The purpose of this paper is to discuss a phenomenon that has evolved in mathematics education research journal articles during the last three decades, namely the 'ideal-typical' research paper. By not reflecting today's multi-faceted reality of the field, the ideal-typical research paper represents a far too narrow and rigid understanding of mathematics education research. The paper offers an explanation of this development, suggesting that it is detrimental to a field which is far from having found a universal, agreed-upon theoretical underpinning. It argues that we have to take measures to prevent our field from prematurely congealing into insufficient research paradigms.