{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02718078381795196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.819852941176471, '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}}
Dissidence, difference and diversity in action research

Abstract This article served two purposes. First and foremost, it gave the author an opportunity to re-visit, and acknowledge, some ways in which her professional relationship with John Elliott and other professional friends influenced her work in action research. Second, it enabled the author to revisit current ideas held in two areas of interest that have, over the years, grown out of departure from, as well as identification with, John's own work. The first relates to the personal and emotional dimensions of theory in action research and the second, to issues of methodological creativity. In re-visiting these two areas of interest, the author tries to synthesise them in a new way in order to explore the connections between the personal, the emotional and the innovative in action research methodology. In this, the article attempts to link issues related to the ‘I’ of the action researcher with the ‘we’ of the collaborative research group. It is argued that our ‘self’ is implicated deeply in action research methodology, whatever form that might take. The emotional and social climate in which the ‘I’ operates is consequential. This means that we need to take a holistic view of the action researcher as person, and of collaborative colleagues as enablers and supporters, if we are to optimise the powers that can be brought to the process of enquiry and change. The article also tries to be ‘true’ to the notion that one's ideas, theories and work are shaped by what Wayne Booth calls ‘the company we keep’.