Description: The paper explores the relationship between truth and 'radicality' in order to draw out the implications for research methodologies that have a focus on 'emancipation', 'empowerment', and undertake research on issues of race, gender, inclusion. Key questions focus on the relation between particular instances and making general claims. The question of 'truth' is explored not under conditions of consensus but under conditions of dissensus where 'disagreements' are irresolvable, indeed, are considered to be a fundamental condition of possibility for 'freedom', 'emancipation', and the 'inclusion' of heterogeneous elements/views/beings. The issue of the relation between the particular and the general (or the contingent and the universal) has been at the centre of debates between Butler, Laclau, Zizek (2000) Badiou (2005) and Mouffe (2005) in their endeavours to think through what may be called a new left political project. This debate concerning the philosophy of politics has relevance for the development of radical educational methodologies appropriate for researching and engaging with issues of social justice. The authors draw upon their research and theoretical explorations currently being undertaken for a book commissioned by Routldge on 'radical research'. Education, it is argued, has a critical role in the relation between the particular/contingent and the general/universal. This role focuses on what Schostak (2006) has called the inter-view - the space between views - through which the implications of alternative views are 'drawn out' (educated) for purposes of exploration, debates, experimentation, creativity, innovation. It is here that the fundamental disagreements between views generate the possibilities for change, the inclusion of difference. For Ranciére (1995) disagreements are the basis of the political. Fidelity to the disagreement is, for him, the necessary basis for emancipation, inclusion, social justice. Mouffe (2005) and Laclau (2005) further deepen these insights with respect to a political philosophy of radical democracy. The purpose of the paper is to show what this means for doing radical research. Radical research, it is argued, explores and engages with the tensions between 'truth in particular' and 'truth in general' that are revealed in disagreements and claims concerning 'injustices', 'wrongs'. Appeals to evidence and to law do not necessarily resolve such issues since, as Badiou (2003, 2005) argues the desire is for something beyond what is recognised by the law and thus by evidence formed through consensual procedures of what counts as 'scientific', 'rational' methodologies under prevailing orthodoxies. In Badiou's terms if the Law defines what can exist, then the radical is always an impossible demand for the 'truth' of what the Law does not recognise - what after Badiou may be called 'the monstrous' as a synthesis of what exists under the law and that which is 'outside'/impossible/unnameable under the law. Radical research, then has the task of framing the conditions of possibility for evidencing, representing, engaging with and educating (drawing out) courses of action through which difference, disagreement and injustices/wrongs can be encompassed in social, cultural, political, and educational contexts. Methodology: The arguments of the paper will be illustrated concretely with data drawn from a range of research projects in education across the professions. The underlying methodology of these projects has been informed by philosophical/political debates broadly called 'post-structuralist', or 'postmodernist', however, they may be better designated 'anti-totalitarian' (Cusset 2003). Conclusions: In the conclusion to the paper an approach to 'doing radical research' will be outlined that is both philosophically informed and practical in relation to complex political circumstances.