Founded on the Practice of Research-Driven Continuous Improvement: How Guttman Community College Embedded Self-Study from the Outset

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Content
The article presents a well-developed case study that is clearly grounded in both theory and practice. The authors effectively situate their analysis within the Strategic Academic Research and Development framework, referencing relevant literature and institutional data to support their claims. The integration of empirical evidence with the narrative of Guttman Community College’s founding and development is handled with clarity and purpose. Overall, the theoretical and research context is appropriately established and contributes meaningfully to the article’s credibility.

Research design, questions, hypotheses and methods
While the article presents a compelling and well-documented case study, it does not follow a traditional empirical research format with clearly stated research questions, hypotheses, or a formal methodology section. The narrative is structured around the Strategic Academic Research and Development (SARD) framework, and the analysis is largely descriptive and retrospective. Although the design is appropriate for a case study, the article would benefit from a more explicit articulation of its research design and methodological approach. Clarifying whether this is a qualitative case study, outlining data sources systematically, and specifying analytic procedures would strengthen the scholarly rigor and transparency of the work.

Arguments, Findings, and Discussion
The author presents a coherent and well-structured narrative that effectively supports its central argument. The discussion is balanced, acknowledging both the successes and challenges faced by Guttman Community College, including the recent decline in graduation rates. The authors compellingly demonstrate how the Strategic Academic Research and Development (SARD) framework guided both the founding and operational phases of the institution. Their use of institutional data, expert reflections, and detailed descriptions of assessment practices adds depth and credibility to the analysis. The findings are clearly connected to broader implications for higher education reform, making the discussion both relevant and persuasive.

I didn't see this as an empirical study. While it draws on institutional data and references internal reports and advisory board reflections, it does not follow a formal empirical research design.

I enjoyed that the references were both theoretical and research-based.

I appreciated that the authors addressed recent challenges in their conclusions.

Some sentences are overly long or complex, which may obscure key points. Additionally, transitions between sections could be tightened to improve flow. 

The article offers a highly original and significant contribution to the field by applying the SARD framework to the founding and development of Guttman Community College. While the methodology could be more explicitly defined and the writing slightly refined for clarity, the conclusions are well-supported by institutional data and referenced literature, making the manuscript compelling and impactful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a detailed case study of the founding and early development of Guttman Community College, analyzed through the Strategic Academic Research and Development framework. The topic is relevant for higher education policy and institutional innovation. The paper is clearly structured and well written, with useful descriptive detail. The English is clear and professional, with only minor stylistic refinements needed for occasional wordiness and no substantial revision required.

The authors are advised to address the following aspects in their revision:

1. Research Design and Methodology: Although the article is presented as a case study, the research design and methods remain unclear. It would be helpful if the authors specified the data sources they relied on (e.g., archival documents, interviews, institutional reports) and explained briefly how these materials were analyzed. Including even a short methodology section would make the study more rigorous and transparent.

2. Theoretical Contextualization: At present, the literature review relies mainly on SARD and CUNY-specific references. To strengthen the manuscript, it would help to position the case within a wider body of scholarship on institutional innovation, evidence-based policy, and community college reform. Bringing in comparative work on similar new college initiatives, or engaging with broader studies on continuous improvement in higher education, would situate the argument more firmly in ongoing academic debates.

3. Balance and Critical Reflection: The paper offers a strong account of GCC’s achievements, but it would be more compelling if the discussion also engaged with challenges and limitations. For instance, the early negotiations with unions, the absence of student or community voices in planning, and the impact of external shocks such as COVID-19 deserve more attention. Including these elements would provide a fuller and more balanced analysis.

4. Presentation of Results: Although the article includes some outcome data (graduation rates), the results are described mainly in narrative form. Presenting these findings in a more systematic way, perhaps through tables or figures showing changes across years, would make the evidence clearer and easier to interpret for readers.

5. Conclusions: The conclusion is currently framed largely as a confirmation of SARD’s effectiveness. It could be strengthened by reflecting on the conditions under which the framework might face limits or require adaptation, for example, during crises such as the pandemic. This would make the conclusions not only more robust but also more relevant to an international audience interested in how frameworks translate across contexts.

6. References: The reference list now is relevant but somewhat narrow. Expanding it to include more international and theoretical sources would signal stronger engagement with the wider literature and enhance the paper’s contribution to the field.

Author Response

Comment 1: Research Design and Methodology: Although the article is presented as a case study, the research design and methods remain unclear. It would be helpful if the authors specified the data sources they relied on (e.g., archival documents, interviews, institutional reports) and explained briefly how these materials were analyzed. Including even a short methodology section would make the study more rigorous and transparent.

Response 1: Thank you for this feedback. We have addressed this matter by adding a full methods section to the paper.

Comment 2: Theoretical Contextualization: At present, the literature review relies mainly on SARD and CUNY-specific references. To strengthen the manuscript, it would help to position the case within a wider body of scholarship on institutional innovation, evidence-based policy, and community college reform. Bringing in comparative work on similar new college initiatives, or engaging with broader studies on continuous improvement in higher education, would situate the argument more firmly in ongoing academic debates.

Response 2: Thank you for pushing us to deepen our connections to the literature. We have added more discussion of prior scholarship in the introduction, and deepened connections to the literature throughout our results and conclusions sections. Through this process, we have also grown our references section substantially.

Comment 3: Balance and Critical Reflection: The paper offers a strong account of GCC’s achievements, but it would be more compelling if the discussion also engaged with challenges and limitations. For instance, the early negotiations with unions, the absence of student or community voices in planning, and the impact of external shocks such as COVID-19 deserve more attention. Including these elements would provide a fuller and more balanced analysis.

Response 4: Thank you for this feedback. We have done a lot of work to provide a more critical discussion. We updated section 3.2 of the paper to provide a more critical discussion of the lack of student and community voices in the planning process. We also added a large section in the conclusion to underscore and discuss the dramatic drop in graduation rates that took place at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comment 4: Presentation of Results: Although the article includes some outcome data (graduation rates), the results are described mainly in narrative form. Presenting these findings in a more systematic way, perhaps through tables or figures showing changes across years, would make the evidence clearer and easier to interpret for readers.

Response 4: This is helpful feedback. We added a table that shows the 3-year graduation rates across CUNY community colleges between 2010 an 2021.

Comment 5: Conclusions: The conclusion is currently framed largely as a confirmation of SARD’s effectiveness. It could be strengthened by reflecting on the conditions under which the framework might face limits or require adaptation, for example, during crises such as the pandemic. This would make the conclusions not only more robust but also more relevant to an international audience interested in how frameworks translate across contexts.

Response 5: This is a helpful reflection. We have extended some of our discussion about the disruptive impact of COVID-19 and how institutions of higher education leaders should conceive of SARD alongside the reality that future disruptions are inevitable.

Comment 6: References: The reference list now is relevant but somewhat narrow. Expanding it to include more international and theoretical sources would signal stronger engagement with the wider literature and enhance the paper’s contribution to the field.

Response 6: Through the process of deepening our discussion of prior scholarship, we have extended our references list quite a bit.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows substantial improvement and responds well to the earlier feedback. The addition of a methods section has greatly enhanced the transparency and rigor of the study, while the expanded literature review now situates the case within broader theoretical and international debates on institutional change and evidence-based reform. The presentation of results is clearer, with tables and systematic data supporting the narrative, and the discussion now provides a more balanced account by acknowledging challenges such as the absence of student/community voices and the impact of COVID-19.

The conclusions are more nuanced, reflecting on the limits of SARD under crisis conditions and making the contribution more relevant to an international audience. References have been expanded appropriately, and the writing is clear and professional. Overall, the paper is well-structured and compelling. For further strengthening, the authors may consider, in future research, engaging more explicitly with comparative international cases and exploring long-term risks and sustainability beyond the pandemic context.