Within the quantitative research paradigm the methodological importance of replication studies is frequently highlighted in literature (King 1995; Schmidt 2016; Schweizer 1989). In contrast to this proclaimed relevance only few published replication studies can be identified (Schmidt 2012, p. 247; Wagner & Huschka, 2012, S. p. ff.). Makel & Plucker (2014), for example, ascertained that only 0.13% of articles in the top 100 education journals are replications.

In other disciplines (e.g. psychology), the lack of replication studies is discussed, but this does not apply to educational sciences. Here, the gap between the methodologically-based call for replications and their factual shortage is hardly recognized. Against this background, our study focuses on this disproportion by asking: How can the remarkable contrast between the proclaimed relevance and the practical non-existence of replications in the field of educational sciences be explained?

Broadly, replication studies aim to vet or ensure the validity of previous research findings. The basic idea is to corroborate or disconfirm empirical results or an academic hypothesis by repeating a study design (Schmidt, 2012, p. 234). This is even more important given that educational science often claims the potential to alter pedagogical settings based on empirically solid findings and knowledge.

Compared to the quantitative research paradigm, the concept of replicating designs and findings is even less discussed in literature on qualitative research methods (presumably due to different methodological points of view). Yet despite possible methodological frictions (Wissenschaftsrat, 2011, p. 56), one could argue that qualitative research – similar to quantitative research – also aims at generalization, albeit in other terms than quantitative studies. In both cases, i.e. in quantitative and qualitative fields of research within educational sciences, (published) replication studies are extremely rare and there is a remarkable gap between the relevance and the actual realization of replication studies.

With reference to approaches such as system theory (Luhmann, 1990), motivation psychology and decision theory (Beach, 1990; Beach & Mitchell, 1996), we assume that causes for the gap can be located in different aspects and dimensions: For instance, it can be surmised that the research system holds explicit and implicit criteria for the development and acceptance of scientific knowledge. Additionally, individual motives of researchers relating to their scientific socialization can play a role for the (non-)engagement in replication designs. So far, explanatory factors as the named are neither theoretically nor empirically discussed with regard to the realization of replication studies.

Beach, L. R. (1990). Image Theory: Decision Making in Personal and Organizational Contexts. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1996). Image theory, the unifying perspective. In L. R. Beach (Ed.), Decision making in the workplace. A unified perspective (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. King, G. (1995). Replication, Replication. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(3), 444–452. Schweizer, K. (1989). Eine Analyse der Konzepte, Bedingungen und Zielsetzungen von Replikationen. Archiv für Psychologie, 141, 95–97. Schmidt, S. (2016). Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences. In A. E. Kazdin (Hrsg.), Methodological Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research (4. Aufl., S. 581–596). Washington: American Psychological Association. Schmidt, S. (2012). Muss man alles wiederholen? Eine kritische Analyse des Replikationsbegriffs in der modernen Wissenschaft. In W. Ambach (Hrsg.), Experimentelle Psychophysiologie in Grenzgebieten. Würzburg: Ergon. Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft. Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304–316. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). Experteninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Hrsg.), Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung (S. 441-471). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2013). Experteninterviews – wissenssoziologische Voraussetzungen und methodische Durchführung. In B. Friebertshäuser, A. Langer, A. Prengel (Hrsg.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft (4. Aufl., S. 457-471). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa. Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1990). Editorial Bias Against Replication Research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 85–90. Berlin. Wagner, G. G., & Huschka, D. (2012). Datenverfügbarkeit reicht nicht, um Replikationsstudien zur Routine zu machen [Working Paper Rat für Sozial- und WirtschaftsDaten]. http://www.ratswd.de/download/RatSWD_WP_2012/RatSWD_WP_194.pdf Wissenschaftsrat (2011). Empfehlungen zu Forschungsinfrastrukturen in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften.