Leading the School Wisely and Purposefully: Design of a Practical, Wise Leadership Practice to Fulfil the Mission of Catholic Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic addressed in the article is relevant and interesting. It looks at Catholic education from the perspective of the educational opportunities and inspirations for institutional management flowing from the Christian message is innovative and coherent. A significant strength of the article is the skilful linking of theory and practice, resulting in the suggestion of strategies for wise leadership. The article finds appropriate references to sources (mainly current). The structure of the article is clear consistent and follows the rules of scientific writing. It is explained and motivated in the introduction of the article. It is somewhat inaccurate to state that the article ends with a discussion (l. 46), it can at most inspire discussion, which is indeed.

The article makes good use of existing theoretical knowledge on the management profile of Catholic educational institutions against the background of general trends in educational management. Due to the ratio between the theoretical and practical parts, some abbreviations could not be avoided, for example, the use of the term 'buffered self' (l. 62) would need clarification or expansion. There are also repetitions of thoughts (for example, l. 20-21; 50; 60), the terms praxis and daily praxis are overused. Apart from that, the language of the article is correct and communicative, perhaps too colloquial in places.

The practical dimension of the article is also emphasised by the table which clearly and consistently shows the strategies for wise, responsible leadership inspired by the Christian character of Catholic schools and the questions that can facilitate the implementation of the various stages of these strategies.

The reviewer calls for the following changes, which are technical in nature:

- instead of stating that the article concludes with a discussion, use the phrase that it is intended to contribute to the discussion;

- make a linguistic correction, paying particular attention to places where whole phrases or expressions are repeated;

- consider whether, in the case of Church documents (Gravissimum eduacationis), it would be better to give the number in the document rather than the page; this will make it easier to find the source irrespective of the language version of the text or the particular edition, where the pages may be different.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I like to thank you very much for your highly valuable comments and suggestions, and respond to these in the attached document.

Yours sincerely,

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very welcome, interesting and constructive contribution. A couple of comments that struck me when reviewing the article:

1. It is interesting that there is no reference made to the work of Lieven Boeve when there is such continued reference made to detraditionalisation, individualisation, secularisation (see Journal Values and Beliefs, 2012) and particularly 'interruption'. Boeve has written two masterful monographs on interruption -  'the God who Interrupts' (2007) and 'Interrupting Tradition' (2003) - the importance of embracing an understanding of tradition as an open narrative. These texts might be of interest to the authors.

2. In the midst of the paper there appears, at least to this reviewers reading, an implicit dismissal of hermeneutics. I believe this may stem from the emphasis placed on the work of Gert Beiste (2021; 2013; 2007) who has on many an occasion being rightfully critiqued for his misreading and ill informed dismissal of hermeneutics. Beiste tends, as his most recent monograph argues, for an existential worldview over a hermeneutical one. But here in lies the issue, a hermeneutical worldview does not exclude the existential as least not when the hermeneutical tradition that has developed along the Heideggerian-Gadamerian line. This leads to the following point.

3. I think throughout the conceptual tread of this paper there is ample ground for an engagement with the philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer, i.e. truth as disclosure. I also think that there is much to be garnered from engaging with the work of Jean Luc Marion around 'gift' and 'givenness'. This point becomes even more interesting when one considers that Beiste has also now openly turned to the work of Jean Luc Marion particularly his phenomenology of givenness, but has negated the hermeneutical attentiveness there in.

4. The authors might find the work of Michelle Dillion interesting here too in terms of the interpretive autonomy of individuals and communities in the exercise of critical thinking. Johnny C. Go (2019) is also interesting here in terms of his insights around reasonable and faithful assent and legitimate dissent in the context of critical thinking and sensus fidei.

Overall, a really constructive and interesting paper. The comments raised above are done so with the view further stimulating the conceptual development of what I believe to be a very useful and practical contribution to enable effective and agentic leadership in Catholic schools in a plural and detraditionalised world.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I like to thank you very much for your highly valuable comments and suggestions, and respond to these in the attached document.

Yours sincerely,

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf