Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s),

I hope you are doing well, and thank you for your submission. I appreciate the time that you put into this manuscript. I highly enjoyed reading this interdisciplinary view. There are a few minor issues. Please see the following suggestions:

·        Please proofread and make sure you are using a consistent format style throughout the manuscript. (For example, see the title format, page 9, line 408.)

·        I would suggest making it clear that it’s a conceptual piece, or this manuscript could be considered as a Review submission.

Best wishes,

 

Your peer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Excellent work! Very interesting article with an intriguing premise made for an enjoyable read. The manuscript was well written and engaging and was well organized with a clear line of logic. Extensive references provided were also a definite strength of this piece.

However, I do believe the article would be further strengthened if more description was provided regarding the process used to determine the Interdisciplinary Insights discussed. How did you choose the particular scholar over another? The particular disciplines represented? What kind review did you do? How long was this process? I believe more work is needed to raise the confidence of your readers the authors have done their due diligence and not primarily used their own work to support the premise.

I believe the authors also missed an opportunity to make suggestions to those who would benefit from this work. The intended audience of the paper appears to be the field of gifted education but that includes a very broad group of stakeholders. Perhaps connecting this work to particular groups within the gifted community could be very helpful. For example, what do you recommend for researchers, teacher educators, and coordinators/teachers of gifted?

minor edits include---

Page number	Line	Edit and/or comment
3	117	Strike “that are”
7	323	Kauffman, 1995 reference is not listed in the references
10	461	Remove the period before the parentheses

 I hope these comments are helpful.

                              

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General Comment:  The authors offer their insights on some of the interdisciplinary connection to gifted education.  The implication here is that the gifted education “knowledge base” has limited insight into these connections.  The authors do not offer their conception of giftedness or the role of gifted education in broader education systems but rather leave it to the reader to overlay their own conceptions.  Granted there are multiple conceptions giftedness and various ways those conceptions are translated into programs.  As this manuscript is essential a literature review/advocacy essay it would be beneficial to understanding the authors’ conceptions

Page 2, line 72 – page 3, line 108 I’m puzzled by the discussion on capitalism here as well as the title of the section. 

·        I suppose you could make the argument that the transactional gifted are all predators and psychopaths as the authors imply here but that is a gross overgeneralization.  I wonder where the authors would place individuals who giftedness or talents what unacknowledged during their lifetime but who pursued their passions anyway. 

·        In only presenting one economic system (capitalism) are the authors suggesting that gifted education only has a place in these societies?

·        The paragraph beginning at line 81 appears to be included to develop the bee-locust analogy.  I am wondering why the application of this analogy wouldn’t apply to education in general, not just gifted education. 

Page 2 line 94 ends with a colon.  Was the intent here that the subsequent paragraph should be indented to indicate it is taken from Mulgan (2013)?

Page 3 line 125 – The idea that gifted education is competitive is a narrow view and one that many scholars would take issue with.  The authors cite Sternberg and Ambrose’s 2021 Conceptions and giftedness and talent, in support of this statement.  Sternberg and Ambrose served as editors of this text with contributions from multiple scholars (28 chapters).  I’m sure if I took the time, I could cite several instances in the text where the contributors advocate for a broader identification process then one that simply relies on “precise, mechanistic measurement of intelligence and academic achievement.”  For example, Renzulli’s Three Ring Conception of Giftedness (chapter 19) or Sak’s Fuzzy Conception of Giftedness, (chapter 21). 

Particularist Versus Universalist section

·        Personally, I agree with the authors’ aspiration of a society grounded in universalistic morality and that education can play a role here.  Again, I’m not sure it is a problem that is limited to gifted education although those individuals may have the greater potential to work towards a solution.  

·        My sense here it that the authors are building the case for gifted education to shape individuals into transformation universalists. That leads to bigger questions on the role of education in general.  For example, the perceived issues of Critical Race Theory and “wokeness” with the United States education system. 

Chronic Stress Emerging from Severe Inequality section.

·        The discussion here is relevant but overlooks the inequality issues identification programs for gifted and talented individuals.  Identification that is based solely on academic achievement and “precise, mechanistic measurement of intelligence” (often culturally biased) excluded many who come for the less affluent, socioeconomically challenged, or minority populations.  While the discussion on page 10 on aspects of hidden giftedness it doesn’t address the inequality seen in some gifted education identification programs.

Page 7 Line 337 I see connections here to Carol Dweck’s (Stanford University) work on mindset (fixed vs. growth) and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, both of which should be familiar to educators. 

Page 10, Line 471.  Gifted education is in a silo?  Gifted education programs by their very nature are interdisciplinary.  Like any field, different scholars bring different perspectives to the field.  Organization like the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, https://world-gifted.org/ and other national organizations (e.g. National Association for the Gifted and Talented in the United States, https://www.nage.org;  or the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented, https://www.aaegy.net.au) frequently address interdisciplinary topics.  I would argue that silos exist within the other disciplines, i.e., each discipline has its own conception of giftedness related to achievements within the field, rather than that gifted education exists within silo insulated for interdisciplinary connections. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the work you did in revising the manuscript.  While I'm not sure there will ever be a "unified, insular, and firmly policed" conception of giftedness due to interdisciplinary interpretations as well as how it is viewed in cultural and educational settings, you offer an interesting perspective that should be part of the conversation.