{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04823151125401929, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01045016077170418, 'mean_word_length': 4.985576923076923, '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}}
Depths of (Un) knowing: Arts-Based Spinning and Weaving

We (Christine and Patrick) hope that our previously marked correspondences between art and science in Curriculum Inquiry 32(2), if now faint, can still be traced and so can be re-marked (on) and deepened here. Again featuring a Special Series on Arts-Based Educational Research, we place this present issue, 32(3), within the context of that previous issue, 32(2): Part II weaves its threads with those spun from Part I into an arts-based damasklike fabric. In Part I, the dialogue initiated by Eisner and Powell’s (2002) paper, “Art in Science?” allowed us to search for overlaps and correspondences. We now conclude this issue with two further responses to it: one by Slattery and Langerock, and another by Sullivan with McCrary. To it, we add Salvio’s review of four arts-based texts, and a book review by Sawyer. We then weave these threads together with those offered by the other contributions in this issue: articles by Hansen; Placier, Walker, and Foster; Bullough Jr., Patterson, and Mayes, followed by a dialogue with Summers, and Mildon. Placed together, these texts provide “a provocative assembling of proliferations, crossings, and overlaps, multiple openings and networks,