Practitioner research, as Ravitch (2014) writes in the previous issue of "Perspectives on Urban Education," holds the unique possibility of "generating local, practice-based knowledge that is deeply contextualized and meaningfully embedded in a specific milieu" while spurring a "counter-hegemonic way of thinking about and approaching theory-research-practice-policy connections and integrations" and "push[ing] against traditional expert-learner dichotomies" (p. 5). Schiera states that his academic-self strongly aligns with these values and approaches, although his teacher-self often felt worlds away from this. In response to the paper by Ravitch, Schiera felt motivated to write about this gap he felt in relation to the field of practitioner inquiry, and to explore his own reflections on his practice as a form of practitioner research. So many aspects of teachers' work are naturally connected to the work of taking an inquiry stance, and easily invite further and more intentional investigation. This paper is a self-reflective effort to explore that dissonance through the exploration of his teacher-self and the "praxidents" that occurred along the way. Appended to this article is "A Response to A. J. Schiera's 'Practitioner Research as Praxidents Waiting to Happen'" by Sharon Ravitch. She states that there are many aspects of Schiera's piece that she wanted to engage with, but decided to limit her response to a few themes that his article brought to the fore: research dissonance as artifact; (re)envisioning what constitutes data and research; and "teachers as transformative intellectuals" (Giroux, 1988). It is her hope that these comments, brief and therefore oversimplified as they are, will contribute to an emerging dialogue on these issues.