Knowledge versus Education in the Margins: An Indigenous and Feminist Critique of Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
From my point of view, it is an excellent manuscript. However, I think some aspects should be reviewed before publication.
1. It is difficult to understand the methodology; I recommend inserting the session "method" and explaining the authors' decisions step by step. Although it is presented throughout the article, it is not clear.
2. I recommend adding a section called participants. Please briefly explain who they are.
3. What does this article contribute to the scientific community? Practical implications? Future research?
4. What conclusions have you reached? Would you please contribute them?
Author Response
Reviewer 1 comments:
From my point of view, it is an excellent manuscript. However, I think some aspects should be reviewed before publication.
1. It is difficult to understand the methodology; I recommend inserting the session "method" and explaining the authors' decisions step by step. Although it is presented throughout the article, it is not clear.
2. I recommend adding a section called participants. Please briefly explain who they are.
3. What does this article contribute to the scientific community? Practical implications? Future research?
4. What conclusions have you reached? Would you please contribute them?
Author responses (numbers refers to reviewers questions above):
We are pleased that the reviewer considers this an excellent manuscript.
4. Yes, we will elaborate further in the conclusion, which overlaps with the comments and our response to reviewer 2 as below.
3. Grief leads to the loss of memory, when autoethnography is conducted as a group process it reminds us of our own story and helps to overcome or moderate this memory loss. When we analyse and understand our stories over a longer timeframe and through a broader perspective, change is both encouraged and undermined. Traditional power structures can be reshaped, but also resist change. Empathy is encouraged through understanding of others grief. When empathy is activated, it helps us to understand others’ point of view and acknowledge our inter-relatedness.
We will further elaborate on these points in the text (which also overlaps with response to reviewer 1).
2. As this is an autoethnography and based on our personal narratives, we have spent considerable time presenting the ‘participants’ when we introduce ourselves as authors. Further expanding on this would not add anything new to the manuscript.
1. This confuses us as there is already a whole section that discusses our methodology, and is titled after them methods that we use and have justified. We don’t believe that any further expansion on this would improve the manuscript. We have been transparent in how we worked together as a group and have been explicit in how we chose the stories that we have used, which are the key issues to address in ensuring veracity of the methods.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is an important addition to the body of work on Indigenous Knowledge and how it lives in the margins of western educational life from start (primary) to finish (tertiary). It brings to light how western educational policies, procedures, ways of being and doing can be ephemeral and contradictory, with, in some instances, Indigenous ways of knowing being paid lip service to while never fully embedded in the curriculum. The paper also explores the tensions that exist in inhabiting the liminal space that exists between Indigenous Knowledge and Academia. As such the subject matter as well as the methodology with the use of autoethnographic stories that expose the limiting narratives of western educational systems will appeal to current interest in Indigenous ways of knowing/being and hence a wide audience.
The use of autobiographical and intersecting conversations between the authors acts as a powerful heuristic in and of itself to draw out the underlying dichotomy that has been a consistently recurring theme in western education: that other ways of knowing are seen and continue to be seen as ‘disqualified’ (Foucault, 1980). The authors in using autoethnography look to a situated ‘truth’ rather than a totalizing one, and hence a valid yet different way of knowing. This is an understanding that is woven into the threads of the stories and discussions told.
The grief experienced by the authors is palpable, allowing the reader to ‘walk alongside the feeling’. That said this notion needs to be expanded on in the concluding sections where it is brought back to our attention but occupies a mere 2 lines (lines 539-540). It deserves more.
Some other points to consider: 1. A few minor changes in the introductory paragraph (Section 2) would provide a clearer roadmap for the reader to follow (see attached). 2. I found the interchangeable use of narrative and story disconcerting. I felt that the use of ‘stories’ and storying for the autobiographical and ‘narrative’ for the educational/academic would strengthen the notion of the presumptuousness of academia in ignoring the Indigenous. 3. Similarly the use of an upper case K for the word knowledge needs to be consistent or otherwise explained. 4. The piece as a whole would benefit from closer proofreading for minor spag issues. For example in the Abstract line 4 the word ‘ley’ is used instead of ‘lay.’ Line 9 of the abstract uses ‘posed’ instead of ‘imposed’ and Line 439 has ‘the a key’. There are many other slips into between. 5. One final point to consider with regards the closing lines of the paper and the notion of sympathy and empathy. Referring to the etymologies of the terms ‘empathy’ and ‘sympathy’ Golańska (2017) reminds us that the Greek ἐν (en [or em]) refers to ‘in, at,’ and σύν (sun [or syn/sym]) stands for ‘with, together’ and implies connections or assemblage. Different from empathy, sympathy connotes togetherness or wit(h)ness rather than being in, or speaking from, the position of others.
Overall this is an exceptionally valuable addition to the body of knowledge on the epistemic injustices suffered by Indigenous bodies in the world of western education and the steps necessary to redeem the situation with the roles of ‘guardianship’, respect, location and agency foregrounded. It is beautifully written – the Edward Said notion of the ‘exile’s’ double perspective, never seeing things in isolation, is strikingly captured through images of silence and invisibility – and powerful in its overarching sentiment.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 comments:
This paper is an important addition to the body of work on Indigenous Knowledge and how it lives in the margins of western educational life from start (primary) to finish (tertiary). It brings to light how western educational policies, procedures, ways of being and doing can be ephemeral and contradictory, with, in some instances, Indigenous ways of knowing being paid lip service to while never fully embedded in the curriculum. The paper also explores the tensions that exist in inhabiting the liminal space that exists between Indigenous Knowledge and Academia. As such the subject matter as well as the methodology with the use of
autoethnographic stories that expose the limiting narratives of western educational systems will appeal to current interest in Indigenous ways of knowing/being and hence a wide audience.
The use of autobiographical and intersecting conversations between the authors acts as a powerful heuristic in and of itself to draw out the underlying dichotomy that has been a consistently recurring theme in western education: that other ways of knowing are seen and continue to be seen as ‘disqualified’ (Foucault, 1980). The authors in using autoethnography look to a situated ‘truth’ rather than a totalizing one, and hence a valid yet different way of knowing. This is an understanding that is woven into the threads of the stories and discussions told.
The grief experienced by the authors is palpable, allowing the reader to ‘walk alongside the feeling’. That said this notion needs to be expanded on in the concluding sections where it is brought back to our attention but occupies a mere 2 lines (lines 539-540). It deserves more.
Some other points to consider: 1. A few minor changes in the introductory paragraph (Section 2) would provide a clearer roadmap for the reader to follow (see attached). 2. I found the interchangeable use of narrative and story disconcerting. I felt that the use of ‘stories’ and storying for the autobiographical and ‘narrative’ for the educational/academic would strengthen the notion of the presumptuousness of academia in ignoring the Indigenous. 3. Similarly the use of an upper case K for the word knowledge needs to be consistent or otherwise explained. 4. The piece as a whole would benefit from closer proofreading for minor spag issues. For example in the Abstract line 4 the word ‘ley’ is used instead of ‘lay.’ Line 9 of the abstract uses ‘posed’ instead of ‘imposed’ and Line 439 has ‘the a key’. There are many other slips into between. 5. One final point to consider with regards the closing lines of the paper and the notion of sympathy and empathy. Referring to the etymologies of the terms ‘empathy’ and ‘sympathy’ Golańska (2017) reminds us that the Greek ἐν (en [or em]) refers to ‘in, at,’ and σύν (sun [or syn/sym]) stands for ‘with, together’ and implies connections or assemblage. Different from empathy, sympathy connotes togetherness or wit(h)ness rather than being in, or speaking from, the position of others.
Overall this is an exceptionally valuable addition to the body of knowledge on the epistemic injustices suffered by Indigenous bodies in the world of western education and the steps necessary to redeem the situation with the roles of ‘guardianship’, respect, location and agency foregrounded. It is beautifully written – the Edward Said notion of the ‘exile’s’ double perspective, never seeing things in isolation, is strikingly captured through images of silence and invisibility – and powerful in its overarching sentiment.
Author responses:
We would like to thank the reviewer for such considered response to our manuscript. Many of the points they raise were also present in the longer, pre-edited version of the text (including references to Edward Said and Foucault) but were cut for length. It is great to read that the reviewer was able to recognize the theoretical context that we had set!
We like the reviewer’s suggestion that we return to the topic of our grief in the concluding section, to further extend the concept of grief and empathy (sympathy) to encourage more of the reader ‘walking alongside the feeling’.
1. Yes, we will re-work the introduction to provide a clearer roadmap through the manuscript. We are unable to see any attachment (as reviewer refers to) so not sure what reviewer is suggesting here. Please send this attachment.
2. The reviewer seems to suggest a dichotomy between story and narrative. (suggesting narrative theory) We view this dichotomy as obsolete as it seems to delineate between ‘academic’ and ‘Indigenous’, whereas we contend that these can be one and the same – we choose to be both as feminist academics, and Indigenous academics. We will be more explicit in the text how we are blending the narrative and story.
3. Our intention is that K is used for Knowledge as an active agent/subject (as we would if we were writing a name), but lowercase k for knowledge as a noun. We choose not to make this explicit as it will be a confirmation for those who are reading from an Indigenous point of view, without having to overexplain or justify to the non-Indigenous reader. We will review the text to ensure that we are more consistent in our usage. We could possibly explain this difference in a footnote if the editors think that this would be better.
4. We are aware of some of these mistakes and will proofread and get another person to proofread to see the mistakes we have missed.
5. This is a great distinction between empathy and sympathy that we had not considered from our disciplines. Our main point is that empathy as a concept is used in different ways, so we could add the distinction the reviewer makes, in the section where we discuss empathy. We will further develop this in the conclusion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Many thanks to the authors for their responses.
I still consider it to be an excellent manuscript. However, not except for improvement, I think it should be reviewed before publication.
The authors have not made substantial changes to their manuscript; therefore. I do not recommend its publication in its current form.
I leave its publication to the editor's consideration.
Many successes with the manuscript.
Author Response
Response on second review
- The reviewers are to judge 6 aspects of the manuscript, and to state whether or not this aspect falls into one out of four categories: acceptable; can be improved, must be improved, or is no applicable. The 6 questions are:
- Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
- Are the research design, questions, hypothesis and methods clearly stated?
- Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
- For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
- Is the article adequately referenced?
- Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
In the first review from reviewer nr. One:
Question 1 and 5 is accepted, while
Question 2,3,4 can be approved
Question 6 is not answered
In the second review from reviewer nr one:
Question 3 and 4 is acceptable, while
Question 1, 2 and 5 can be improved.
Question nr 6 is no answered.
First: From these answers – accepted and can be improved- the cry for ‘major revision’ is difficult to understand.
Secondly: If the two reviews are seen together: question 1,3,4,5 is approved once each, though no in the same review. This leaves behind question 2 on question, hypothesis and method.
- Question nr 2
“Are the research design, questions, hypothesis and methods clearly stated?”
Regarding the reviewer’s objections we have to disagee.
The main theme of the special issue is pregiven – promise and grief of Education.
We have at length argued how we investigate this overall theme, promise and grief of Education, with a reflexive and auto-ethnographic piece of work.
The angle for this investigation is personal experiences of Knowledge inside and outside of academia. And to ensure a clear investigation, key concepts and theoretical perspectives have been described and argued for.
The object of our investigation, and the questions that drives the inquiry forward should be easy to understand as it is explained in the text.
In the text we thoroughly describe how we have developed and interpreted the auto-ethnographic stories. Transparency of the processes involved is secured, facilitating a text open to intersubjective testing of our arguments.
As stated in the text, our work is hermeneutical, and thus should be evaluated in regard to the relevance of the narratives that is presented, and the interpretative strategies we use when interpreting the narratives, as well as the relevance of the academic and non-academic references we use when interpreting the narratives.
