exist in the social sciences between qualitative research on the one hand that focuses on human beings, groups of people, communities, organisations and institutions, and quantitative research on the other hand that focuses on facts and figures. While there is a growing literature published on AR, little concerns the writing, supervising and examining of action research theses. In this respect, Coghlan and Brannick (2005) , Fisher and Phelps (2006) , McNiff and Whitehead (2006) , Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and the seminal work of Dick (2005) require mention here as exceptions. For example, the wide collection of resources Bob Dick presents on the website at Southern Cross University, Australia (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.htm\\... has been highly valued by postgraduates and supervisors/examiners of AR, particularly his course on AREOL (Action Research and Evaluation On Line; see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/areol/areo\\... his paper entitled "You want to do an action research thesis?" (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/artesi\\... and a brief version of that paper entitled "Approaching an action research thesis: an overview" (seewww.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/ph\\... There is also a site with abstracts and some full texts of completed action research theses and dissertations (see www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/artsub\\... In this paper we hope to contribute further to these resources and debates by identifying the key factors affecting the quality of an AR thesis and suggesting strategies and methods for achieving quality and rigour in AR and writing an AR thesis. First, we refer to working definitions of quality action research in the literature. Second, we discuss the requirements of a quality thesis in general. Third,