Markers and Tools to Facilitate Decolonisation of Theological Education in Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A thesis statement is needed since it is not completely clear what is being argued in this paper. While the discussion of decolonization is important and crucial to the African context, a clear definition of it is not actually provided. There are only statements of what the paper will do (which is repeated several times). The abstract does not state that South Africa is the main concentration of the paper. Nevertheless, it is the only example given within the paper itself. While the attempt is to give a literature review and scour the empirical data to support the paper's argument, the empirical data is really not forthcoming. That is, examples are lacking and no statistics, statements are actually provided. There are statements made that need citations. The paper needs to be revised with a strong thesis statement in order to provide a clearer presentation of the information and knowledge found in the literature discussed.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article needs to be proofread carefully. There are sentences that are run-ons, modifiers need attention, and better transition between paragraphs. The paper does not need to state what will be done, it needs a thesis statement followed by what is appear in the argument. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

I worked to the best of my ability to respond to every comment made, wherever I may have lacked adequate response it is due to lack of space but the comment will be taken into consideration in the future publications of my work.

 

With regards

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important contribution and I think, with a little more work, it can be included.

However, there are more recent publications that are not cited that could be helpful in making the argument (eg Simangaliso Kumalo DOI: 10.2478/holiness-2020-0004).

Moreover, the language needs more polishing as sometimes small errors obscure the argument.

The structure should be improved (in particular all the headings should be reworked to ensure the arguments flow is sharpened - there is no need to have "towards understanding decolonisation" followed by "what is decolonisation" ). 

Finally, more work can be done to platform the authors own contribution to the debate - how their own ideas contribute to the discussion 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Go through the language carefully to ensure that it is all polished.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

I worked to the best of my ability to respond to every comment made, wherever I may have lacked adequate response it is due to lack of space but the comment will be taken into consideration in the future publications of my work.

 

With regards

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My evaluation of the originality of the article follows in part from that of the author themselves -- it is mainly a literature review, but that review is useful and valuable.  It is a bit heavy on the exposition of decolonial theory, and less detailed in the examples that it provides from the South African context.  A better balance of the two halves would strengthen the essay in my view: the material comparing the white-majority and black-majority university decolonisation initiatives, as well as the specific examples from UFS are the most interesting and relevant portions of the essay.

I also have the following more specific suggestions, which I hope will strengthen the piece:

1. Amend the section title on p. 4, line 153 to something more specific to theological education.  As it stands, "What is decolonisation?" could just as easily be the title of the previous section;

2. I recommend either cutting the paragraph on pp. 6-7, lines 300-322 or shifting it to the previous section on theological education (see point 1, above);

3. The core argument of the piece would be greatly strengthened by the addition of some specific examples of engaged scholarship initiatives and reciprocal community engagement practices on p. 13, lines 619 and following.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are significant issues with the use of definite articles and subject-verb agreement, throughout the piece. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

I worked to the best of my ability to respond to every comment made, wherever I may have lacked adequate response it is due to lack of space but the comment will be taken into consideration in the future publications of my work.

 

With regards

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

From a technical point of view, the article is well organized. One note is related to the footnote on page 5. Religions uses endnotes and not footnotes.

 

Then, in terms of content, the text is quite broad in ideas. I personally think that the author's identity and opinion should be much more present. Even if the results and ideals of other studies or authors are used, the author of the article should make more of his mark. See for example the excessive use of sources, such as lines 414, 412, 429 or 626, 635, 651, 664. Also, see subchapter „How did public universities engaged decolonisation”, where the author just presents results without saying his opinion about the report. Given the excessive use of other sources/authors, in the conclusions the author should impose his own conclusions.

 

 

Some personal considerations: They are South African theologians educated at universities in the West. Should they also be re-educated just because they had a white education or training? Also, this decolonization cannot be done without the help of white people. I do agree that „decolonisation is continuous”, is a process of learning and relearning.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

I worked to the best of my ability to respond to every comment made, wherever I may have lacked adequate response it is due to lack of space but the comment will be taken into consideration in the future publications of my work.

 

With regards

The author

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version has incorporated the comments and suggestions made from the previous review. It is much clearer. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you and much appreciated

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised version is much better and I believe should be admitted for publication 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor issues 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The minor corrections were done as requested