This paper is an exploration of the criticisms of educational research that were expressed over the 1990s, not only in the United Kingdom (which is exemplary for the high level of intensity with which the debate had reached the public domain by mid-nineties), but also in a broader, international context. The paper offers an overview of the targets, sources and actors that are characteristic for the recent criticisms of educational research. The variations of such criticisms across countries, time, organizational settings, media and genre of published documents are explored, and questions are raised about the plausibility of an European dimension of educational research (for instance, in terms of the conceptualizations of the disciplinarisation of educational research). In doing so, the paper draws on an overview of the vast amount of documents expressing criticisms of educational research in Europe and in the United States of America. In addition, it summarizes the findings of a study based on the textual analysis (oriented by methodological principles derived from discourse studies and from the grounded theory approach to qualitative data analysis) of some of the most influential texts that criticized educational research in the United Kingdom over the 1990s (Hargreaves, 1996; Tooley and Darby, 1998; Hillage et al, 1998). The findings are organized on three layers. Firstly, there is a level of the topics that flesh out the debate about the quality of educational research. Drawing on the analysis of the three UK key documents mentioned above, of a series of official documents, of some 120 newspaper articles, and of about 40 academic journal articles, it is noted that almost every aspect of educational research was submitted to intense criticism, from a variety of standpoints: the commissioning of research (allocation of funding, agenda); the abilities, attitudes and practices of the actors involved (researchers, practitioners, policy-makers); the organization of research (design, conduct and methodology, publication, networking, monitoring, dissemination, assessment procedures); or the outcomes of research (impact/relevance, presentation etc.). The paper highlights the tension between an allegedly 'official' or 'orthodox' set of criteria for the quality of educational research and a variety of alternative practices and interpretations of research. Secondly, the paper explores the rhetorical devices employed by the critics or the defenders of educational research, and supporting a variety of group interests and political motifs, such as: devices for building the critic's legitimacy and authority; devices for legitimizing the criticism itself; management of the audience; or offensive strategies that try to make the criticism more compelling, to the detriment of any possible counter-arguments (this involves the use of stylistic and grammatical tools, details and examples of which are included in the paper). Finally, a third layer is glimpsed, that of the methodological and philosophical rivalries between communities of educational research. The paper explores some ways in which different understandings of the dynamics of knowledge growth underpin different sets of criticisms leveled at educational research. Four continua are brought into the discussion: cumulativeness vs. non- cumulativeness of knowledge; convergence vs. divergence in research; rationality vs. non-rationality of practice and of research; and teleology vs. non-teleology in research and practice. From these, further questions are raised about the assumptions that underlie the recent criticisms of educational research, their 'solutions' and 'counter-critiques', and about their bearing on current policies and debates.