Review Reports

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

One question: you mentioned that you taught you in New York City (I'm from NY), Mexico City, and Chicago; did you meet Kahiau in one of these locations? Where does (city/state) Kahiau currently teach? How did you make sense of Kahiau's lived Hawaiian experience?

Author Response: 

Thank you for the observation that I needed to provide much more context about how Kahiau and I met. I have expanded upon this in further detail throughout the paper. I provide further context that I connected to Kahiau through snowball sampling via an online email recruitment flyer, and from there he agreed to participate in the study. I offer more explanation in the paper on how this transpired. I did not know Kahiau prior to the study. Our first interview was the first time I had ever met him over Zoom. We proceeded from there. 

I do have concerns about providing too many details given that anonymity is hard to protect knowing that there are very few teachers like Kahiau who exist in mathematics spaces. Kahiau has also mentioned some of these same concerns, so I have elected not to provide exact school location or city/state beyond broadly asserting that he lives and teaches on the Hawaiian islands. If there are other ways to do this, I am certainly open to feedback. As a newly minted 1st gen scholar, I have a lot of learning to do on how to ensure best ethical practices for protecting anonymity, especially under our current political realities, and trying to be clear and coherent in my writing. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

Include references to:

Johnson, J.D., Smail, L., Corey, D., and Jarrah, A. M. (2022). Using Bayesian Networks to provide educational implications: Mobile learning and ethnomathematics to improve sustainability in mathematics education. Sustainability, 14(10), 1 – 20. 

Nicol, C., Knijnik, G., Peng, A., Cherinda, M., & Bose, A. (Eds.). (2024). Ethnomathematics and mathematics education: International perspectives in times of local and global change. Springer.

Rosa, M., Shirley, L., Gavarrete, M. E., & Alangui, W. V. (Eds.). (2017). Ethnomathematics and its diverse approaches for mathematics education. Springer.

Author Response:

Thank you for these important additional references. I had a chance to review and include them into the revised text. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• You have devoted an entire paragraph to describing the broader study, while offering only a brief discussion of the specific study at hand. I recommend condensing the overview of the larger study to one or two sentences. This would allow you to expand and deepen the discussion in the subsequent paragraph, which engages more directly with your current study.

Author Response:

Thank you. This was revised. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• There are many confusing aspects of the manuscript.  Here is another one, you wrote: "In this paper, I present the portrait of Kahiau, a Native Hawaiian mathematics teacher, and how he navigates and negotiates his respective praxis, agency, and self-described criticality in the classroom and beyond as someone whose lived experiences are formatted by the colonial times in which he teaches and lives within. As Yeh et al note (2021)" I recommend that this sentence needs some adjusting.

Author Response: The sentence in question has been adjusted. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation: 

• Is there another way to display Complex Mathematical Personhood? For instance, a table.
• You wrote " used the four components described above (remembrance/forgetting, harm/joy, socio-historical/socio-cultural navigation, and learning/(un)learning), as initial codes to unveil the phenomenon being studied." I recommend moving this to the methods section, where you discuss how you plan to analyze your data.

Author Response: Thank you. This was a helpful suggestion to make the revised submission more coherent and consistent. I created a sub-section for CMP under methods, created a table to describe the four components, and revisit these components throughout the paper in a more explicit manner.

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• I personally appreciate the poem American Arithmetic (2018) by Natalie Diaz, I recommend removing it from the manuscript. Though powerful, it may not align directly with the analytic focus of this section and could potentially distract from the core narrative.

Author Response: The poem has been removed based on the recommendation. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• Additionally, I noticed the continued use of dissertation-specific terminology, such as the term “chapter,” in this section. I recommend removing such terms to ensure the manuscript reflects the conventions of a journal article.

Author Response: Thank you. This was attended to and all references of ‘chapter’ have been removed from the revised submission. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• It is commendable that you have chosen to name the participant Kahiau, particularly in light of the cultural significance embedded in the name. This thoughtful decision adds meaningful depth to your narrative. As you continue to describe Kahiau’s educational journey, I recommend providing further contextual detail—for example, clarifying moments such as “Kahiau traveled back to Hawai‘i to…”—to more fully develop the reader’s understanding of Kahiau experience. The reader does not know Kahiau’s location throughout their educational journey.

Author Response: I have done my best to clarify Kahiau’s journey while also protecting his anonymity to the extent that this is possible. As stated elsewhere, this means clarifying that Kahiau lives and works in Hawaii but not providing further details beyond that. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• It seems you have copied and pasted directly from your dissertation. For instance, you mentioned chapters. I recommend deleting dissertation terms (thesis, dissertation, and chapters), from this point forward, for this journal publication.

Author Response:

Thank you for this observation and recommendation. I took out the terms (thesis, dissertation, and chapters) throughout the entire piece.

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• I’m a little confused with Figure 1: Kahiau’s Teaching Trajectory. You mentioned year 1-6, year 6-9, year 6-9, and total years of service 12. I recommend making this easier for the reader. What are you trying to convey?
• How was this information retrieved? 

Author Response: 

There was a small type-o on the map. Kahiau taught in 3 different school settings. This has been clarified both in the map and the accompanying explanation on the revised submission. 

Reviewer 1 Recommendation:

• You wrote: “The first word that comes to mind to describe Kahiau is Weaver. As a native Hawaiian man, with ties to Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Samoan, and Filipino ancestry, Kahiau spun stories for me of reclaiming his native Hawaiian language and culture, and how this was his first act of decolonizing his identity. For Kahiau, language, culture, land, and teaching are interwoven threads that add texture to his complex mathematical personhood identity.” I recommend recognizing that this information comes from Kahiau’s interview earlier in this section. I didn’t know this information was captured from the interview, until later in the section.

Author Response: 

Thank you for this observation. I have revised this for additional clarity and to include that it directly comes from Kahiau’s interviews with me. 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

After reading the full manuscript, my sense is that the introduction did not set me up well for the rest of the paper. The paper continues to introduce new constructs and theoretical frameworks throughout while those introduced at the beginning fall away. Over the course of the paper, I noted multiple constructs, theories and frameworks: Ethnic studies framework opens the paper but is not ever used. Not sure you need this one at all. Critical race feminist theory is mentioned but not explained or defined and not used in the analysis. Complex mathematical personhood is used, but could be made more explicit. MathematX is used as an interpretive lens in the portrature, but not introduced until the portrait. Finally, de/colonization is used centrally in the analysis but is not introduced until the methods and is not explained until the analysis. There are choices that need to be made here. I think the direction you take in your findings/portrait points to what you need most. In my reading this would be the de/colonial work and the complex mathematical personhood work.

Author Response: 

Agree - I was struggling with this, but ultimately focused the writing on: MathematX, CMP, and Bhattacharya’s conceptualization of de/colonization as the root of my analysis. Each of these provide and build upon the notion that there is complexity (and humility) when it comes to trying to trying to understand how colonialism and Indigeneity are in a kind of helix with one another - this is what I was trying to exemplify throughout the revised piece – and that fundamentally is what Kahiau is interrogating, subverting, and navigating the tensions of in his work. I appreciate your comments here as they helped me narrow the field down and refine the introduction to something I hope reads more cohesively in the 2nd draft. 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

If you decide to stick with identity and complex mathematical personhood as a central framing, I hope you can introduce Avery Gordon’s work and explain what it offers that other existing constructs in the vast space of math ed identity scholarship do not otherwise offer.

Author Response:

Thank you for this – one of my dissertation committee members, Dr. Michael Thomas, noted that I am like a kid in a candy shop with theory. I like them all so very much! And find meanings in all of them that weave and interpolate with one another. However, this comment was a much needed reminder to hone my argument into something that is accessible and coherent to readers that are not my brain. Thank you, and I hope I have attended to this with greater fidelity by narrowing my focus on: (1) ethnomathematics as an extension of de/colonial theory, (2) complex mathematical personhood, and (3) Gutierrez’s MathematX framework. 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

As a caveat, I may have missed some of the framing that was meant to be communicated through the two tables. I found these hard to parse. I think it would be helpful to guide your reader to understand how you make sense of these concepts and constructs together, (if we need to), in the form of your own argument instead of just in a table. You do a lot of work to explain your theory and argument throughout the Portrait portion. It would be helpful to place that work up front and then use it as a guide when you return to it in the portrait.

Author Response: 

Agree. Thank you for this. I explained CMP further and also re-eoriented so that theory/tables etc come before portrait and then return to it in the conclusion. 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

Methods: Portraiture is clearly central to this piece and could use more thorough explication especially in terms of what we should expect in how the findings are analyzed and presented. This may also be a case study. However, it needs to be clarified what kind since both Mirriam and Yin are cited but have very different approaches to what case study is. The de/colonial context of Hawaii and of the school site itself can be moved into the Methods section. It’s possible they were meant to be, but because the findings are called portraiture, and the section titled “Kahiau’s Portrait” came first, I understood that to be the beginning of the Findings.

Author Response: 

Thank you. I address this recommendation in the ‘cross-case study’ section of the paper, and also added in a more thorough explanation of what the reader should expect in the findings and how they are analyzed and presented both in the methods and 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

Findings: There are multiple interesting strands of data and interpretation in the Findings currently. However, as the methods, literature, and new constructs, are also presented throughout, it’s hard to tease out the argument that is being made in the Findings at this point.

Author Response:

I completely agree. V1 was more than a bit of a mess. I tried to make more explicit connections to MathematX, CMP, and Bhattacharya’s conception of de/colonization. I also re-read Eve Tuck’s 2009 powerful Suspending Damage piece, and incorporated some elements of her argument about the importance of desire-based frameworks. Throughout this work, I have been intentional in acknowledging that I am not an Indigenous Hawaiian person. I remain critically aware of how colonial epistemologies have historically shaped research as a tool of extraction and harm—often centering damage rather than dignity, which is what Tuck refers to in her letter. It is my ongoing concern and commitment to ensure that my work does not replicate these patterns, so wanted to ensure that this was also part of how the data is presented. 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

Discussion and Conclusions: The discussion and conclusions do not currently summarize the key findings or reengage with the central theory and literature in relation to these central findings.

Author Response:

Agree. I have revamped the discussion and conclusions, and also based on a rec from reviewer 3, included a section describing the limitations of the study. 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

• The figure of Kahiau’s teaching trajectory repeats years 6-9 twice, and says he works at a public charter school. On the next page it says he works at a private school.

Author Response: There was a small type-o on the map. Kahiau taught in 3 different school settings. This has been clarified both in the map and the accompanying explanation on the revised submission. 

Reviewer 2 Recommendation:

• There are a few quotes that are repeated
• Extended quotes need to be set apart as block quotes. Currently there is no indication that extended quotations are quotations (either quotation marks or blocking) which caused me confusion on numerous occasions.

Author Response:

Thank you for this recommendation. I wasn’t quite sure how to include quotes in the format/template provided, but did my best to move block quotes to ‘2.25’ tab, and removed any redundant quotes. 

Reviewer 3 Recommendation:

I am recommend removing statements indicating that the work was from the author’s doctoral thesis/dissertation. This information is not customary to state in a journal article.

Author Response:

 Agree. Thank you – I am a freshly minted first gen scholar, so am still learning the ins and outs of what is acceptable to include in articles like this. All references to thesis have been removed.

Reviewer 3 Recommendation:

In the researcher positionality section indicate how/why lived experiences are relevant to this study. 

Author Response:

 Agree. I have added more information in the positionality section on page 5 and 6

Reviewer 3 Recommendation:

The RQs use plural “teachers” but the study is about one teacher. Suggest revising questions to specify the details of the teacher studied. I don’t believe the author can generalize to other teachers.

Author Response:

 Agree. I have attended to this and revised it to be singular tense.

Reviewer 3 Recommendation:

The Methods section lacks details about data collection and analysis. The author provides a timeline. I think the timeline should not be included and should be replaced with data collection and analysis details.

Author Response:

Thank you for this recommendation. I tried my best to attend to this in the methods section. It was recommended by a different reviewer to also move the Hawaii context into this section as well. However, given that it I am unable to mention my dissertation and that this portrait is one of seven that were co-constructed together, I am finding it somewhat challenging on how to provide more analysis details. (eg the analysis that emerged from the Nvivo coding was not done independently for Kahiau, but co-constructed and connected through multiple analysis stages with the other participants as well)

Reviewer 3 Recommendation:

There is no discussion section.

I suggest revising the conclusion. I suggest focusing on the contributions to the field and limitations of the study.

Author Response:

Thank you – I have revised the discussion/conclusion to the best of my ability and included a limitations section on page 21. In the discussion section, I have tried to expand upon the connections between complex mathematical personhood, MathematX, and de/colonial theory.

Second, your theoretical framing is clearer, but I cannot help but think that it seems that de/colonization, mathematx, and CMP are the frameworks that you are using. But I think it’s okay to keep your frameworks as CMP and mathematx as you wrote in this version!

 I would add another sentence or two to your description of mathematx in the actual Theoretical Framework section. (You explained CMP but not matheamtx as much in the Theoretical Framework section which is why I suggest adding a little here.) The theoretical framework helps bind the article together, so we should read about how it helped you analyze your findings in the Findings section. 

Response:

Revised. I moved the revised section on mathematX towards the beginning of the theoretical framework section, and then followed it up with building out CMP here as a way to connect and bridge the two pieces together. While I agree with you on de/colonization as an additional TF, I feel that both CMP and mathematX are extensions of de/colonization scholarship and that it would be a) confusing to the reader to try to stitch these all together and b) that since this is already underscored in the revised version of how both CMP and matheamtX connect to de/colonization that it might be redundant. (I also believe that I am not a de/colonial scholar, and so want to be careful about that scholarship area out of respect for my own ongoing learnings in that area and towards the large body of literature I am continuing to engage with for future work) 

You do so with mathematx (meaning you explain how you used mathematx to help analyze your findings in the Findings section), and you should make it more explicit when you are using CMP in your analysis in the Findings.

If you want to add a sentence or two that further unpacks and explains how “Learning & (Un)Learning [CMP 3]” and “Remembrance and Forgetting [CMP 4]” are seen here (and throughout when you do this) that may also help clarify for the reader. Please add more of this throughout the Findings so that the reader sees how CMP was used! 

Response: 

 I have taken these recommendations to heart and tried to do my best to make the linkages to CMP clearer throughout the revised piece. 

 For example, at the bottom of page 14 and onto page 15 you wrote, “ I view Bhattacharya’s call for care and intention when it comes to the term de/colonization as a reminder that all of us, are Learning & (Un)Learning [CMP 3] and continuously engaged in the acts of Remembrance and Forgetting [CMP 4] in the ways in which we view and forge our own mathematical identities within the colonial borders of the United States of America.” This is great and helpful to the reader when you include “Learning & (Un)Learning [CMP 3]” and “Remembrance and Forgetting [CMP 4]” in the sentence. This is an example of how you helped the reader see how you are using your theoretical framework of CMP in your analysis of the Findings. 

Response:

I added a short sentence also extending to Harm & Joy as well here.

For instance, you may want to add a few sentences unpacking the long quote on page 16 that ends with “Some of our White faculty, I think it is also hard…for them to realize too, where they are because of the education system, not because of who they are. It's the system. [Int 1 (pt 1), 12.17.23]” before moving on to the next section about the lesson plan.

Response:

Response added. I moved the quote up and added a few sentence following the quote to provide further context directly connected to theoretical frameworks.

You may also want to add a few sentences to unpack the long quote on page 21 that ends in “Every time I ask for my prayer, I do my chanting. I'm not shocked anymore. ~ [Int 3, 3.3.24]” before moving to the “Limitations of the Study” section.

Response:

Done. I moved the quote up and added/edited the sentence following the quote to provide further context.

b) Fifth, in the Findings section, I suggest organizing the findings around the four components of Complex Mathematical Personhood (Remembrance and Forgetting; Harm and Joy; Socio-Historical & Socio-Cultural Navigations; and Learning & (Un)Learning). I wrote this suggestion earlier, but I am restating it for clarity. [When you submit this next round, please respond to these. You can of course choose not to agree and then explain why please. And in fact, this b) “fifth” suggestion can be attended to by reading my second suggestion which is stated here next.] 

Response:

Thanks and I have revised it because I agree that it provides additional structure and clarity, along with cohesiveness to the CMP framework for the piece. I didn’t attend to this the first round, mostly because I was still processing how to organize it in a way that makes sense (just got my AuDhd diagnosis, and that…has been eye-opening for me on my disability  needs). I apologize for not being clear on why I hadn’t attended to it in the first revised draft. 

I suggest using RQ 2 is your one RQ and removing the others. Focusing on this RQ will help your reader to not be confused with so many different questions and concepts as they read the article. I suggest that this be your RQ for the article: In what multiplicities and intersections of their professional practice and mathematics identity do veteran math teachers of color evidence, narrate and represent their personal and professional experiences in service to a Complex Mathematical Personhood?

 In this way, when you use Complex Mathematical Personhood as your theoretical framework, you can use the four components of Complex Mathematical Personhood in your articulation of the Findings so that the paper is coherent and understandable to the reader.  [When you read the article does it seem that you answered all six of the questions you pose as your RQs? Most articles answer one or two not six RQs. We just aren’t given the space to answer that many RQs in an article.] 

Response:

Thanks! I also chose to include the sub-RQ related to RQ2, since the woven vase is the affective artifact that relates to how Kahiau narrates his CMP. I provided a short sentence explaining that connection in the RQ section that acts as a connector sentence to K’s portrait section later on in the chapter. 

Comment: Third, a cross case study is when you analyze (e.g., compare and contrast) two different cases. So, if you had Kahiau’s Portrait plus another teacher’s portrait this would be a cross case study. This paper is not that, so please delete the paragraph that discusses cross case studies, thank you. :)

Response:

Revised. Thank you for the clarification – I’m still getting some terms muddled, so appreciate the very important revision here.

Fourth, here are some more minor edits:

 a) I believe the header “Kahiau’s Portrait” should be italicized and not bolded, just like your header “Introducing Kahiau.” - 

Response:

Revised. Thank you 

b) Do you want to just use the word pseudonym for Kahiau instead of “code name”? I think most readers are more familiar with using pseudonym instead of code name. 

Response:

Revised. Thank you 

c) In this sentence, “Despite the abundance of literature around the interplay of ethno-mathematics in school settings, impact on students and pre-service teachers broadly, the literature around veteran teachers (those who have been in the field for more than 5 years) remains limited,” are you saying that the literature around veteran teachers AND ethnomathematics is limited, or the literature around veteran math teachers is limited? There is a great deal of literature about veteran math teachers, so I would clarify that I think you mean the former? You can revise the sentence to be something like this: Despite the abundance of literature around the interplay of ethnomathematics in school settings, impact on students and pre-service teachers broadly, the literature around veteran teachers’ use of ethnomathematics (those who have been in the field for more than 5 years) remains limited.

Response: 

Revised. Thank you for the suggestion here, and your edit articulates what I was trying to state much more clearly. :) 

d) Do you want to add in brackets any explanations for words like bisaya [a Filipinx language] or kanaka or other words you use?

Response:

Revised. Thank you