A tension exists between educational practitioners and researchers, which is often attributed to
their dichotomous and oftentimes polarizing professional ideologies or Discourse communities.
When determining what works in education, researchers tend to emphasize evidence-based
practices supported by research that is rigorous and internally valid, whereas practitioners tend to
value practice-based evidence that is relevant and externally valid. We argue that these separate
mindsets stem from the classical view of research as being either rigorous or relevant. In his
canonical Pasteur’s Quadrant, Stokes (1997) proposed that rigor and relevance are
complementary notions that, when merged, further the production, translation, and
implementation of instructional practices that are both rigorous (i.e., evidence-based) and
relevant (i.e., practice-based). We propose educational design research and communities of
practice as frameworks through which to realize the promise of Pasteur’s quadrant.