Maps and Fabulations: On Transnationalism, Transformative Pedagogies, and Knowledge Production in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written, with a clear structure and an interesting research question/hypothesis.

However, the two illustrative showcases (vignettes) used to open the debate and address the research theme are quite limiting and this is my main concern.  Using only two showcases significantly limits the study's scope. Generalizing the findings to a larger population is problematic, as the examples may not be representative. Moreover, the small sample size makes it difficult to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship and effectively address alternative interpretations.

While we can agree that, depending on the research field, exploratory research can be used in the early stages of research because a small number of cases can be used to generate hypotheses or to refine research questions, it is difficult to argue this is in lieu of a more in depth analysis to sustain conclusions. On another note, if the selected cases are particularly unique or critical in some way (e.g., they are "outliers" or they represent a significant turning point), they can provide valuable, scientifically valid insights.

To bolster the validity of a paper with limited showcases, several steps are crucial: (a) Articulate clearly the purpose of each showcase, specifying whether it serves as an illustration, exploration, or something else. (b) Provide rich, contextual details for each case, enabling readers to judge its relevance and how well it represents the broader phenomenon and (c) Conduct a rigorous analysis using a well-defined theoretical framework, while actively considering alternative explanations.

Finally, openly acknowledge the inherent limitations of such a small sample size and suggest new directions for future research using larger datasets or different methodologies.

In the specific context of this paper, consider whether the chosen vignettes offer exceptional and/or unique insightful perspectives, and assess how well their insights align with existing literature and theoretical frameworks. In short, scientific soundness in such cases hinges on a clear purpose, rigorous analysis, and transparent acknowledgment of its limitations.

Author Response

Thank you for your insight. Please view the revision table attached here for all changes made to the manuscript. 

 

Manuscript ID: socsci-3477068

Response to reviewers comments

 

1. NB. All new additions into the manuscript are visible in red font.

 

Reviewer 1	Authors response
The two illustrative showcases (vignettes) used to open the debate and address the research theme are quite limiting and this is my main concern. Using only two showcases significantly limits the study's scope. Generalizing the findings to a larger population is problematic, as the examples may not be representative. Moreover, the small sample size makes it difficult to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship and effectively address alternative interpretations. While we can agree that, depending on the research field, exploratory research can be used in the early stages of research because a small number of cases can be used to generate hypotheses or to refine research questions, it is difficult to argue this is in lieu of a more in depth analysis to sustain conclusions. On another note, if the selected cases are particularly unique or critical in some way (e.g., they are "outliers" or they represent a significant turning point), they can provide valuable, scientifically valid insights.	Thank you for this insight which we aimed to have addressed in the additional detail added into the focus and intent of the paper with clarification about the first authors positionality and detail about the research/study sites. Additional consideration of the theoretical framing of the paper in Section 2, and the additional detail added into the ‘Methods and Materials’ section, also now aims to provide increased clarity on the points raised.
To bolster the validity of a paper with limited showcases, several steps are crucial: (a) Articulate clearly the purpose of each showcase, specifying whether it serves as an illustration, exploration, or something else. (b) Provide rich, contextual details for each case, enabling readers to judge its relevance and how well it represents the broader phenomenon (c) Conduct a rigorous analysis using a well-defined theoretical framework, while actively considering alternative explanations.   Finally, openly acknowledge the inherent limitations of such a small sample size and suggest new directions for future research using larger datasets or different methodologies. ·        In the specific context of this paper, consider whether the chosen vignettes offer exceptional and/or unique insightful perspectives, and assess how well their insights align with existing literature and theoretical frameworks. ·        In short, scientific soundness in such cases hinges on a clear purpose, rigorous analysis, and transparent acknowledgment of its limitations.	We aim to have strengthened the validity of the paper as mentioned above and through added additional detail in the ‘Methods and Materials’ section. Further we have acknowledged the study ‘limitations’, and again in the Concluding paragraph.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this the manuscript on “ Integral Threads and Painful Tears: On Transnationalism, Transformative Pedagogies, and Knowledge Production in Higher Education”. The manuscript calls for transformative pedagogies that empower marginalised students, including gender. The topic of the manuscript is very interesting and the applied feminist lens for decolonial and transformative knowledge production is appropriate and relevant.  

The manuscript aims at examining the contribution of feminist pedagogy in higher education with the main research question of “how might the influence of transnational literature and transnational feminist pedagogies creatively build and enhance equalities in the re-thinking and restructuring of curricula knowledge production?” However, there are some major areas for improvements. Some sections such as methods and findings need to be re-written to include appropriate and relevant information. Please see below my comments in relation to different sections:

Abstract:

The abstract is well written.  it’d be beneficial to unpack the insights in the last part of the abstract and concisely explain what those identified approaches are for facilitating richer discussions on gender, equality and knowledge production.

Introduction:

• Interdisciplinary perspective of literary and cultural studies is mentioned a few times in the introduction section, but it needs to be unpacked and explained what this perspective is and how these two disciplinary perspectives are being combined/stream lined in an interdisciplinary approach.
• I’d suggest authors explaining the significance of the research/manuscript by elaborating how this work would contribute to the existing knowledge and whether it makes any contribution to the theory, or any other practical contribution this might have.
• The need for such a research/paper needs to be clearly established: why this is important and how this work will be addressing the exciting gap.
• In introduction it was mentioned that this work “examine how the contribution of feminist pedagogy in higher education contexts can enable transnational scholarship to re-structure discussions on equality, gender and knowledge production in the classroom”. However, the research question sounds to be broader and does not specify what sort of equalities it will be addressing. Need to clarify what are the aspects of the equality this work focus on: gender equality and equal access, marginalised group from diverse background, immigrants, etc. and what is the connection between this and knowledge production (historically?)

Concepts and theoretical perspectives:

• The second paragraph under section “2.1. Defining Transnationalism” does not add a meaningful definition or description of neither the concept or theory and the way they are connected to this work.
• It’d be worthwhile to connect it with “nation ideology” of this study’s context and provide more clarity that how it applies to the context of this work: for instance, what is the nation ideology in the context of western Europe on the knowledge production and education and how it relates to this work and its purpose.
• Page 3 under section 2.2 please use the reference instead of (ibid). The same on page 4, paragraph 3.
• I would have appreciated clear explanation of 2. Feminism perspective on transnationalism and then how it applies to this work. The authors could go through details of specific concepts, such as reflexivity with a focus on unpacking and challenging assumption taking a feminist perspective and then relate to their work that how it relates to their work on challenging the status que of knowledge production in western Europe.
• Interestingly, “pedagogical practices by feminist, decolonial, postcolonial and transnational theorists” has been mentioned several times. However, authors did not properly clarify these concepts and their link to the context of their work. In particularly the link between feminist decolonial perspective and transactional theory in the context of education and also this this paper needs to be clarified. I’d recommend expanding the third paragraph on page 4 further, when mentioning “Zidani calls for …”.
• Overall, what is missing in section 2 is the link between the theory and this work and how it is applied and used in this paper. A proper and clear conceptualisation of theoretical framework is needed.

Materials and Methods

• The autoethnography method used and described in the paper is appropriate. However, I’m not confident that it’s an appropriate tool for “examining” the contribution of feminist pedagogy in higher education contexts.
• In applying an autoethnography method, it is essential to explain the positionality of the author who conducted an autoethnography to provide the relexify implied in such a methodological approach. What are the autoethnography’s worldview, background, and so on and how their positionality may have framed and shaped data collection and what strategies has been used for ensuring critical reflexivity? These are missing in the methods section.
• It is not explained how data was collected: journals, memories, interviews (hoe many, who why), social media, field notes, or any other forms.
• Please specify how many interviews was conducted and with who, as well as focus groups with explaining the recruitment strategy, the rational and an explanation about the participants. Last paragraph in the methods section mention some of these crucial information but needs to be expanded and cover all the above-mentioned points.

Vignettes section

• I appreciate the autoethnographic language and journaling used in this section. However, it is slightly overdone, descriptive and not presenting lacks clear representation of information collected.
• Section 4.1 simply describes a class activity but does not present the cultural maps as reflected in the sub-title. Similarly in section 4.2, it’d been beneficial to present data from the focus group and interviews as well as observation ang journaling.

Discussion section

• The points and arguments made in discussion are very interesting. However, there is a lack of clear connection to the theoretical framework.
• Even though in the last paragraph of the section authors tried to clarify their argument, it is not clear how these answers their main research question of “How might the influence of transnational literature and transnational feminist pedagogies creatively build and enhance equalities in the re-thinking and restructuring of curricula knowledge production?”

Conclusion

• Authors could also explain the contribution of their paper in conclusion and provide recommendations for future work in the space.

Author Response

Thank you for your insight. Please view the revision table attached here for all changes made to the manuscript. 

 

 

Reviewer 2 – Problems to address	Authors response
1. Interdisciplinary perspective of literary and cultural studies is mentioned a few times in the introduction section, but it needs to be unpacked and explained what this perspective is and how these two disciplinary perspectives are being combined/streamlined in an interdisciplinary approach.	Thank you for this useful comment which we have now unpacked and addressed with additional reference to the literature, in the introductory section of the paper
2. The second paragraph under section “2.1. Defining Transnationalism” does not add a meaningful definition or description of neither the concept or theory and the way they are connected to this work.	We aim to have addressed this comment somewhat with the additional explanation and reference to the nation ideology discussion in the Introductory section. We believe defining transnationalism remains a meaningful concept to define in section 2.1.
3. I would have appreciated clear explanation of 2. Feminism perspective on transnationalism and then how it applies to this work. Interestingly, “pedagogical practices by feminist, decolonial, postcolonial and transnational theorists” has been mentioned several times. However, authors did not properly clarify these concepts and their link to the context of their work. In particularly the link between feminist decolonial perspective and transactional theory in the context of education and also this this paper needs to be clarified.	Thank you for this suggestion, additional detail on the concepts you mention have been added as part of the Introduction to the paper, as well as in sections 2.1 and 2.3. We hope these additions set up the background and context of the paper more thoroughly for the reader, and then how they are pulled through again in the ‘Discussion’.
4. The autoethnography method used and described in the paper is appropriate. However, I’m not confident that it’s an appropriate tool for “examining” the contribution of feminist pedagogy in higher education contexts. In applying an autoethnography method, it is essential to explain the positionality of the author who conducted an autoethnography to provide the relexify implied in such a methodological approach.	We have added more detail to enable the positionality of the first author who conducted the autoethnography, along with the rationale for the study contexts and approach to be made clearer, not least in the ‘Material and Methods’ section.
5. I appreciate the autoethnographic language and journaling used in this section. However, it is slightly overdone, descriptive and not presenting lacks clear representation of information collected.	With the additions added about the first author positionality and detail included now in the ‘Material and Methods’ section, we hope to have addressed this concern with an aim to balance academic rigour whilst maintaining a style of storytelling viewed as important from the first authors autoethnographic lens.
6. The points and arguments made in discussion are very interesting. However, there is a lack of clear connection to the theoretical framework. Even though in the last paragraph of the section authors tried to clarify their argument, it is not clear how these answers their main research question of “How might the influence of transnational literature and transnational feminist pedagogies creatively build and enhance equalities in the re-thinking and restructuring of curricula knowledge production?”	Thank you for this comment which we aim to have addressed not only in the Concluding paragraph, but also considering the clarity of how the vignettes and their discussion relates to transnational feminism and transformative pedagogies as alternative ways of knowing and embracing of difference.
Reviewer 2 advice	Authors response
·        It’d be beneficial to unpack the insights in the last part of the abstract and concisely explain what those identified approaches are for facilitating richer discussions on gender, equality and knowledge production. a.         I’d suggest authors explaining the significance of the research/manuscript by elaborating how this work would contribute to the existing knowledge and whether it makes any contribution to the theory, or any other practical contribution this might have. b.        The need for such a research/paper needs to be clearly established: why this is important and how this work will be addressing the exciting gap. c.        In introduction it was mentioned that this work “examine how the contribution of feminist pedagogy in higher education contexts can enable transnational scholarship to re-structure discussions on equality, gender and knowledge production in the classroom”. However, the research question sounds to be broader and does not specify what sort of equalities it will be addressing. d.        Need to clarify what are the aspects of the equality this work focus on: gender equality and equal access, marginalised group from diverse background, immigrants, etc. and what is the connection between this and knowledge production (historically?)	Thank you for this comment, we have addressed these points particularly in the Introduction and Conclusion of the paper
2. It’d be worthwhile to connect it with “nation ideology” of this study’s context and provide more clarity that how it applies to the context of this work: for instance, what is the nation ideology in the context of western Europe on the knowledge production and education and how it relates to this work and its purpose.	We have added in this suggested discussion in the Introductory section to provide more clarity and better set the context for this study.
3. The authors could go through details of specific concepts, such as reflexivity with a focus on unpacking and challenging assumption taking a feminist perspective and then relate to their work that how it relates to their work on challenging the status que of knowledge production in western Europe. ·        I’d recommend expanding the third paragraph on page 4 further, when mentioning “Zidani calls for …”. Overall, what is missing in section 2 is the link between the theory and this work and how it is applied and used in this paper. ·        A proper and clear conceptualisation of theoretical framework is needed.	Thank for these comments which we aim to have addressed in section 2 and section 3 ‘Materials and Methods’ so that the link between the theory and the vignettes presented and their discussion is more clearly appreciated.
4. What are the autoethnography’s worldview, background, and so on and how their positionality may have framed and shaped data collection and what strategies has been used for ensuring critical reflexivity? These are missing in the methods section. ·        It is not explained how data was collected: journals, memories, interviews (how many, who why), social media, field notes, or any other forms. ·        Please specify how many interviews was conducted and with who, as well as focus groups with explaining the recruitment strategy, the rational and an explanation about the participants. ·        Last paragraph in the methods section mention some of these crucial information but needs to be expanded and cover all the above-mentioned points.	Thank for these insights, which have been addressed in the ‘Methods and Materials’ section most particularly.
5. Section 4.1 simply describes a class activity but does not present the cultural maps as reflected in the sub-title. ·        Similarly in section 4.2, it’d been beneficial to present data from the focus group and interviews as well as observation ang journaling. ·        Authors could also explain the contribution of their paper in conclusion and provide recommendations for future work in the space.	Thank you for noting these points which we aim to have addressed especially in context setting and the ‘Material and Methods’ section. The findings and their contribution are also reiterated in the Conclusion.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to describe the educational field through the integration of various qualitative data, centered on feminist autoethnography. By weaving together the instructor’s teaching experiences, course design documents, and student-generated materials into a narrative, the study aims to explore the practical workings of transnational pedagogy. The timeliness of the research topic and its scholarly contribution can be acknowledged to some extent. However, several methodological improvements are required.

1. First, the criteria for data selection and utilization are not clearly presented. Although a variety of qualitative materials are employed, the lack of detail regarding selection rationale, collection period, and instructional context raises concerns about the study’s reproducibility and methodological transparency.
2. Second, the theoretical framework for analysis appears underdeveloped. While the narrative descriptions of cases are accessible, they are not clearly interpreted through an analytical lens or conceptual categorization, making it difficult for readers to be fully persuaded by the author’s interpretations.
3. Third, the narrative-centered structure poses certain limitations. Given the nature of autoethnography, the researcher’s voice is strongly foregrounded, which may undermine the objectivity and academic rigor expected in scholarly writing.
4. In sum, for this study to evolve into a more compelling scholarly work, it would benefit from:
   - a more detailed description of data collection and utilization procedures,
   - a clearly articulated analytical framework that strengthens the connection between theory and empirical cases, and
   - a meta-reflective acknowledgment of the limitations and positionality inherent in autoethnographic narratives.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper aims to describe the educational field through the integration of various qualitative data, centered on feminist autoethnography. By weaving together the instructor’s teaching experiences, course design documents, and student-generated materials into a narrative, the study aims to explore the practical workings of transnational pedagogy. The timeliness of the research topic and its scholarly contribution can be acknowledged to some extent. However, several methodological improvements are required.

1. First, the criteria for data selection and utilization are not clearly presented. Although a variety of qualitative materials are employed, the lack of detail regarding selection rationale, collection period, and instructional context raises concerns about the study’s reproducibility and methodological transparency.
2. Second, the theoretical framework for analysis appears underdeveloped. While the narrative descriptions of cases are accessible, they are not clearly interpreted through an analytical lens or conceptual categorization, making it difficult for readers to be fully persuaded by the author’s interpretations.
3. Third, the narrative-centered structure poses certain limitations. Given the nature of autoethnography, the researcher’s voice is strongly foregrounded, which may undermine the objectivity and academic rigor expected in scholarly writing.
4. In sum, for this study to evolve into a more compelling scholarly work, it would benefit from:
   - a more detailed description of data collection and utilization procedures,
   - a clearly articulated analytical framework that strengthens the connection between theory and empirical cases, and
   - a meta-reflective acknowledgment of the limitations and positionality inherent in autoethnographic narratives.

Author Response

Thank you for your insight. Please view the revision table attached here for all changes made to the manuscript. 

 

 

Reviewer 3	Authors response
First, the criteria for data selection and utilization are not clearly presented. Although a variety of qualitative materials are employed, the lack of detail regarding selection rationale, collection period, and instructional context raises concerns about the study’s reproducibility and methodological transparency.	Thank you for these comments, which resonated with our other reviewers above, as such we hope you now feel the additional detail added provides the necessary clarity to improve methodological transparency
Second, the theoretical framework for analysis appears underdeveloped. While the narrative descriptions of cases are accessible, they are not clearly interpreted through an analytical lens or conceptual categorization, making it difficult for readers to be fully persuaded by the author’s interpretations	Thank you for this suggestion which has been addressed in the detail added into in section 2 and section 3 ‘Materials and Methods’. We hope this serves to strengthen the link between the theory and this study and how it is applied and used in our paper.
Third, the narrative-centered structure poses certain limitations. Given the nature of autoethnography, the researcher’s voice is strongly foregrounded, which may undermine the objectivity and academic rigor expected in scholarly writing.	Your advice is noted. The approach to the vignette writing has been carefully considered, and with the additional details added we aim to have balance between academic rigour whilst maintaining a preferred storytelling approach from the first authors autoethnographic lens.
In sum, for this study to evolve into a more compelling scholarly work, it would benefit from: - a more detailed description of data collection and utilization procedures, - a clearly articulated analytical framework that strengthens the connection between theory and empirical cases, and - a meta-reflective acknowledgment of the limitations and positionality inherent in autoethnographic narratives.	Thank for your advice which we aim to have addressed throughout the additional details integrated throughout the various sections of the paper. We hope this brings together the study more significantly and robustly for the reader, whilst addressing the study limitations.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their thoughtful revisions and for addressing several of the earlier questions and concerns raised in the previous round of feedback. The additional clarification provided in the methods section is appreciated, particularly in relation to the research design and the context in which the data were collected. These improvements enhanced the transparency of data collection and the study overall in terms of the methodological choices.
The topic explored in this paper is very interesting and opens up important avenues for further investigation. The authors’ efforts to situate their work within existing literature and to outline the broader relevance of their study are appreciated.
However, concerns remain regarding the presentation and analysis of the findings, particularly the vignettes. While the vignettes provide insight into participants’ experiences, they remain largely descriptive and lack deeper critical analysis or clear linkage to the theoretical framework outlined earlier in the paper. The discussion does not sufficiently engage with theory in a way that would allow to understand how the findings extend or challenge existing knowledge. As a result, the potential contribution of the paper to scholarly debate remains somewhat unclear.
It is appreciated that the authors acknowledge the limitations of their methods and findings in the conclusion section. Nevertheless, the paper still needs to more clearly articulate its meaningful contribution to knowledge, theory, or practice. Strengthening this aspect would help to clarify its value to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As noted in the first-round review, this study holds a certain degree of significance and timeliness in its aim to describe educational settings based on diverse qualitative data and to explore the operational context of transnational pedagogy.

However, the revisions made following the initial review are not entirely satisfactory. The research findings remain somewhat predictable, and there appears to be a lack of detailed and systematic description regarding the procedures for data collection and utilization. Furthermore, the study lacks a clear theoretical foundation and analytical framework to strengthen the connection between theory and case analysis. In this regard, it is difficult to find a compelling justification for the publication of this study in an international academic journal. While the research topic and direction are appropriate, the overall academic contribution and completeness of the manuscript are lacking.

In conclusion, this study requires substantial revisions. Therefore, I believe that the decision regarding publication after revision should be left to the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As noted in the first-round review, this study holds a certain degree of significance and timeliness in its aim to describe educational settings based on diverse qualitative data and to explore the operational context of transnational pedagogy.

However, the revisions made following the initial review are not entirely satisfactory. The research findings remain somewhat predictable, and there appears to be a lack of detailed and systematic description regarding the procedures for data collection and utilization. Furthermore, the study lacks a clear theoretical foundation and analytical framework to strengthen the connection between theory and case analysis. In this regard, it is difficult to find a compelling justification for the publication of this study in an international academic journal. While the research topic and direction are appropriate, the overall academic contribution and completeness of the manuscript are lacking.

In conclusion, this study requires substantial revisions. Therefore, I believe that the decision regarding publication after revision should be left to the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the author(s) for their thoughtful revision and for addressing several of the previously raised questions and concerns. I acknowledge and appreciate the improvements made, particularly the clearer articulation of the methodology and the enhanced explanation of the manuscript’s contribution in the conclusion. However, I remain concerned about the discussion section. While the response letter states that the authors have engaged more deeply with theory, this is not sufficiently evident in the revised manuscript. The discussion continues to read as primarily descriptive, with limited critical engagement or theoretical analysis that would allow the findings to be situated more robustly within the broader literature. As such, the section appears largely unchanged from the previous version. A more rigorous integration of theoretical frameworks and critical reflection is needed to strengthen the analytical depth and scholarly contribution of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for point-by-point responses to your review. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author appears to have made a general effort to address the reviewers’ comments. Although the revisions are not entirely sufficient, they are largely acceptable. Given the overall quality of the manuscript and its contribution to the relevant field, I recommend that the final decision regarding publication be left to the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author appears to have made a general effort to address the reviewers’ comments. Although the revisions are not entirely sufficient, they are largely acceptable. Given the overall quality of the manuscript and its contribution to the relevant field, I recommend that the final decision regarding publication be left to the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for point-by-point responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf