{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012875536480686695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006676204101096805, 'mean_word_length': 4.844011142061281, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Knowledge democracy and action research – an exchange

Part 2 of this special issue on knowledge democracy continues to examine what we presented in Part 1 as an important and challenging topic for the global action research community. In Part 1 we included eight articles and two book reviews. In this issue, we include another six articles and an additional book review. For the Part 2 editorial, we have chosen to experiment with an aspect of democratizing knowledge and that is to practice in a transparent manner what Budd Hall and Rajesh Tandon describe as ‘linking values of democracy and action to the process of using knowledge’ (Hall and Tandon 2015). Our experiment involves each of us writing a separate brief editorial based on our individual readings of the articles included in Part 2. Although we both agreed that these are the articles we wanted to include, we realized over the course of our communications regarding the content of the articles that we had different understandings and impressions of the articles’ contents as well as the relationships of the content to the theme of this special issue. We then respond to what we each have written in a spirit of reflection on our similarities and differences in relation to values of democracy, action, and the use of knowledge. We again want to thank all the contributors to this special issue as well as the reviewers and our journal leadership team at the University of Nottingham. Thank you for your patience, guidance and support throughout the process of putting together this special issue. We realize that to capture the essence and nuances of current work in the knowledge democracy space we have pushed the boundaries of what Convery and Townsend (2018) discussed as reasons why articles are accepted and rejected in EARJ. Thanks also to those who provided feedback on Part 1 of the special issue. Your comments confirmed the relevance of the topic, and the urgency faced by the global action research community in taking action to support further explorations of democratizing knowledge production and dissemination.