Educational Leaders Making Sense of and Leading Through Turbulent Times

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely, well-theorized, and conceptually robust contribution to the educational leadership literature by integrating a Leadership Domains and Capabilities Framework with a Futures Thinking Framework to address leadership practice in turbulent times. The essay is grounded in an extensive and up-to-date body of international scholarship, and it demonstrates strong conceptual coherence, particularly in its articulation of sensemaking and direction-setting as core leadership practices. The illustrative sections on student feedback, future-ready capabilities, and artificial intelligence are analytically rich and effectively translate abstract frameworks into meaningful leadership implications, enhancing both scholarly and practical relevance. The argument is clearly structured, logically developed, and written in a scholarly yet accessible style appropriate for an international audience. Importantly, the paper advances the field by offering an integrative, values-informed perspective on future-focused educational leadership rather than prescriptive solutions, which aligns well with contemporary debates on complexity, uncertainty, and ethical leadership. 

Author Response

Thank you for your supportive review. We greatly appreciate your observations. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the manuscript. I found the overall aim timely: supporting educational leaders’ sensemaking and direction-setting in turbulent conditions, including the implications of AI. The pairing of the Leadership Domains and Capabilities Framework (LDCF) with the Futures Thinking Framework (FTF) is promising, and the three illustrations (student feedback, future-ready capabilities, and AI) make the paper accessible.

That said, I think the paper needs revisions to land its contribution more clearly. In particular, I would encourage a sharper statement early on about what the manuscript adds beyond existing leadership and futures-oriented frameworks. Relatedly, the link between LDCF and FTF is not yet fully “worked through” for the reader: it would help to explain more explicitly how a leader would move between LDCF (sensemaking/direction-setting) and FTF (past/current/best/next, possible/plausible/probable/preferred) when diagnosing a problem and planning action.

I also think the illustrations could do more analytical work. At the moment they read mainly as narrative examples; they would be stronger if each one followed a consistent structure that explicitly demonstrates the frameworks in use (even a short set of recurring sub-headings or guiding questions would help).

Finally, the paper is generally readable, but it would benefit from careful copy-editing for fluency and consistent terminology. On referencing, the anonymised self-citations make sense for double-blind review, but please ensure citations are consistently used to support key claims.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English requires improvement for publication. While the overall meaning is clear, there are recurrent issues with sentence structure, punctuation, and word choice, along with occasional typos and inconsistent terminology. A thorough language edit (ideally by a fluent academic editor) is recommended to ensure clarity, concision, and consistent use of key concepts across the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1

That said, I think the paper needs revisions to land its contribution more clearly. In particular, I would encourage a sharper statement early on about what the manuscript adds beyond existing leadership and futures-oriented frameworks. Relatedly, the link between LDCF and FTF is not yet fully “worked through” for the reader: it would help to explain more explicitly how a leader would move between LDCF (sensemaking/direction-setting) and FTF (past/current/best/next, possible/plausible/probable/preferred) when diagnosing a problem and planning action.

We thank you for these suggestions and have substantially revised section 1 in response.

Comment 2

I also think the illustrations could do more analytical work. At the moment they read mainly as narrative examples; they would be stronger if each one followed a consistent structure that explicitly demonstrates the frameworks in use (even a short set of recurring sub-headings or guiding questions would help).

We thank you for your suggestion and agree that this is one way to approach these examples. However, our way was to draw on different aspects of using the two frameworks for each example and to deliberately provide narrative examples. We believe for an essay paper that these provide a more interesting engagement for the reader and avoids reducing the examples to a more mechanical treatment of how leaders might respond. We want educational leaders to see different ways to engage with the frameworks. We have also corrected the incorrect formatting of this section by the journal editors in preparing the manuscript for review.

Comment 3

Finally, the paper is generally readable, but it would benefit from careful copy-editing for fluency and consistent terminology. On referencing, the anonymised self-citations make sense for double-blind review, but please ensure citations are consistently used to support key claims.

Thank you for the editing comments. We will continue to edit the paper until the final version. You will read many edits in the current version and a more consistent writing style across the authors.

We have endeavoured to provide an appropriate level of supporting citations. The 7,000 -word essay has 93 references supporting it, with 10 of those related to our work. One other reviewer suggested parts of the paper were over-referenced. Being aware of word constraints for the essay, we have made some additional use of our current reference list and added a few more references.

 

Comment 4

The English requires improvement for publication. While the overall meaning is clear, there are recurrent issues with sentence structure, punctuation, and word choice, along with occasional typos and inconsistent terminology. A thorough language edit (ideally by a fluent academic editor) is recommended to ensure clarity, concision, and consistent use of key concepts across the manuscript.

Thank you for the editing comments. We will continue to edit the paper until the final version. You will read many edits in the current version and a more consistent writing style across the authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this essay and to engage with it. Below are my comments.

- The authors are encouraged to clarify the contextual scope of the paper by explicitly acknowledging limitations in generalizability and addressing how the framework may be adapted for low-resource educational settings.

- I note that while the introduction is well supported by citations, the density of references may distract readers from the core argument. The authors may wish to streamline the introductory citations and more explicitly position the paper as a conceptual paper.

- While the Futures Thinking Framework is conceptually appealing, it is not always clear what is genuinely new compared to established leadership and futures frameworks.

- The language around the futures thinking framework could be made more practice-oriented so that practitioners can more readily understand and apply it.

Author Response

Comment 1

The authors are encouraged to clarify the contextual scope of the paper by explicitly acknowledging limitations in generalizability and addressing how the framework may be adapted for low-resource educational settings.

A paragraph at the end of the paper has been included to address this

Comment 2

I note that while the introduction is well supported by citations, the density of references may distract readers from the core argument. The authors may wish to streamline the introductory citations and more explicitly position the paper as a conceptual paper.

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that there are heavily cited sections and that there are a high number of references for the essay size (88 references for a 7,000 word essay), but as one other reviewer wanted more citations, we think we have a reasonable balance.

Comment 3

While the Futures Thinking Framework is conceptually appealing, it is not always clear what is genuinely new compared to established leadership and futures frameworks.

Some additional wording has been provided to make that the case that the ideas themselves are not new, but how they are combined in the frameworks and the combination of the two frameworks, makes a worthwhile contribution for both practitioners, researchers and policy makers.

Comment 4

The language around the futures thinking framework could be made more practice-oriented so that practitioners can more readily understand and apply it.

We have tried to do this through the three examples and, indeed, the use of the three examples was to help show how leaders might use the frameworks. As in all journal papers, space is tight, and so we have tried not to duplicate the practice-orientation language.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments:

The authors of this manuscript address the challenges facing educational leaders as the local, regional, and national contexts in which they work are rapidly changing and becoming increasingly unpredictable.  The authors argue that the three issues they choose to focus upon most closely (i.e. improving student feedback, developing future-ready capabilities, and adopting AI) are critical to the success of educational leaders in turbulent times. 

The manuscript is quite “dense” with respect to the amount of material it includes, but the authors write clearly and succinctly and also present the information graphically. The two Figures and Table are very helpful in conveying the relationships among past, current, and best practices, domains and capabilities.

In addition to presenting their own research, the authors provide an extensive review of relevant research conducted by other scholars.  The manuscript is a fascinating intersection of research and practice, anchored in present-day realities of educational leadership, but convincingly arguing for the necessity of forward-facing leaders who can move from past to current and best practices, to “next practices” in the near future, to a consideration of possible, plausible, probable and preferred futures.  

This is an excellent manuscript from both a conceptual and practical perspective, and it injects new ways of approaching the challenges of educational leadership in rapidly changing, increasingly diverse and uncertain contexts.  The authors have done an outstanding job of providing essential reading for all those concerned with not merely navigating, but effectively leading schools through tumultuous times—now and in the fast-approaching future.

I have no substantive critique of this manuscript—only the three very minor edits listed below.

Minor Edits:

Line 47            delete “that has become”

55                    insert “an” before “essential”

396                  insert “of” before “our” at the end of the line

Author Response

Thank you for your supportive review. We very much appreciate your comments and support. We have attended to the edits you noted. 

 

Comment - Minor Edits:

Line 47            delete “that has become”

55                    insert “an” before “essential”

396                  insert “of” before “our” at the end of the line

Relply: these have been attended to - thank you

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for addressing my comments and making the requested revisions.