In this article, the author reflects on three or four main areas where policy and research coincide or conflict as exemplified in the varied articles of the "Cambridge Journal of Education" and suggests some of the things that he and other authors might learn from each other. Before considering those areas where the researcher philosopher and the policy-making king most clearly conflict in their aims, the author states something about where they are supposed to coincide. Both research and policy claim to be based on evidence. On the other hand, he finds a rather different function of the data (evidence), which links to what he thinks are two rather fundamental differences between research and policy--their different kinds of discourse and different meanings. He also provides two examples that relate to a central theme or difference between research and policy--characterized as the relative importance given to questions and answers, which in fact represents a more fundamental dichotomy between the discipline of analysis and the more pragmatic concerns of effecting change. (Contains 3 notes.)