Designing Like an Institution: Systems Thinking, Design Thinking, and Visual Grammars in Sustainability Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper seeks to provide a discourse for translating Sustainable development education to action. Noting that SDE is disconnected from the affective and behavioural components of learning by rigid and benign language, the author seeks to charge the language of SDE specifically to position both facilitators and leaners as agents.

The abstract suggests that "the paper introduces the concept of grammar". Grammar is a fundamental word and the basis of entire disciplines. I found it difficult to understand the way grammar is being used and redefined. I am not sure whether other words could be more suitable - language of SDE. Language: which is defined as the style of a piece of writing or speech. It references the unique way an author expresses their ideas; this is characterised by choices in word selection, tone, sentence structure, and overall rhythm??

 

It is not very clear how institutional theory is used. Please clarify.

 

It is also not clear how visual semiotics is used. Visual semiotics is the study of signs and symbols in visual communication. It explores how images, colours, shapes, and other visual elements convey meaning and messages to viewers. This field examines how visual cues are used to communicate ideas, emotions, and concepts in various forms of media and art.

See Pauwels, Mannay & Aiello Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts and New Directions DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526417015.n23

 

Please clarify the argument in lines 185 -195 The concept of grammar draws on multiple strands of critical social theory.....

The author has not demonstrated an examination of why the images and symbols used in the analysis are selected. These images are used in many disciplines and formats to describe, elucidate. They may be problematic and incomplete as the author states, though it is not clear a=why they represent SDE - design thinking or systems thinking???

Some sentences are difficult to follow 

Line 107 - The conclusion argues for the importance of institutional literacy in clarifying the limits of institutional action and expanding the scope of possible responses to structural harm. 

Perhaps: The conclusion emphasises the importance of institutional literacy for both clarifying the boundaries of institutional action and broadening the range of possible responses to structural harm. 

• please clarify what is meant by structural harm

Line 144 - Third, institutional action must be provisionally closable. Institutions must be able to mark actions as complete enough to allow organizational attention to shift, even when underlying problems remain unresolved.

- Institutions already have governance mechanisms for reporting, monitoring and evaluation and accountability - to a range of stakeholders - students, funders, governments. I am not sure I follow "closeable" 

 

Please check that long sentences are legible.

 

Please check that the outline in abstract and introduction mirror the arguments made in the conclusion. The paper seems to focus on so many concepts and ideas.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The papers makes valid philosophical arguments. The originality of the paper is in the synthesis of major concepts into SDE "grammars" and institutional literacy. 

The way these words are used in the discourse is so specific. This paper attempts to reframing them - essentially changing the definition of grammar: 'the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.'

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please see the reviewer report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author.

Firstly, I would like to thank the authors of this paper for their excellent work and effort. 
Below are some comments aimed at improving the paper:
The paper is well grounded in institutional theory and visual semiotics. Its main contribution is the concept of ‘institutional literacy’ as a pedagogical approach necessary for recognising the limits of institutionally mediated action. 

Regarding sections 4.1 and 4.2, in the analysis of the ‘Grammar of Synthesis’ (Panel A, the elephant), the author argues that this grammar depoliticises conflict by treating it as a lack of complete knowledge. It would be beneficial to explore in greater depth how this specifically affects marginalised voices that are often excluded from institutional ‘synthesis’. In this regard, a brief mention or reference could be included to cases where institutional synthesis has actively stifled movements of structural resistance.
Regarding the iceberg model, the author rightly points out that “depth” can delay actual intervention. However, the text could be strengthened by discussing whether there are any scenarios in which this depth does facilitate structural transformation without being absorbed by institutional logic. 

It might also be a good idea to include a section on methodology, setting out the objectives of the study and its design.
As for the conclusion: the concept of ‘institutional literacy’ is powerful, but it is only briefly described at the end. For this reason, the author could provide more specific examples of how an educator can implement this literacy in the classroom to prevent students from falling into the trap of merely administrative ‘accountability’.
As for the references, it would be appropriate to add four or five more recent ones from the last five years, as there are relatively few that are current.
 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article makes a significant contribution to critical sociology of education. It provides a framework for understanding why education for sustainable development often fails to bring about radical change, despite the sincere intentions of those involved.
The author proposes an original conceptualization of visual tools as “grammatical infrastructures” and introduces the important concept of “institutional literacy,” which holds significant potential for further research in the fields of higher education and sustainable development management. There is a clear connection between organizational theory and pedagogical practice.
We consider the article to be an exemplary piece of critical conceptual analysis. 
The article is well worth publishing and is recommended to developers of educational programs in the field of sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made substantial revisions to the manuscript, clarifying the use of methodologies and images as well as improving the clarity of the argument.

Please revise the images to there are legible and proof read before final print

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The papers makes valid philosophical arguments. The originality of the paper is in the synthesis of major concepts into SDE "grammars" and institutional literacy. 

The way these words are used in the discourse is so specific. This paper attempts to reframing them - essentially changing the definition of grammar: 'the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.'

Author Response

Reviewer Comment 1: Please revise the images so that they are legible and proofread before final print

 

Author Response 2: I take this to mean the issue is not conceptual but production-related. The composite figure does a lot of work, and when reduced to journal-column width, several panels may be unreadable. I therefore included the existing composite figure in the text, along with five separate high-resolution panel images labeled Figure1A, Figure1B, Figure1C, Figure1D, and Figure1E. The Journal’s production staff now has the original high-resolution materials to render any panel image needed for publication. 

 

Comment 2: The papers makes valid philosophical arguments. The originality of the paper is in the synthesis of major concepts into SDE "grammars" and institutional literacy. The way these words are used in the discourse is so specific. This paper attempts to reframing them - essentially changing the definition of grammar: 'the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.'

 

Response 2: I apologize, but it is unclear whether this comment includes instructions to change something in the manuscript or if it is just restating the paper’s argument.  The “changing the definition of grammar” comment is correctly noting that I am not using “grammar” in the colloquial sense but in an expanded theoretical sense, which I’ve explicitly clarified in Section 3: grammar is structural/action-oriented; distinct from ideology/framing; drawing on several scholars cited there. Reviewer #1 also left a comment about the paper’s English. I need some guidance on this comment. I had a professional editor review it, and they couldn’t find any grammatical errors. We did identify a few long sentences and shortened them to make them more reader-friendly. I hope that addresses your concerns. You can see the changes using “track changes.” If there are specific sentences you find problematic, please point them out. I've engaged a professional editor; I am not sure what else I can do to address this concern. I take writing very seriously, and I want to make sure the paper is understandable to readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Make sure all references are ordered according to the journal referencing style. 

Author Response

Comment: Make sure all references are ordered according to the journal referencing style. 

 

Response: I apologize.  I see that several entries do not match the MDPI/Sustainability style. Hopefully, I have corrected all the errors.