers in western countries focus on the interaction of the researchers and policy-makers or the model of the research utilization. But in China, the educational research is the developing field. So the article includes threefold research problems: Firstly, are there any educational researches for the educational policy-making? Secondary, if the first answer is ‘yes’, do these researches measure up? Thirdly, if the first answer is ‘yes’, are these researches utilized by the policy-makers? On the basic of the case, the article analysed this question on two dimensions: epistemology dimension and politics dimension.In the dimension of epistemology, it may well be asked: how did the researchers analyze the problem in this case? Did the questions reflect the really social problems? How did the researchers choose the research methods? Did the methods solve the problems effectively? As for the research questions, the researchers regarded this reform as the institutional reform in the education. So they focused on three questions: to search for another admission approaches to replace the examination one; to search for the approaches to carry out the reform; to search for the approaches to improve the level of the equilibrium between the different schools. With the development of the reform, researchers turned to other two questions: how teachers teach the uneven students in the same class; how the officials deal with the discussion of the value behind the reform. As for the research methods, the researchers tended to use the experience method. The education managers gained the indirect experience by collecting documents and visiting, and collected the direct experience by quasi-experiment and survey. And they communicate the experience by meeting. In practice, the experience method is contracted. So the validity and the reliability of the experience rest on the self-fulfill of the methodology and the ability of the researchers. Lack of the evaluation tool will bring some trouble. In the dimension of politics, it may well be asked: Who joined the research project for this admission reform? Is the composition of the researchers proper? How did the researchers communicate with each other? Is the communication model good for problem-solving? As for the composition of the researchers, researchers came from different career. The educational official paid dominating role in this case and the researchers of other careers were invited by the managers. The official has three advantages: abundance practice experience, convenience to get the information and the integration of the policy-making and educational research. But they also have three disadvantages: the limited energy, career position and lack of the evaluation on the study. As for the communication model, the precondition is disadvantage: the professional educational researchers attach to the official in policy and the educational research is still developing profession. Although the official in city R tried to invite the researchers to join in, the informal communication model is still a big problem.The research foundation should be evaluated by the validity of the problem-solving. Based on the case, the article tries to reconstruct the researches for the admission policy reform. In conclusion, the article calls for the policy-making based on the educational research.