This article presents the author's response to comments on her article, "Will a Clinical Approach Make Education Research More Relevant for Practice?", which focused on the question of whether a clinical research practice might make education research more relevant for practice. The characteristics of a clinical approach are: (1) an overlap in the roles of the researcher and the professional; and (2) a focus not on theory as separate from practice but on theory-informed practice. Here, the author discusses each of the contributions or comment articles, which include (1) "The Dysfunctional Pursuit of Relevance in Education Research" by David F. Labaree; (2) "What Should Education Research Do, and How Should It Do It?" by Dylan Wiliam; (3) "Education Research as a Distributed Activity Across Universities" by Ellen Condliffe Lagemann; and (4) "Research Relevancy or Research for Change?" by Susan E. Noffke. The author ends this article with some short notes about how she believes the conversion from a detached study to a clinical study should take place.