Yeknemilis: Social Learning and Intercultural Transdisciplinary Collaboration for Sustainable Life

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors,

Thank you for your interesting submission entitled " Yeknemilis: Social learning and intercultural transdisciplinary collaboration for sustainable life." The paper and methdology seem sound and of broader interest about generating momentum for sustainability. While most aspects of the paper were interesting, I'm not sure Figure 4 and Figure 6 were particularly clear in what they were intending to communicate. Is there a different way you could visualize what you are trying to communicate with these figures? Or are these figures even necessary? Something to consider, as a reader I find vague figures distracting from the overall narrative of the manuscript.

None

Author Response

Comment: “While most aspects of the paper were interesting, I'm not sure Figure 4 and Figure 6 were particularly clear in what they were intending to communicate. Is there a different way you could visualize what you are trying to communicate with these figures? Or are these figures even necessary? Something to consider, as a reader I find vague figures distracting from the overall narrative of the manuscript.”

Reply:

We revised Figures 4 and 6 for relevance and clarity  about the presented results and discussion.

Figure 4  clarifies the groups or communities of actors involved in SL and intercultural transdisciplinary collaboration building yeknemilis. This can help clarify the position of different action levels and the function of different action levels within the cooperative and collaborators. We modified the figure for clarity and added a brief description of the results (lines 732-739).

Figure 6 visually describes the ontological dimensions of yeknemilis. It integrates a relevant result in our research: the social creativity in learning interacting with dimensions shoed in Figure 3. Thus Fig 6 is a synthetic diagram pertinent to the discussion (1034-1039).

We modified Fig 6 for clarity.

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed manuscript is interesting in terms of science and practice.  The structure of it is logically established and the consistency of the argument is clear. It would be valuable to add the research questions and describe the research limitations.

Author Response

Comments:

"The reviewed manuscript is interesting in terms of science and practice. The structure of it is logically established and the consistency of the argument is clear. It would be valuable to add the research questions and describe the research limitations."

Reply:

We propose the research question  at the end of the Introduction in lines 170-172: How are intercultural transdisciplinary collaboration and SL related in the horizon of sustainability of life (yeknemilis) in the Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico?

We further paraphrase the question in Conclusions and reflect on: the contributions of this research, future questions or studies, and limitations we found while addressing the question. Lines: 1200-1203 and 1246-1277.

We also considered that the methodological standpoint reflects on potential limitations as well as potentialities of this research (lines 307-317).

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and the approach rather innovative in this field. The approach is useful in the field of promoting sustainable development and awareness regarding these aspects. However there are some aspects that require attention:

- The context should be better introduced: for readers that are not familiar with the area of the study: how vast is the area, what indigenous people coexist in that area, what is the link between Yeknemilis, Masewal people and communities, and other.

- The intercultural dimension, though stated is not clear enough (it may be because of the lack of knowledge in the cultural dynamic in the area). It seems that the local culture is constructed more as opposed to western or outsiders, and the does not provide evidence of intercultural communication and openness.

- While the frame of the interviews is the Cooperative, it is not properly introduced: when was it established, what type of actions it leads, how many members? Did the researchers discussed with people that did not join the Cooperative, though are members of the communities?

- the sustainability issue, or the contribution to sustainable development is also marginally discussed. While social learning is emphasized as a source of promoting sustainability, the empirical evidences in this regard are not systematic: the link to mother Earth is emphasized, the fact that traditionally peoples are users and not owners of the land are consistent to sustainability approached (conserving resources for future generations), but there are we cannot find any concrete sustainable practices or examples.

I did not notice any English language problems. 

Author Response

Commments:

"The paper is interesting and the approach rather innovative in this field. The approach is useful in the field of promoting sustainable development and awareness regarding these aspects. However there are some aspects that require attention:

1) The context should be better introduced: for readers that are not familiar with the area of the study: how vast is the area, what indigenous people coexist in that area, what is the link between Yeknemilis, Masewal people and communities, and other.

2) The intercultural dimension, though stated is not clear enough (it may be because of the lack of knowledge in the cultural dynamic in the area). It seems that the local culture is constructed more as opposed to western or outsiders, and the does not provide evidence of intercultural communication and openness.

3) While the frame of the interviews is the Cooperative, it is not properly introduced: when was it established, what type of actions it leads, how many members? Did the researchers discussed with people that did not join the Cooperative, though are members of the communities?

4) the sustainability issue, or the contribution to sustainable development is also marginally discussed. While social learning is emphasized as a source of promoting sustainability, the empirical evidences in this regard are not systematic: the link to mother Earth is emphasized, the fact that traditionally peoples are users and not owners of the land are consistent to sustainability approached (conserving resources for future generations), but there are we cannot find any concrete sustainable practices or examples."

Reply:

1) We modified the methods section, improving the context description. We improved biophysical and sociocultural information regarding the area in detail in lines: 194-228.

We clarify that yeknemilis is a concept of the Masewal people in the Introduction and further in the description of context. Lines: 146, 217-219, 237-238 and 278-280

2) Our research group added context of interculturality in the region in Methods 199-203 and 224-228. For extension reasons, we refer to this dimension of local relations in a synthetic manner and provide adequate references for more in-depth documentation.

3) A more detailed description of the Cooperative and further references were added (lines 230-249). While the process involved some actors that were not members of the cooperative, methods focuses on cooperative members, as the cooperative was a key actor involving a wide diversity of people involved in different communities of practice and collective projects. Further analysis can be strengthened to complement the perspectives, including other actors in the territory, though this was not an objective of this research.

4) The research focused on the sustainability of life and lifeways for sustainability related to Buen vivir. We share this approach in lines 124-135. This broader view on relations doesn't specify particular practices. A more holistic aspect of the approach to knowledge and practices related to corpus and worldviews is part of human-nature relational values. Nonetheless, we gather on previous studies that focus on agroecological and other relevant practices for sustainable community management linked with community development and empowerment. Lines: 200-209 and Figure 2.

In the interviews results, people describe many learning practices related to different agroecological systems. We try to highlight this with a quote in lines: 481-485 and 644-648. In this paper we couldn’t elaborate much on all activities mentioned, bur refer to bibliography and previous text of the authors that introduce more detail. Nonetheless, we argue that fostering agency and other key learning dimensions of SL and intercultural transdisciplinary collaboration can help strengthen these practices.

Furthermore, life in SNP is complex. Sustainable and unsustainable practices coexist. Our research focuses on the processes that foster and value sustainable practices so this can be further evaluated and strengthened

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic is interesting, the structure is clear, data are interesting, literature is sufficient.

The paper must however be improved in two aspects:

1. In the description of methodology the author(s) should better clarify how many interviews have been collected, which were the topics, how interviewees have been chosen, which codes have been used; and which sort of activities have been observed during participant observation, how autothnography has been adopted, how these data have been analysed. At present methodology is very generic.

2. In conclusions, the author(s) should better clarify which results the research provided, going beyond the description of the case study in itself, developing a dialogue with scientific literature and making reference to thew questions declared at lines 143-153. The author(s) should summarise: which were the questions? which answers the research provided? is there anything new compared with existing literature about the topics of the questions?

Author Response

Comments:

"The topic is interesting, the structure is clear, data are interesting, literature is sufficient.

The paper must however be improved in two aspects:

1. In the description of methodology the author(s) should better clarify how many interviews have been collected, which were the topics, how interviewees have been chosen, which codes have been used; and which sort of activities have been observed during participant observation, how autothnography has been adopted, how these data have been analysed. At present methodology is very generic.

2. In conclusions, the author(s) should better clarify which results the research provided, going beyond the description of the case study in itself, developing a dialogue with scientific literature and making reference to thew questions declared at lines 143-153. The author(s) should summarise: which were the questions? which answers the research provided? is there anything new compared with existing literature about the topics of the questions?"

Reply and modifications:

1) We detailed the methods used in section 2.2, from lines 290-352, and added Table 1 to specify the codes used. We improved description of context and study characteristics (section2.1), as well as the methodological tools used and their referring source.

2) Conclusions were deeply modified, resuming the question and prominent findings in this research. Also, we consider the study's limitations and the relevance of results for future studies and similar cases. Lines: 1174-1286

Complementarity and discussion with existing literature is directly addressed in Results and Discussions section, given we present results and discuss together in subsections: 3.1.1-3.1.5 and 3.2

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Colleagues, 

This is a good paper and I just would like to suggest minor reviews to finalize the work. 

In the abstract you talk about qualitative research, then in the intro, it is presented as participatory and qualitative research. Please correct this.

I suggest stating also in the intro why this is transdisciplinary and intercultural research.

Invert sections 2.1 and 2.2, I suggest you present firstly the method and then the object of the research.

“Please don’t see the content shared here as a portrait of described realities. The approached realities are complex and multi-layered; lifeways and cosmogonies are incommensurable.” I do not think that this is a sentence you can use in a scientific paper. Rather than ask the reader to see the content in one way or another, build your perspective on how you generate scientific knowledge with adequate literature.

You must insert the list of codes used in the categorization of the data and information from the interviews.

P.12 line 552, I guess you meant “thought” not “fought”. 

I suggest you can implement the literature for your analysis with these two titles (not mandatory, just a suggestion) 

Vieta, M., & Heras, A.I. (2022). Organizational solidarity in practice in Bolivia and Argentina: Building coalitions of resistance and creativity. Organization, 29(2), 271-294.

This first title will help you examine the main topic of your research about the forms of solidarity and new ways to figure the buen vivir and teach it 

Bianchi, M. & Vieta, M. (2020). Co-operatives, territories and social capital: Reconsidering a theoretical framework. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(12), 1599-1616.

This second title is to help you read the dynamics between the co-ops and their territories and communities. 

Very few, a guess that after a new reading they will be fixed. 

Author Response

Received comments:

This is a good paper and I just would like to suggest minor reviews to finalize the work.

1) In the abstract you talk about qualitative research, then in the intro, it is presented as participatory and qualitative research. Please correct this. I suggest stating also in the intro why this is transdisciplinary and intercultural research.

2) Invert sections 2.1 and 2.2, I suggest you present firstly the method and then the object of the research.

3) "Please don't see the content shared here as a portrait of described realities. The approached realities are complex and multi-layered; lifeways and cosmogonies are incommensurable." I do not think that this is a sentence you can use in a scientific paper. Rather than ask the reader to see the content in one way or another, build your perspective on how you generate scientific knowledge with adequate literature

4) You must insert the list of codes used in the categorization of the data and information from the interviews.

5) P.12 line 552, I guess you meant "thought" not "fought".

6) I suggest you can implement the literature for your analysis with these two titles (not mandatory, just a suggestion)

Vieta, M., & Heras, A.I. (2022). Organizational solidarity in practice in Bolivia and Argentina: Building coalitions of resistance and creativity. Organization, 29(2), 271-294.

This first title will help you examine the main topic of your research about the forms of solidarity and new ways to figure the buen vivir and teach it

Bianchi, M. & Vieta, M. (2020). Co-operatives, territories and social capital: Reconsidering a theoretical framework. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(12), 1599-1616.

This second title is to help you read the dynamics between the co-ops and their territories and communities.

Modifications and reply:

1) In lines 21-22 of th abstract, we express the participatory character of this research.

2) We kept the order, since we find relevant to present the context of the study before specifying the concordant methods. For this reason we specify that in in section 2.1, we introduce the context of the area and process within the research (in subtitle), as well as made a more detailed description of context and methods.

3) We clarify the approach of intersubjectivity and partiality in lines 307-318.

4) We detailed the methodology in section 2.2, from lines 290-352, and added Table 1 to specify the categories and codes used.

5) Fought is translated from "luchado" (luchar). From the interview, we understood that the promoter recognized a history of fighting/struggle (mainly due to colonial and neocolonial contexts) due to individual and collective action to transform or overcome oppressing conditions for people's well-being.

6) We found both suggested references relevant and enriching for the discussion. We refer to them as to strengthen our findings regarding the Relational Ontology dimension and the Intercultural Transdisciplinary Collaboration Paradigm.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

all comments were carefully dealt with. the current form is complete and can be published as such. 

Congratulations.