A Typology of Martial Arts Scholar–Practitioners: Types, Transitions, and Tensions in Capoeira

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper uses outside theory well, is written in an easily comprehendible style, and is generally well-structured. The problem is axiological. What is the need for a typology of the scholar-practitioner? As the essay states, nearly all scholars of martial arts are practitioners. What really is achieved by categorizing them into a dichotomy of  what looks to be level of professional engagement? The comparison to sport was somewhat interesting and may hold more academic interest than just producing a typology. Still, it seems obvious a natural progression takes place where (in general) martial art practitioners become scholars in their fields. After that, it seems that all there is to say is to what extent, that is, what level of proficiency they have reached as both practitioner and scholar. But does codification of this really hold academic value?. I would like the authors to explain more clearly why this research matters. What problem is being proposed or solved?       

The English is generally good. As with most essays it could use a final edit. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Many thanks for the helpful feedback, which will help us address the “so what?” question on the importance and value of our research. We have added two paragraphs within the article that should help the reader understand the rationale behind our article and the utility of the model for future empirical research. We have also proofread the article several times, making some minor corrections of typos and errors in the text as well as repetitive language. This enabled some space for further suggestions from Reviewer 3 in various parts of the article.

 

We hope you enjoy reading the revised version of the manuscript, which has certainly been aided by your valuable comments.

 

Kind regards,

 

The Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Hello.

The article falls into both the field and addresses an interesting topic.

The research presentation is well done, orderly and explicit.

The argument and the introduction are solid and support the idea of research. The methods are clearly presented, as well as the content of the research.

I have no additional comment to add.

Congratulations. All the best!.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Many thanks for your praising comments on our article. We are delighted to read that you are pleased with the paper as it stands, and we find your words and assessment very motivating. The other reviewers have made some small suggestions to help us improve the article, so you might receive the final version soon.

 

We wish you all the best with your research as well.

 

Kind regards,

 

The authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

I read your work with interest. The manuscript is attractive and well documented. You highlighted the issues and identified the connections between practical and theoretical/academic activities for Capoeira (Brazilian martial art). The idea stated in Lines 322-323 is defining for your study. Here are some ideas to improve the current form of the peer-reviewed manuscript:

1. Abstract: It would be useful to include a short paragraph summarizing the results and conclusions of your study.

2. The research directions listed (lines 123-135) would be clearer if you separated/mentioned/numbered them into distinct points: a,b,c..... You could also formulate some conclusions related to these directions.

3. Could you specify the time frame in which you conducted the study and the methodology used to conduct the research.

4. How many of the analyzed Scholar-Practitioners can lead research projects and write complex scientific articles in full? Those with advanced practical experience have obvious advantages, mainly related to understanding the essence of this martial art. I am thinking, however, of advanced research related to physiology, biochemistry, biomechanics, psychology, sociology, nutrition and recovery for Capoeira practitioners. Specialization and expertise in these fields, however, involve many years of study. Are there collaborations with specialists/researchers who excel in these fields, but who have not practiced martial arts? You signaled a fundamental divide between those who practice martial arts and those who study them (lines 340-341).

5. The characteristics/peculiarities of the 10 typologies identified (lines 426-649) could be summarized in a table, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages for each typology separately. This information is very well analyzed in the manuscript, their synthesis would provide a better overview and simplify comparisons between these categories.

6. It would have been interesting to have a representative group for each typology identified and by questioning them to bring new information on the commonalities and differences between these groups. Perhaps in other studies, your manuscript provides enough information in its current form.

7. Limitations of the study?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for your detailed and very precise comments on different aspects of our article. We have tried our best to address all of the comments within the main body of the article, and we feel it is a much stronger submission thanks to your suggestions. These changes include a complete table of advantages and disadvantages for each type, which can be found in a new Appendix. 

The only change we were not able to action was to add details on the findings within the Abstract. This was due to the word limit rules on the abstract in Societies, which is quite restrictive.

Another review (as well as the editor) requested a few additions, so we hope you enjoy reading the revised version of this paper.

We thank you once again for your expert advice and feedback.

Kind regards,

The Authors.