University–Business Collaboration for the Design, Development, and Delivery of Critical Thinking Blended Apprenticeships Curricula: Lessons Learned from a Three-Year Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The text is well written and explains the contribution of Labor market to Curriculum design for Critical Thinking. The effective delivery of the curricula is not tested in industry via placement/internship or workshops, which would assist in demonstrating the value of this project in real life.

The definition of the actors  - market labor (LM) and HEI remains some how generic. Analysiing atwhat level the collaboration occurred and which professional and academic figures participated in the project would assist further with comprehending the impact of the project. An accurate description of co-design protocols, which is missing, would demonstrate the transferability of the partnership structure to other areas. The assessment of the outcome is sound and the contribution to scholarship in this area is effective.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for reading our work and for your suggestions and comments. We hope we have met your requirements:

• The text is well written and explains the contribution of the Labor market to Curriculum design for Critical Thinking. The effective delivery of the curricula is not tested in industry via placement/internship or workshops, which would assist in demonstrating the value of this project in real life.

Thank you for your comment.

• The definition of the actors - market labour (LM) and HEI remains somehow generic. Analysing at what level the collaboration occurred and which professional and academic figures participated in the project would assist further with comprehending the impact of the project.

Thank you for pointing this out. Your suggestion makes perfect sense to us, we have added 18 lines of text corresponding to point "2.1 Key Stakeholders" in response to your request, and indeed the article has become richer, while the Participatory Co-Design methodology used in the project and the key stakeholders involved in each step become more understandable.

• An accurate description of co-design protocols, which is missing, would demonstrate the transferability of the partnership structure to other areas. The assessment of the outcome is sound and the contribution to scholarship in this area is effective.

Thank you for this comment. We made Figure 1 more detailed to resemble a protocol that could be transferred in other areas. Nevertheless, presenting a more detailed protocol of the Participatory Co-Design is not in the scope of this article, because various research designs and data collection approaches were exploited, which would make the article too long.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the chosen topic, as it is fully in line with the current trend in Europe, which is knowedge valorization. The way in which university-industry cooperation is evaluated today is certainly inadequate. Unfortunately, the article does not fully exploit its potential. The main shortcomings are listed below:

1) Inappropriate structure of the article: the article completely lacks definition of the research hypotheses and the methods linked to them. The article does present the co-design method, but only descriptively without specific numbers and validations. Thus, the findings presented are also very general and vague. The reader will not learn anything from the article that he/she has not already assumed, suspected or found in other materials.

2) Poor empirical quality: the article falls far short empirically. Already the search of the existing literature has been inadequately conducted, as after a cursory search one can find existing publications that deal with CT in curriculum design in university-industry collaboration (e.g. Tassema & Abejehu 2017 or Bonk & Smith 1998). At the same time, the article completely lacks a section on methods and datasets used and thus the authors' claims cannot be verified.

3) Lack of added value: the article completely lacks any added value for the reasons mentioned above. The reader learns nothing new and nothing that is clearly and understandably laid out by the research. The article comes across as an edited final report of the project on which it is based, but lacks any research quality. 

I recommend that the authors set clear hypotheses that they are testing with the research, define and implement appropriate methods to test the hypotheses, clearly define the dataset they are working with (e.g. how many respondents were contacted, how many people from what groups participated in the co-design, etc.), and rewrite the results and conclusions of the paper based on this.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for reading our work and for your suggestions and comments. 

I appreciate the chosen topic, as it is fully in line with the current trend in Europe, which is knowledge valorization. The way in which university-industry cooperation is evaluated today is certainly inadequate. Unfortunately, the article does not fully exploit its potential. The main shortcomings are listed below:

• 1) Inappropriate structure of the article: the article completely lacks definition of the research hypotheses and the methods linked to them. The article does present the co-design method, but only descriptively without specific numbers and validations. Thus, the findings presented are also very general and vague. The reader will not learn anything from the article that he/she has not already assumed, suspected or found in other materials.

This article follows the structure of a theoretical/descriptive research paper, that follows an argumentative pattern organised around the solution of a problem: how to Design, Develop and Deliver a Critical Thinking Blended Apprenticeships Curricula, using University-Business Collaboration. This structure is important so that readers don't become lost, and it intends to be a descriptive report/roadmap of the project Think4Jobs. Although it presents the overall results, it doesn't provide the specific numbers and validation of all of the quantitative and qualitative data that was analysed during the 3 years project. This would make the article enormous and unacceptable to any journal. (but we leave you with references to where you can find the data that has already been published).

• 2) Poor empirical quality: the article falls far short empirically. Already the search of the existing literature has been inadequately conducted, as after a cursory search one can find existing publications that deal with CT in curriculum design in university-industry collaboration (e.g. Tassema & Abejehu 2017 or Bonk & Smith 1998). At the same time, the article completely lacks a section on methods and datasets used and thus the authors' claims cannot be verified.

We are sorry that you think the paper has poor quality and is missing some aspects. We can't agree that the search of the existing literature has been inadequately conducted. Not wanting to get into the (necessary) discussion about whether researchers nowadays actually read the 100 or 120 articles they reference in each paper in depth, the article's purpose is to describe the evolution of the project and tasks through time, providing an informative reading exercise on the overall implementation of a project that was competitively funded, developed in different countries, in different areas of knowledge, which had highly reputable consultants and promising results.

We totally agree that there are many publications that deal with CT in curriculum design in university-industry collaboration. We stated that:

“University-Business partnership for collaborative curriculum design, development and delivery is possibly the less explored dimension of University Business Collaboration (UBC). Even if some models for curricular design and development might be available, scarce information exists on how the partnership is constructed, the new curricula are designed, developed and how they are implemented”

Based on your comment, we have changed the sentences to «University-Business partnership for collaborative curriculum design, development and delivery is an important dimension of University Business Collaboration (UBC). Models for curricular design and development are available, but scarce information exists on how the partnership is constructed, the new curricula are designed, developed and how they are implemented (line 16-20).

From your suggested references, we included “University-industry collaboration in curriculum development: analysis of banking and finance graduates” by Tassema & Abejehu (2017). We also included “Alternative instructional strategies for creative and critical thinking in the accounting curriculum”, by Bonk and Smith (1998). Thank you for the suggestion. (line 152).

• 3) Lack of added value: the article completely lacks any added value for the reasons mentioned above. The reader learns nothing new and nothing that is clearly and understandably laid out by the research. The article comes across as an edited final report of the project on which it is based, but lacks any research quality. 

We feel disappointed with your opinion, we can't agree,  but we hope that the revised file, which included the suggestions of the other referees and yourself, may be found more suitable.

• I recommend that the authors set clear hypotheses that they are testing with the research, define and implement appropriate methods to test the hypotheses, clearly define the dataset they are working with (e.g. how many respondents were contacted, how many people from what groups participated in the co-design, etc.), and rewrite the results and conclusions of the paper based on this.

We understand these needs, we can't turn the article into a typical research article in such a short time, but we hope that the text that has been added with more detailed explanations and the improvement made to Figure 1 will satisfy some of your requirements.  We understand your point of view, and we are already committed to publishing articles by addressing the different stages of the project and specific aspects (there were 13 different curricula!), present and test the hypothesis.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript seeks to showcase how a university-business partnership can foster critical thinking thus improving students' employability. 

The paper is well written. The author(s) intent is clear and the overall contribution of the work to educators and the broader literature is extensively discussed. The level of detail presented makes it easy to follow the various components of the study and learn about how the various curricula reform activities were applied and assessed in each context.

There were two main issues identified in this review that the author(s) should consider addressing. 

1. Figure 1 which is a summary of the study is very informative and is detrimental to one's ability to follow the flow of the paper. However, the text in the figure is really hard to read. The author(s) might consider increasing the quality and overall size of the font of the figure. Also, since this figure is so central to the paper the author(s) might want to explain briefly the framework guiding the figure or describing how the figure was created. 

2. The purpose of the study was mentioned in the abstract and in the introduction. However, the overall "so what" of the study is not very clear toward the end of the manuscript. In light of there being so much information presented in the manuscript, it would be helpful to the reader to reiterate what the goals of the study were and how they were achieved at the end of this detailed process. 

Overall, I think the manuscript is very detailed and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the body of literature. 


The manuscript has been designated as an article but as is currently written might be better suited as a review. For an article the author(s) would need to provide more robust and empirical data, methodology, and theoretical framework.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for reading our work and for your suggestions and comments. We hope we have met your requirements:

• This manuscript seeks to showcase how a university-business partnership can foster critical thinking thus improving students' employability. The paper is well written. The author(s) intent is clear and the overall contribution of the work to educators and the broader literature is extensively discussed. The level of detail presented makes it easy to follow the various components of the study and learn about how the various curricula reform activities were applied and assessed in each context.

Thank you so much for your comments.

There were two main issues identified in this review that the author(s) should consider addressing. 

• Figure 1 which is a summary of the study is very informative and is detrimental to one's ability to follow the flow of the paper. However, the text in the figure is really hard to read. The author(s) might consider increasing the quality and overall size of the font of the figure. Also, since this figure is so central to the paper the author(s) might want to briefly explain the framework guiding the figure or describing how the figure was created. 

We've increased the font and the size of the image; we think it will be readable now. Thank you for your comment! We added information in the activity’s column and a new column for the timeline, to better understand the protocol applied. We also included further information that elaborate (section 2 and 3) on the framework guiding the participatory co-design methodology used in the project and the key stakeholders involved at each step. 

• The purpose of the study was mentioned in the abstract and in the introduction. However, the overall "so what" of the study is not very clear toward the end of the manuscript. Considering there being so much information presented in the manuscript, it would be helpful to the reader to reiterate what the goals of the study were and how they were achieved at the end of this detailed process. 

Thank you so much for this comment. In the conclusions we have added a few introductory lines to situate the reader once again on the «established objectives - achieved objectives» axis (lines 908-916). Also, with the new information present in text and figure 1 (drawing and explaining the protocol) the framework of the structured processes used to involve various stakeholders in the Co-design protocols, should be more understandable now.

• Overall, I think the manuscript is very detailed and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the body of literature. 

Thank you, we are very happy that the general idea of the article is clear and that you think this article can make important contributions to the literature.

• The manuscript has been designated as an article but as is currently written might be better suited as a review. For an article the author(s) would need to provide more robust and empirical data, methodology, and theoretical framework. 

In our opinion, this article is a theoretical/descriptive article, and does not exactly meet the standards of a review. The editor's intention of processing the article as Regular Paper seems, to us, appropriate. The article was initially intended to be included in a special issue ("Critical Thinking: Bridging a Successful Transition between University and Labour Market"), where it would have fit in perfectly, but because of the number of texts by the same authors, it ended up in the regular section of the journal. To provide more robust and empirical data, methodology, and theoretical framework would lead to the writing of a less theoretical and very different article. With this paper, and the links it makes to project's publications, we think we've managed to provide a good and informative reading exercise on the overall implementation of a project, and more curious readers can always access the referenced reports where all the quantitative data and results are available.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors' efforts to address the critical comments. The comments in the methodological section have been satisfactorily addressed. However, the article still contains shortcomings that need to be addressed. These include, in particular, the formulation of the research questions, which are completely missing from the article. The very definition of the objective "The current paper aims to present empirical evidence, and lessons learned..." shows that this is a descriptive article without the ambition to develop new knowledge in this research area. Without clearly defined research questions, the discussion of the literature a results adds very limited value. 

I recommend, even at the cost of prolonging the review process, clearly define the research questions, linking these to the discussion of the literature (unaddressed issues in the literature), analysis and, of course, presentation and discussion of the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for reading our work again and for your comments. 

We have revised the article, but we had to consider that the other two reviewers no longer requested more changes, and a major change to the article would restart the process.

We recognise that incorporating your past requests has significantly improved the quality of our article, and we hope that in this second round it will be more in line with what you intend.

About the comments:

• I appreciate the authors' efforts to address the critical comments. The comments in the methodological section have been satisfactorily addressed. However, the article still contains shortcomings that need to be addressed. These include, in particular, the formulation of the research questions, which are completely missing from the article.

Thank you. In this second review, we have made some changes to the methodology section, and in addition to incorporating more literature into the study, three research questions have been established:

1. «Research Question 1: What are the key activities enforcing the collaboration between HEIs and LM for designing, developing, and delivering CT-oriented curricula strengthening undergraduates’ CT?»
2. «Research Question 2: What are the specific roles and responsibilities of HEIs and LM in the PC-D process of curriculum design, development, and delivery?»
3. «Research Question 3: What are the best practices and key lessons learned from successful UBC initiatives in CDDD, particularly for CT-oriented curricula, and how can these insights be applied to future initiatives?»

With these questions we tried to cover the three key aspects of the article: Operationalization of the University Business Collaboration in curriculum design, development and delivery; Applying the Participatory Co-Design methodology; and Project Best Practices.

• The very definition of the objective "The current paper aims to present empirical evidence, and lessons learned..." shows that this is a descriptive article without the ambition to develop new knowledge in this research area. Without clearly defined research questions, the discussion of the literature a results adds very limited value. 

We hope we've managed to add value, we think that the way the article describes the strategies and stages developed in the project, and presents good practices and recommendations, can be very useful to potential readers, in-line with reviewer 1 and 3 words:

R1 The text is well written and explains the contribution of Labor market to Curriculum design for Critical Thinking.

R1 The assessment of the outcome is sound and the contribution to scholarship in this area is effective.

R3 Overall, I think the manuscript is very detailed and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the body of literature.

• I recommend, even at the cost of prolonging the review process, clearly define the research questions, linking these to the discussion of the literature (unaddressed issues in the literature), analysis and, of course, presentation and discussion of the results.

We hope that the new structure of the article will address these concerns. Discussion and bridges with the literature have also been added. Thank you.