Enhancing Empathy for Justice: A Methodology for Expansive Teacher Professional Development through Creative Body-Based Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the paper presents a relevant topic related to sustainability, emphasising the use of certain technologies to address bullying, I recommend that the following aspects be taken into account:

1. The title is extremely long, ambiguous and, moreover, unattractive and does not allow us to understand what is the thematic focus of the paper presented.

2. At times, ideas are stated that are not supported by bibliographical sources, which leads to the conclusion that these are value judgements by the authors.

3. There is a lack of clarity about the purpose of the study presented.

4. Although a research methodology is presented, there is no clear justification for the use of case studies and Phenomenography as methods, nor for the Delphi technique or the use of semi-structured interviews.  Rather, this section describes the process developed in the implementation of certain strategies with the members of the research team.

5. Although the results are presented, they are also ambiguous, lacking the corresponding evidence for the statements that are made.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for supplying the reviews for this paper. We are pleased to note the general consensus from all four reviewers that the paper is highly original and relevant to the special issue. As researchers who would not normally publish in a journal such as sustainability, we were equally delighted to engage with the suggestions for improvement offered. It is always interesting to share ideas with a new audience, and we thank the reviewers for their valuable input on how we can do so on this occasion.

Rather than responding to each reviewer one by one, we have collected the suggestions from all four reviewers into the following themes.

Clarity of study, and overall relevance to sustainability

All reviewers asked for greater clarity in the purpose of the study. We have addressed this through a complete re-write of the abstract, introduction and conclusion, and the provision of an explicit research question at lines 77-80 and an explicit statement of our research goal starting at line 82.

Reviewer 2 also suggested that the concept of sustainability was used in a superficial way. We have addressed this through clearer articulation of how the project relates to the sustainability goal of justice. See title, abstract, lines 56, 66, 88, 119, 125 and so on.

Reviewer 3 notes that the original paper confirmed our research method, but asks what the method offers to the research field. We have clarified our claim here by clearly articulating that what this paper offers the field is the methodology itself. As we now note from line 82 and elsewhere, our purpose was to explore a different approach to knowledge generation in the context of the hegemonic position of neoliberal thinking within educational decision making. In short, we think the method has value for the field, over and above the findings.

We suspect here that we are working across an ontological boundary with reviewer 3. In our field, a contribution to research methodology is very much a ‘research’ article. We are unclear that the reviewer is referring to in saying ‘development work. Never-the-less, we hope that the greater clarification of research purpose in our revised introduction satisfies the reviewer that we are sharing work that will be of value to others researching education for sustainability.

Justification of method, overall referencing support

To achieve greater clarity of the research method, we have conducted a major restructure of the paper and separated much of the theoretical discussion (now in section 2 form line 108, and section 3 from line 281) from the formal methodological description (now in section 4 from line 329).

We acknowledge that we have not, as reviewer 2 suggests, presented the method with a level of detail that it can be directly carried out in other contexts. We have, however, provided a much deeper and heavily referenced account of the use of this method in different contexts from line 376. We note that our purpose here is not to support others to copy our approach with high fidelity, but rather to support other researchers to think about the use of different frameworks for their own research.

We note that reviewers 1 and 2 have essentially asked for access to the data sitting beneath the graph in figure 2. We do ask them to see that figure 2 is the ‘evidence’, but we acknowledge that computer-aided analysis is still relatively new. We anticipate that one day this will be accepted as evidence as readily as a factor analysis from SPSS or R. To provide greater trustworthiness, however, we have included a report on the text that has produced the graph in figure 2 as supplementary materials, as noted on line 427 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting article. The experience that is presented is particularly innovative and well-grounded, even though the article mixes in the introduction of the experience itself and the theoretical foundation that supports the experience that it wants to present. It is necessary to separate these two aspects and not consider the experience within the theoretical foundation and justification of the presentation of the article.

The article is very original in its presentation and the magazine is innovative in its proposal, but they do not follow the directive proposals for their own. The concept of sustainability appears in the summary, in the introduction and the conclusions in a very superficial way, but it is not evident in the place further along the text nor is it taken into account in what would be the methodological part, there is no question.

The article presents point 1. Introduction and moves on to point 2.1 without indicating which corresponding section.

From lines 265 to 270, information is presented that would be relevant to present in the conclusions.

Figure 2 Mapping our conceptual differences is generated, but in no case is there a perfectly described methodology. The tools used to generate this figure are presented, but the sample has not been specified. Nor is it an analysis of the data obtained in this graph, nor what the different relationships between the determined nodules mean. There is no support for the conclusions with other sources, other similar experiences or with the results of the research itself.

An intense review is advised to present the methodology because as it is presented it cannot be carried out in other contexts if it were necessary to repeat it and compare results.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for supplying the reviews for this paper. We are pleased to note the general consensus from all four reviewers that the paper is highly original and relevant to the special issue. As researchers who would not normally publish in a journal such as sustainability, we were equally delighted to engage with the suggestions for improvement offered. It is always interesting to share ideas with a new audience, and we thank the reviewers for their valuable input on how we can do so on this occasion.

Rather than responding to each reviewer one by one, we have collected the suggestions from all four reviewers into the following themes.

Clarity of study, and overall relevance to sustainability

All reviewers asked for greater clarity in the purpose of the study. We have addressed this through a complete re-write of the abstract, introduction and conclusion, and the provision of an explicit research question at lines 77-80 and an explicit statement of our research goal starting at line 82.

Reviewer 2 also suggested that the concept of sustainability was used in a superficial way. We have addressed this through clearer articulation of how the project relates to the sustainability goal of justice. See title, abstract, lines 56, 66, 88, 119, 125 and so on.

Reviewer 3 notes that the original paper confirmed our research method, but asks what the method offers to the research field. We have clarified our claim here by clearly articulating that what this paper offers the field is the methodology itself. As we now note from line 82 and elsewhere, our purpose was to explore a different approach to knowledge generation in the context of the hegemonic position of neoliberal thinking within educational decision making. In short, we think the method has value for the field, over and above the findings.

We suspect here that we are working across an ontological boundary with reviewer 3. In our field, a contribution to research methodology is very much a ‘research’ article. We are unclear that the reviewer is referring to in saying ‘development work. Never-the-less, we hope that the greater clarification of research purpose in our revised introduction satisfies the reviewer that we are sharing work that will be of value to others researching education for sustainability.

Justification of method, overall referencing support

To achieve greater clarity of the research method, we have conducted a major restructure of the paper and separated much of the theoretical discussion (now in section 2 form line 108, and section 3 from line 281) from the formal methodological description (now in section 4 from line 329).

We acknowledge that we have not, as reviewer 2 suggests, presented the method with a level of detail that it can be directly carried out in other contexts. We have, however, provided a much deeper and heavily referenced account of the use of this method in different contexts from line 376. We note that our purpose here is not to support others to copy our approach with high fidelity, but rather to support other researchers to think about the use of different frameworks for their own research.

We note that reviewers 1 and 2 have essentially asked for access to the data sitting beneath the graph in figure 2. We do ask them to see that figure 2 is the ‘evidence’, but we acknowledge that computer-aided analysis is still relatively new. We anticipate that one day this will be accepted as evidence as readily as a factor analysis from SPSS or R. To provide greater trustworthiness, however, we have included a report on the text that has produced the graph in figure 2 as supplementary materials, as noted on line 427 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am hesitant to publish this article as it is now written. The main question I ask is - is this research or is it a development work based on research? I find neither a clear research purpose nor any research questions. Testing previous research in practice is interesting, but it causes problems when it is one's own business that constitutes empiricism. In the "article", you write a clear review of previous research and describe how you developed a working method based on it, which you then test and discuss based on the same research. As I see it, the research confirms your working method, but what does your working method contribute to the research field? Here it is unclear. If this is to be seen as research, I doubt it, you also need to more clearly report your method choices and strengthen it with references to literature which means that what you are doing is research and not development work. The work you have done is interesting and I think the field has a lot to learn from it. But maybe you should consider publishing it as a development work and not highlight it as research. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for supplying the reviews for this paper. We are pleased to note the general consensus from all four reviewers that the paper is highly original and relevant to the special issue. As researchers who would not normally publish in a journal such as sustainability, we were equally delighted to engage with the suggestions for improvement offered. It is always interesting to share ideas with a new audience, and we thank the reviewers for their valuable input on how we can do so on this occasion.

Rather than responding to each reviewer one by one, we have collected the suggestions from all four reviewers intop the following themes.

Clarity of study, and overall relevance to sustainability

All reviewers asked for greater clarity in the purpose of the study. We have addressed this through a complete re-write of the abstract, introduction and conclusion, and the provision of an explicit research question at lines 77-80 and an explicit statement of our research goal starting at line 82.

Reviewer 2 also suggested that the concept of sustainability was used in a superficial way. We have addressed this through clearer articulation of how the project relates to the sustainability goal of justice. See title, abstract, lines 56, 66, 88, 119, 125 and so on.

Reviewer 3 notes that the original paper confirmed our research method, but asks what the method offers to the research field. We have clarified our claim here by clearly articulating that what this paper offers the field is the methodology itself. As we now note from line 82 and elsewhere, our purpose was to explore a different approach to knowledge generation in the context of the hegemonic position of neoliberal thinking within educational decision making. In short, we think the method has value for the field, over and above the findings.

We suspect here that we are working across an ontological boundary with reviewer 3. In our field, a contribution to research methodology is very much a ‘research’ article. We are unclear that the reviewer is referring to in saying ‘development work. Never-the-less, we hope that the greater clarification of research purpose in our revised introduction satisfies the reviewer that we are sharing work that will be of value to others researching education for sustainability.

Justification of method, overall referencing support

To achieve greater clarity of the research method, we have conducted a major restructure of the paper and separated much of the theoretical discussion (now in section 2 form line 108, and section 3 from line 281) from the formal methodological description (now in section 4 from line 329).

We acknowledge that we have not, as reviewer 2 suggests, presented the method with a level of detail that it can be directly carried out in other contexts. We have, however, provided a much deeper and heavily referenced account of the use of this method in different contexts from line 376. We note that our purpose here is not to support others to copy our approach with high fidelity, but rather to support other researchers to think about the use of different frameworks for their own research.

We note that reviewers 1 and 2 have essentially asked for access to the data sitting beneath the graph in figure 2. We do ask them to see that figure 2 is the ‘evidence’, but we acknowledge that computer-aided analysis is still relatively new. We anticipate that one day this will be accepted as evidence as readily as a factor analysis from SPSS or R. To provide greater trustworthiness, however, we have included a report on the text that has produced the graph in figure 2 as supplementary materials, as noted on line 427 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a very unique self-study. It is rather complex, and at times it was difficult to discern exactly what you were studying. Although you reference "sustainable education" a number of times, I am not convinced that this is an outcome of your work together. I would suggest that the conclusion be expanded with more comment on the sustainability of this protocol. 

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for supplying the reviews for this paper. We are pleased to note the general consensus from all four reviewers that the paper is highly original and relevant to the special issue. As researchers who would not normally publish in a journal such as sustainability, we were equally delighted to engage with the suggestions for improvement offered. It is always interesting to share ideas with a new audience, and we thank the reviewers for their valuable input on how we can do so on this occasion.

Rather than responding to each reviewer one by one, we have collected the suggestions from all four reviewers intop the following themes.

Clarity of study, and overall relevance to sustainability

All reviewers asked for greater clarity in the purpose of the study. We have addressed this through a complete re-write of the abstract, introduction and conclusion, and the provision of an explicit research question at lines 77-80 and an explicit statement of our research goal starting at line 82.

Reviewer 2 also suggested that the concept of sustainability was used in a superficial way. We have addressed this through clearer articulation of how the project relates to the sustainability goal of justice. See title, abstract, lines 56, 66, 88, 119, 125 and so on.

Reviewer 3 notes that the original paper confirmed our research method, but asks what the method offers to the research field. We have clarified our claim here by clearly articulating that what this paper offers the field is the methodology itself. As we now note from line 82 and elsewhere, our purpose was to explore a different approach to knowledge generation in the context of the hegemonic position of neoliberal thinking within educational decision making. In short, we think the method has value for the field, over and above the findings.

We suspect here that we are working across an ontological boundary with reviewer 3. In our field, a contribution to research methodology is very much a ‘research’ article. We are unclear that the reviewer is referring to in saying ‘development work. Never-the-less, we hope that the greater clarification of research purpose in our revised introduction satisfies the reviewer that we are sharing work that will be of value to others researching education for sustainability.

Justification of method, overall referencing support

To achieve greater clarity of the research method, we have conducted a major restructure of the paper and separated much of the theoretical discussion (now in section 2 form line 108, and section 3 from line 281) from the formal methodological description (now in section 4 from line 329).

We acknowledge that we have not, as reviewer 2 suggests, presented the method with a level of detail that it can be directly carried out in other contexts. We have, however, provided a much deeper and heavily referenced account of the use of this method in different contexts from line 376. We note that our purpose here is not to support others to copy our approach with high fidelity, but rather to support other researchers to think about the use of different frameworks for their own research.

We note that reviewers 1 and 2 have essentially asked for access to the data sitting beneath the graph in figure 2. We do ask them to see that figure 2 is the ‘evidence’, but we acknowledge that computer-aided analysis is still relatively new. We anticipate that one day this will be accepted as evidence as readily as a factor analysis from SPSS or R. To provide greater trustworthiness, however, we have included a report on the text that has produced the graph in figure 2 as supplementary materials, as noted on line 427 of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors; 

The new article submitted undoubtedly improved substantially in every aspect that was deficient in the first version. I would like to thank the authors for their efforts. 

The title has improved considerably and is somewhat more understandable, however, I recommend that it be reviewed again in terms of the purpose of the study and the content of the article, as there is still some doubt as to whether the purpose was to validate and/or disseminate the methodology applied, or to address bullying through the use of the technology employed, within the framework of an approach to social justice and sustainability, as these are different levels and meanings. 

The methodology is clearer and it is better understood how the study was carried out. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your kind consideration of this paper. We appreciate the advice you and the reviewers have provided and are pleased that this has greatly improved the quality of the articial. 

To address the comments received in the second review, we have done the following:
1) We have renumbered the headings to follow sequentially.

2) We hace expanded the discussion section to include "5.3 - Sustainability of CBL as a method for Expansive Teacher Professional Development". In this section we address the sustainability and scalability of CBL. This has been highlighted in pick for clarity. 

3) The title has been altered slightly to better reflect that we present a methodology instead of to address anti-bullying specifically.

We hope these changes are suitable and address the remaining concerns of the reviewers. 

Reviewer 2 Report

To watch the numbering of the sections in point 2.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your kind consideration of this paper. We appreciate the advice you and the reviewers have provided and are pleased that this has greatly improved the quality of the articial. 

To address the comments received in the second review, we have done the following:
1) We have renumbered the headings to follow sequentially.

2) We hace expanded the discussion section to include "5.3 - Sustainability of CBL as a method for Expansive Teacher Professional Development". In this section we address the sustainability and scalability of CBL. This has been highlighted in pick for clarity. 

3) The title has been altered slightly to better reflect that we present a methodology instead of to address anti-bullying specifically.

We hope these changes are suitable and address the remaining concerns of the reviewers. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Now it's much clearer. If I hadn't read the first version that made me very confused, I probably would have rated this one higher

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind consideration of this paper. We appreciate the advice you have provided and are pleased that this has greatly improved the quality of the article.