Towards Contextualized Islamic Leadership: Paraguiding and the Universities and Muslim Seminaries Project (UMSEP)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Relevant and rich contribution to empirical studies of Islamic higher education in the UK. 

Rich report of recent community led project.

Strong connection to larger research project.

Author Response

Thank you for your responses and we are very grateful for your time and expertise 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is interesting and the authors are addressing an important and timely issue for Europe. The paper is overall well-written;  it describes an in “progress” research project (UMSEP), and,  in particular, the authors   focused on  background  considerations, the project’s aims  and, partially, on new empirical data derived from the first phase of  their research.        

That  said, the authors could improve upon  some aspects of  their  presentation.

 Title: I find the title (“Towards a contexualized Islamic Leadership: Paraguiding and The Universities and Muslim Seminaries Project)” a bit long and confusing, only partially reflecting  three main themes discussed in the paper (not only leadership).  Perhaps, the title could be better reformulated taking into account  the three objectives of the UMSEP project.  

Abstract:

lines 11-13: here,  the authors cite a research project (Re/ presenting Islam on campus) in order to pay specific attention to the problem of discrimination against Muslim students and staff.  After within the manuscript, this reference does not appear.  If this previous study is very  important, it  can  be included in the text of the article. Otherwise it does not make sense that it is only in the abstract.

Manuscript

Lines 97-98: here, you could detail when  (month and year)  this  project started  

Lines 110: here, you could  detail year of  Sidat’s  PhD dissertation  and  his publication.  The  statement   - “This year completed his Phd”-  is not clear: when? In 2019?   You could cite also published  paper of Sidat:   in particular,  “Between Tradition and Transition: An Islamic Seminary, or Dar al-Uloom in Modern Britain” (in Religions, 2018).

Starting from line 119 (specifically subparagraphs from 2.4. to 2.9)

The authors frequently refer to data that they have collected through  workshops, interviews, and surveys,  but  there is very little details on  methodological aspects and choices adopted by  researchers.  This lack of a methodological description of the project limits the understanding of their findings/interpretations/conclusions - in particular, concerning two explorative aims of the project: students' career pathways and  emerging roles/ leadership models).  The relationship between data structure and the findings presented is not clear. The readers  have no way of knowing whether the authors are presenting just some impressions/ideas, or valid findings based on a clear recording, coding and analyzing of concrete data.

Then,  if this paper aims to describe  some  preliminary empirical data collected in the first phase of the project,  the authors could better specify methodological aspects adopted in this phase and clearly distinguish in the paper the presentation of data/findings derived from their research (workshops, interviews and surveys) from discussion of these results.

For example:

Lines 240-247: Authors refer to a survey that has generated 222 responses (males, females). But main methodological aspects remain unclear:  recruitment, safety protocols for participants, ethical approval, aims of this investigation, participants (age,..), instruments (semi-structured interview, in-depth  .), type of questions (open questions?), thematic areas they have investigated; type of analysis used for the study (qualitative? quantitative? content analysis..).   Lines 248-254: Are these statements based on research data that you have collected? Or are they general /previous background considerations, such as those reported in line 233-240?  Line 261: - Authors refer to a next phase  of the project when “detailed qualitative  analysis will be presented”.   Again, what  type of data have been collected? How many interviews have been transcribed?   It is not clear. In several points of the text, authors refer to “interviewees” and report quotes.   Who did  they interview? How  many?  Young students (age, ..) or others?   How long was  the interview ? Which areas have been investigated? Was there a grid for interview? How have they analyzed interviews’ transcriptions?

     Lines 304-308

     Lines 313 316-18

     Lines 320 – 333

     Lines 338- 340 :

Lines 338-340: how many chaplains participated in this survey?

Lines 394-400: Confronting among religious traditions (different Christians traditions, Jewish..)  about role of women is very complex and these  statements sound like peremptory. Can you support it with bibliography and citations?

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your excellent feedback and suggestions. Please find below how we have sought to address them.

Lines 97-98: here, you could detail when  (month and year) this project started.

Yes, March 2019.

Starting from line 119 (specifically subparagraphs from 2.4. to 2.9).

Paragraph 1 of 2.4 is background information – references have been inserted.

Paragraph 2 of 2.4 has been developed with information regarding the survey (question types, topics, and coding done.

Lines 240-247: Authors refer to a survey that has generated 221 responses (males, females). But main methodological aspects remain unclear

These points have been elaborated on.

Lines 248-254: Are these statements based on research data that you have collected? Or are they general /previous background considerations, such as those reported in line 233-240? 

Yes, they are previous background considerations.

Line 261: - Authors refer to a next phase of the project when “detailed qualitative analysis will be presented”. Again, what  type of data have been collected?

Has been answered in para 2 of 2.4.

Lines 338-340: how many chaplains participated in this survey?

16 survey respondents listed chaplaincy as a ‘community service’, and 9 as a current job, of whom 4 of them are the same person. However, lines 338-340 relate to data gathered from interviews.

How many interviews have been transcribed?   It is not clear. In several points of the text, authors refer to “interviewees” and report quotes.   Who did  they interview? How  many?  Young students (age, ..) or others?   How long was  the interview ? Which areas have been investigated? Was there a grid for interview? How have they analyzed interviews’ transcriptions?

Please see p.9

Lines 394-400: Confronting among religious traditions (different Christians traditions, Jewish..)  about role of women is very complex and these  statements sound like peremptory. Can you support it with bibliography and citations?

Please see p.12, section 2.9

In the introduction, you introduce paraguiding. This is an interesting neologism. You mention that is was partly inspired by servant leadership and Vygotsky's ZPD. I recommend that you cite scholarship related to servant leadership in order to ground this claim (such as Greenleaf and Spears) and discuss how you brought servant leadership theory together with learning theory. These come out of two different traditions, and this needs to be discussed more, especially since you refer to these theories in the second half of the paper. How do these theories help you understand contextualized Islamic leadership in a more nuanced way? Why these theories (Servant leadership did not originate as a religious leadership approach, but now is commonly used in the Christian literature)? Unpacking this would strengthen your paper. 

Your discussion of Darul Ulooms and is excellent and so thank you for a clear explanation. In section 2.1. I was confused by the first paragraph into the quotation. Mahmood's quote needs to be integrated into the paragraph above and explained so as to extend the presentation of ideas. 

Lastly, starting with line 451, you refer to chaplaincy training as creating a ZPD for Muslim chaplains. The paper is written with the assumption that readers will fully understand servant leadership and Vygotsky's ZPD and how they work in organisations and practice. Referring to my comments above, you may want to consider elaborating on these theories in the beginning of your paper in order to make the conclusions that you do at the end of the paper. 

Please see p.13

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your paper on contexualized Islamic leadership. I found it a worthwhile read and appreciate your efforts. I do have a few comments for you to consider.

In the introduction, you introduce paraguiding. This is an interesting neologism. You mention that is was partly inspired by servant leadership and Vygotsky's ZPD. I recommend that you cite scholarship related to servant leadership in order to ground this claim (such as Greenleaf and Spears) and discuss how you brought servant leadership theory together with learning theory. These come out of two different traditions, and this needs to be discussed more, especially since you refer to these theories in the second half of the paper. How do these theories help you understand contextualized Islamic leadership in a more nuanced way? Why these theories (Servant leadership did not originate as a religious leadership approach, but now is commonly used in the Christian literature)? Unpacking this would strengthen your paper. 

Your discussion of Darul Ulooms and is excellent and so thank you for a clear explanation. In section 2.1. I was confused by the first paragraph into the quotation. Mahmood's quote needs to be integrated into the paragraph above and explained so as to extend the presentation of ideas. 

Lastly, starting with line 451, you refer to chaplaincy training as creating a ZPD for Muslim chaplains. The paper is written with the assumption that readers will fully understand servant leadership and Vygotsky's ZPD and how they work in organisations and practice. Referring to my comments above, you may want to consider elaborating on these theories in the beginning of your paper in order to make the conclusions that you do at the end of the paper. 

Overall, the paper reports what seems to be a good partnership and training opportunities for men and women. Thank you for your work in this area. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your excellent feedback and suggestions. Please find below how we have sought to address them.

Lines 97-98: here, you could detail when  (month and year) this project started.

Yes, March 2019.

Starting from line 119 (specifically subparagraphs from 2.4. to 2.9).

Paragraph 1 of 2.4 is background information – references have been inserted.

Paragraph 2 of 2.4 has been developed with information regarding the survey (question types, topics, and coding done.

Lines 240-247: Authors refer to a survey that has generated 221 responses (males, females). But main methodological aspects remain unclear

These points have been elaborated on.

Lines 248-254: Are these statements based on research data that you have collected? Or are they general /previous background considerations, such as those reported in line 233-240? 

Yes, they are previous background considerations.

Line 261: - Authors refer to a next phase of the project when “detailed qualitative analysis will be presented”. Again, what  type of data have been collected?

Has been answered in para 2 of 2.4.

Lines 338-340: how many chaplains participated in this survey?

16 survey respondents listed chaplaincy as a ‘community service’, and 9 as a current job, of whom 4 of them are the same person. However, lines 338-340 relate to data gathered from interviews.

How many interviews have been transcribed?   It is not clear. In several points of the text, authors refer to “interviewees” and report quotes.   Who did  they interview? How  many?  Young students (age, ..) or others?   How long was  the interview ? Which areas have been investigated? Was there a grid for interview? How have they analyzed interviews’ transcriptions?

Please see p.9

Lines 394-400: Confronting among religious traditions (different Christians traditions, Jewish..)  about role of women is very complex and these  statements sound like peremptory. Can you support it with bibliography and citations?

Please see p.12, section 2.9

In the introduction, you introduce paraguiding. This is an interesting neologism. You mention that is was partly inspired by servant leadership and Vygotsky's ZPD. I recommend that you cite scholarship related to servant leadership in order to ground this claim (such as Greenleaf and Spears) and discuss how you brought servant leadership theory together with learning theory. These come out of two different traditions, and this needs to be discussed more, especially since you refer to these theories in the second half of the paper. How do these theories help you understand contextualized Islamic leadership in a more nuanced way? Why these theories (Servant leadership did not originate as a religious leadership approach, but now is commonly used in the Christian literature)? Unpacking this would strengthen your paper. 

Your discussion of Darul Ulooms and is excellent and so thank you for a clear explanation. In section 2.1. I was confused by the first paragraph into the quotation. Mahmood's quote needs to be integrated into the paragraph above and explained so as to extend the presentation of ideas. 

Lastly, starting with line 451, you refer to chaplaincy training as creating a ZPD for Muslim chaplains. The paper is written with the assumption that readers will fully understand servant leadership and Vygotsky's ZPD and how they work in organisations and practice. Referring to my comments above, you may want to consider elaborating on these theories in the beginning of your paper in order to make the conclusions that you do at the end of the paper. 

Please see p.13

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author(s) have considered our feedback and made changes, where needed.