Critical Sensemaking: A Framework for Interrogation, Reflection, and Coalition Building toward More Inclusive College Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very useful topic and approach. Even it is a theoretical study, I think is necessary to have a research question, aim, a few objectives and to present the research methods. Because we don't have objectives, we cannot evaluate accurate the findings/results.

a point-by-point list of your minor for the improvement of the manuscript.

1.     To formulate a research question;

2.     To formulate the aim of the study

3.     To elaborate a few objectives

4.     To present the research methods

5.     Because we don't have objectives, we cannot evaluate accurate the findings/results.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback! We've addressed the feedback in the updated manuscript. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read with pleasure “Critical Sensemaking: A Framework for Interrogation, Reflection, and Coalition Building Towards More Inclusive College Environments”. This is a decent conceptual job, perfectly reflecting the remit of the special issue this paper should contribute to. The idea to use sensemaking for specific targets of disadvantaged students is convincing. This is arguably pressing in many universities worldwide where expansion of higher education let have new profiles of students whose potential might get lost of diminished due to these adaptation dynamics. I find less convincing the part exposing possible implementations. When you state “Incorporate CSM elements in the existing leadership development curriculum for student leaders in areas such as fraternity and sorority life, residential life, and student activities.” You are proposing something that is impossible. I mean, it is possible a place does incorporate formally these sort of things, perhaps called in different cool ways, but here we need to understand each other whether we suggest to solve a problem or if we propose to say that we address an issue. Your statement is suitable for the latter action. Sensemaking as an analytical approach accounts that social reality is happening from the bottom (ok, leadership is in place at times, but we got it), and that universities are organizations far from being “complete” and that over here it takes a moment to pursue any sort of avoidance. Not only the notorious evaluation avoidance, but also the actual avoidance of any policy. In principle, what you write is ok, but you can’t be so short and, ultimately, superficial.

Another point I’d like to see discussed, or erased. When you say “Develop formal mechanisms to support students engaged in activism, and mechanisms to support their sensemaking related to their experiences.” You are assuming that activism is the gateway. I would strongly disagree at a first glance. Why only activism should be a solution to this? activists are a minority of people within the respective population. You are facing an issue that should encompass the whole population rather than engendering a club of activists.

In general, we need to expose briefly some examples of excellence or failure, or to drop for space reasons any consideration like those I am criticising here. It is much better to limit oneself to something like “Concrete Steps and Actions” section.  

Overall this is a piece deserving publication once my objections are given an answer to. The simplest action in my opinion is to erase “Concrete Steps and Actions” section, or, if you want to keep it for symmetry in the whole paper, you need to stay within few words and have a different approach to it.  

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback. We've addressed the feedback in the updated manuscript. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx