Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732x21990609
C. Wong
Compulsory state-sanctioned schooling continues to be constructed as the “great equalizer,” and accordingly education research as a benevolent contributor to this material and ideological project of education. Following a Fanonian-Wynterian theoretical approach and cosmogonical-constellatory citation politics, I narrowed over 2,500 educational studies and reviewed approximately 150 articles and chapters that questioned the ways of knowing, being, and valuing which have naturalized these assumptions. Consequently, I theorize the cosmogony and development of the overrepresented genre-specific figure of educational researcher emerging from Man2-as-human, who has come to control the ways of knowing “education” and being an “educational researcher”: Man2-as-educational researcher. I examine how overlapping and interconnected African/Black, Asian, Latinx, Pacific Islander and Indigenous communities have engaged in modes of resistance, survivance, fugitivity/marronage, refusal and abolition to challenge this regime, and enact and imagine genres of being an educational researcher outside of the dominant order of Man2-as-educational researcher. In turn, I consider how these communities have affirmed, honored, fostered, sustained and revitalized ways of gathering, interpreting, and sharing educational knowledge for collective liberation, which have centered the wretched of the research and gaze from below. In so doing, I conceptualize and call forth the need to move toward what I am referring to as the 36th chamber of education research.
{"title":"The Wretched of the Research: Disenchanting Man2-as-Educational Researcher and Entering the 36th Chamber of Education Research","authors":"C. Wong","doi":"10.3102/0091732x21990609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x21990609","url":null,"abstract":"Compulsory state-sanctioned schooling continues to be constructed as the “great equalizer,” and accordingly education research as a benevolent contributor to this material and ideological project of education. Following a Fanonian-Wynterian theoretical approach and cosmogonical-constellatory citation politics, I narrowed over 2,500 educational studies and reviewed approximately 150 articles and chapters that questioned the ways of knowing, being, and valuing which have naturalized these assumptions. Consequently, I theorize the cosmogony and development of the overrepresented genre-specific figure of educational researcher emerging from Man2-as-human, who has come to control the ways of knowing “education” and being an “educational researcher”: Man2-as-educational researcher. I examine how overlapping and interconnected African/Black, Asian, Latinx, Pacific Islander and Indigenous communities have engaged in modes of resistance, survivance, fugitivity/marronage, refusal and abolition to challenge this regime, and enact and imagine genres of being an educational researcher outside of the dominant order of Man2-as-educational researcher. In turn, I consider how these communities have affirmed, honored, fostered, sustained and revitalized ways of gathering, interpreting, and sharing educational knowledge for collective liberation, which have centered the wretched of the research and gaze from below. In so doing, I conceptualize and call forth the need to move toward what I am referring to as the 36th chamber of education research.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"27 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44855051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985077
Joseph A. Taylor, Elisabeth Davis, L. Michaelson
In this chapter, we describe and compare the standards for evidence used by three entities that review studies of education interventions: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Social Programs that Work, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Based on direct comparisons of the evidence frameworks, we identify key differences in the level at which effectiveness ratings are granted (i.e., intervention vs. outcome domain), as well as in how each entity prioritizes intervention documentation, researcher independence, and sustained versus immediate effects. Because such differences in priorities may result in contradictory intervention ratings between entities, we offer a number of recommendations for a common set of standards that would harmonize effectiveness ratings across the three entities while preserving differences that allow for variation in user priorities. These include disentangling study rigor from intervention effectiveness, ceasing vote counting procedures, adding replication criteria, adding fidelity criteria, assessing baseline equivalence for randomized studies, making quasi-experiments eligible for review, adding criteria for researcher independence, and providing effectiveness ratings at the level of the outcome domain rather than the intervention.
{"title":"Considerations for Evidence Frameworks in Education Research","authors":"Joseph A. Taylor, Elisabeth Davis, L. Michaelson","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985077","url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter, we describe and compare the standards for evidence used by three entities that review studies of education interventions: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Social Programs that Work, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Based on direct comparisons of the evidence frameworks, we identify key differences in the level at which effectiveness ratings are granted (i.e., intervention vs. outcome domain), as well as in how each entity prioritizes intervention documentation, researcher independence, and sustained versus immediate effects. Because such differences in priorities may result in contradictory intervention ratings between entities, we offer a number of recommendations for a common set of standards that would harmonize effectiveness ratings across the three entities while preserving differences that allow for variation in user priorities. These include disentangling study rigor from intervention effectiveness, ceasing vote counting procedures, adding replication criteria, adding fidelity criteria, assessing baseline equivalence for randomized studies, making quasi-experiments eligible for review, adding criteria for researcher independence, and providing effectiveness ratings at the level of the outcome domain rather than the intervention.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"101 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46859747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X211001824
T. Pigott, Charles Tocci, A. Ryan, Aaron Galliher
{"title":"Quality of Research Evidence in Education: How Do We Know?","authors":"T. Pigott, Charles Tocci, A. Ryan, Aaron Galliher","doi":"10.3102/0091732X211001824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X211001824","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"vii - xii"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48309864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985076
Brandon LeBeau, Scott Ellison, Ariel M. Aloe
A reproducible analysis is one in which an independent entity, using the same data and the same statistical code, would obtain the exact same result as the previous analyst. Reproducible analyses utilize script-based analyses and open data to aid in the reproduction of the analysis. A reproducible analysis does not ensure the same results are obtained if another sample of data is obtained, often referred to as replicability. Reproduction and replication of studies are discussed as well as the overwhelming benefits of creating a reproducible analysis workflow. A tool is proposed to aid in the evaluation of studies to describe which element in a study has a strong reproducible workflow and areas that could be improved. This tool is meant to serve as a discussion tool, not to rank studies or devalue studies that are unable to share data or statistical code. Finally, discussion surrounding reproducibility for qualitative studies are discussed along with unique challenges for adopting a reproducible analysis framework.
{"title":"Reproducible Analyses in Education Research","authors":"Brandon LeBeau, Scott Ellison, Ariel M. Aloe","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985076","url":null,"abstract":"A reproducible analysis is one in which an independent entity, using the same data and the same statistical code, would obtain the exact same result as the previous analyst. Reproducible analyses utilize script-based analyses and open data to aid in the reproduction of the analysis. A reproducible analysis does not ensure the same results are obtained if another sample of data is obtained, often referred to as replicability. Reproduction and replication of studies are discussed as well as the overwhelming benefits of creating a reproducible analysis workflow. A tool is proposed to aid in the evaluation of studies to describe which element in a study has a strong reproducible workflow and areas that could be improved. This tool is meant to serve as a discussion tool, not to rank studies or devalue studies that are unable to share data or statistical code. Finally, discussion surrounding reproducibility for qualitative studies are discussed along with unique challenges for adopting a reproducible analysis framework.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"195 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44313988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X21990614
Mindy Crain-Dorough, Adam C. Elder
The research community focuses on conducting research with the purported goal of improving educational practice, yet the two communities largely remain disjointed. This chapter explores the major disconnects between research and practice from the perspectives of both the practice and the research communities, and we present strategies for establishing stronger connections based on the results of our literature analysis. We argue that examining the research–practice gap through the lens of absorptive capacity provides elucidations about the disconnects, and it facilitates the organization of research-based strategies. As a result, both communities are able to jointly determine what constitutes quality research evidence and attenuate the gap between research and practice.
{"title":"Absorptive Capacity as a Means of Understanding and Addressing the Disconnects Between Research and Practice","authors":"Mindy Crain-Dorough, Adam C. Elder","doi":"10.3102/0091732X21990614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X21990614","url":null,"abstract":"The research community focuses on conducting research with the purported goal of improving educational practice, yet the two communities largely remain disjointed. This chapter explores the major disconnects between research and practice from the perspectives of both the practice and the research communities, and we present strategies for establishing stronger connections based on the results of our literature analysis. We argue that examining the research–practice gap through the lens of absorptive capacity provides elucidations about the disconnects, and it facilitates the organization of research-based strategies. As a result, both communities are able to jointly determine what constitutes quality research evidence and attenuate the gap between research and practice.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"67 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44083559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732x21994493
Roey Ahram, Stephanie W. Cawthon, Heidi Cian, Mindy Crain-Dorough, Connie L. Lurie
{"title":"About the Contributors","authors":"Roey Ahram, Stephanie W. Cawthon, Heidi Cian, Mindy Crain-Dorough, Connie L. Lurie","doi":"10.3102/0091732x21994493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x21994493","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"409 - 412"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44927932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985072
D. Gough
For research evidence to inform decision making, an appraisal needs to be made of whether the claims are justified and whether they are useful to the decisions being made. This chapter provides a high level framework of core issues relevant to appraising the “fitness for purpose” of evidence claims. The framework includes (I) the variation in the nature of research, the evidence claims it produces, and in the values, perspectives, and ethical issues that underlie it; (II) the main components of the bases of evidence claims in terms of (i) how relevant evidence has been identified and synthesized to make a claim, (ii) the technical quality and relevance of the included evidence, and (iii) the totality of evidence to justify the warrant of the evidence claim (including the potential for there to be alternative explanations); (III) evidence standards to appraise evidence claims and examples of guides and tools to assist with aspects of such appraisal; and (IV) engagement with evidence: (i) the communication of evidence claims, (ii) the fitness for purpose of these evidence claims for decision makers, and (iii) and the interpretation of such claims to provide recommendations and guidance.
{"title":"Appraising Evidence Claims","authors":"D. Gough","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985072","url":null,"abstract":"For research evidence to inform decision making, an appraisal needs to be made of whether the claims are justified and whether they are useful to the decisions being made. This chapter provides a high level framework of core issues relevant to appraising the “fitness for purpose” of evidence claims. The framework includes (I) the variation in the nature of research, the evidence claims it produces, and in the values, perspectives, and ethical issues that underlie it; (II) the main components of the bases of evidence claims in terms of (i) how relevant evidence has been identified and synthesized to make a claim, (ii) the technical quality and relevance of the included evidence, and (iii) the totality of evidence to justify the warrant of the evidence claim (including the potential for there to be alternative explanations); (III) evidence standards to appraise evidence claims and examples of guides and tools to assist with aspects of such appraisal; and (IV) engagement with evidence: (i) the communication of evidence claims, (ii) the fitness for purpose of these evidence claims for decision makers, and (iii) and the interpretation of such claims to provide recommendations and guidance.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"1 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43674690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985082
Richard O. Welsh
The contemporary social, economic, and cultural conditions within and outside the academy prompt important questions about the role of research in education policy and practice. Scholars have framed research-practice partnerships (RPPs) as a strategy to promote evidence-based decision-making in education. In this chapter, I interrogate the notion that RPPs offer an insightful framework to consider how the quality of research can be measured through its use. The findings suggest that using RPPs to assess the quality of education research enhances the relevance to policy and practice as well as attention to the quality of reporting, and pivots from the preeminence of methodological quality. RPPs increase local education leaders’ access to research and bolster the use of research. RPPs may also strengthen the alignment between education research and the public good. Notwithstanding, employing RPPs as a vehicle to assess research quality has its challenges. Valuing the work of RPPs in academia is a work in progress. Building and sustaining an RPP is challenging, and there is still much to learn about the ways in which RPPs work and overcome obstacles. Assessing the impact of RPPs is also difficult. Future considerations are discussed.
{"title":"Assessing the Quality of Education Research Through Its Relevance to Practice: An Integrative Review of Research-Practice Partnerships","authors":"Richard O. Welsh","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985082","url":null,"abstract":"The contemporary social, economic, and cultural conditions within and outside the academy prompt important questions about the role of research in education policy and practice. Scholars have framed research-practice partnerships (RPPs) as a strategy to promote evidence-based decision-making in education. In this chapter, I interrogate the notion that RPPs offer an insightful framework to consider how the quality of research can be measured through its use. The findings suggest that using RPPs to assess the quality of education research enhances the relevance to policy and practice as well as attention to the quality of reporting, and pivots from the preeminence of methodological quality. RPPs increase local education leaders’ access to research and bolster the use of research. RPPs may also strengthen the alignment between education research and the public good. Notwithstanding, employing RPPs as a vehicle to assess research quality has its challenges. Valuing the work of RPPs in academia is a work in progress. Building and sustaining an RPP is challenging, and there is still much to learn about the ways in which RPPs work and overcome obstacles. Assessing the impact of RPPs is also difficult. Future considerations are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"170 - 194"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46554427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20985079
Heidi Cian
Though the concept of validity is rooted in positivism, recent scholars have expanded the definition of validity to reflect more progressive paradigms, opening the door to consideration of validity in qualitative education research. Despite this evolution, to date a review of validity evidence in qualitative research has yet to be undertaken even though products offering recommendations for using validity or validity analogs (e.g., trustworthiness) in qualitative work has accelerated. In this chapter, I provide an overview of the history of validity in qualitative research and give an assessment of the use of validity evidence as presented in qualitative articles published in a high-impact journal. I use the results of this assessment to highlight validity practices that are well-represented in the research as well as those that are underrepresented, offering recommendations for how researchers can support the presentation of their work through reflection on these underrepresented elements. Additionally, I forward suggestions as to how qualitative researchers may approach using validity frameworks in planning their studies. Implications for qualitative and quantitative researchers are also discussed, along with suggestions for future work in exploring the use of validity in qualitative education research.
{"title":"Sashaying Across Party Lines: Evidence of and Arguments for the Use of Validity Evidence in Qualitative Education Research","authors":"Heidi Cian","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985079","url":null,"abstract":"Though the concept of validity is rooted in positivism, recent scholars have expanded the definition of validity to reflect more progressive paradigms, opening the door to consideration of validity in qualitative education research. Despite this evolution, to date a review of validity evidence in qualitative research has yet to be undertaken even though products offering recommendations for using validity or validity analogs (e.g., trustworthiness) in qualitative work has accelerated. In this chapter, I provide an overview of the history of validity in qualitative research and give an assessment of the use of validity evidence as presented in qualitative articles published in a high-impact journal. I use the results of this assessment to highlight validity practices that are well-represented in the research as well as those that are underrepresented, offering recommendations for how researchers can support the presentation of their work through reflection on these underrepresented elements. Additionally, I forward suggestions as to how qualitative researchers may approach using validity frameworks in planning their studies. Implications for qualitative and quantitative researchers are also discussed, along with suggestions for future work in exploring the use of validity in qualitative education research.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"253 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46312071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-01DOI: 10.3102/0091732X20907347
Sebnem Cilesiz, Thomas Greckhamer
Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a set-theoretic configurational approach that uses the logic of Boolean algebra to conceptualize and empirically examine potentially complex causal relations. The potential of this methodological innovation to draw innovative insights toward answering enduring questions and to foster novel research has increasingly been realized in several social science disciplines. However, to date, limited education research has taken advantage of this potential. The purpose of this review is to facilitate an education research agenda that capitalizes on the strengths of QCA and its set-theoretic approach. We introduce the foundations of QCA, outline the promise it holds for education research, systematically review and appraise empirical education research that has applied QCA, and complement this review with a review of research from outside the field that may serve as inspiration for education researchers. In doing so, we highlight areas of improved research designs in education research practice and point education researchers to promising research directions. We conclude with suggestions for researchers to weigh QCA’s strengths and limitations in comparison with other methods.
{"title":"Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Education Research: Its Current Status and Future Potential","authors":"Sebnem Cilesiz, Thomas Greckhamer","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20907347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907347","url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a set-theoretic configurational approach that uses the logic of Boolean algebra to conceptualize and empirically examine potentially complex causal relations. The potential of this methodological innovation to draw innovative insights toward answering enduring questions and to foster novel research has increasingly been realized in several social science disciplines. However, to date, limited education research has taken advantage of this potential. The purpose of this review is to facilitate an education research agenda that capitalizes on the strengths of QCA and its set-theoretic approach. We introduce the foundations of QCA, outline the promise it holds for education research, systematically review and appraise empirical education research that has applied QCA, and complement this review with a review of research from outside the field that may serve as inspiration for education researchers. In doing so, we highlight areas of improved research designs in education research practice and point education researchers to promising research directions. We conclude with suggestions for researchers to weigh QCA’s strengths and limitations in comparison with other methods.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"44 1","pages":"332 - 369"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3102/0091732X20907347","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44417115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：