Dialogic Practice as a Vehicle for Inclusion: Navigating Belonging, Engagement, and Complexity in a Neurodiverse Higher Education Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper shows potential and draws on a wide range of contemporary literature; several important weaknesses need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

A primary concern is the lack of methodological clarity. The manuscript does not clearly define its nature, whether it is a conceptual paper, a narrative review, or a case study. Although the authors refer to an “evidence-based” and “theory-informed” approach, there is no explicit explanation of how the literature was selected, how the case of the OASIS program was analyzed, or what methodological framework guided the study. This absence of a clearly articulated design weakens the academic rigor of the manuscript and makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the validity of the claims being made. The paper would benefit significantly from clearly stated research questions and a transparent description of its methodological approach.

Another key issue is the strong reliance on the OASIS program as a central example without sufficient critical distance. The manuscript presents impressive outcome figures, such as high retention and graduation rates, but these appear to be drawn from institutional reports rather than independently verified sources. There is limited discussion of how these data were generated, what their limitations are, or how they compare to other programs or contexts. As a result, the discussion sometimes appears overly positive and insufficiently critical. A more balanced treatment, including acknowledgment of potential biases and limitations in the reported data, is necessary.

The manuscript also suffers from repetition and a lack of concision. Core ideas, particularly those related to dialogic practice, belonging, and inclusion, are repeated across multiple sections without substantial development. This repetition reduces the overall clarity and impact of the argument and makes the paper feel unnecessarily long. Streamlining the content, removing redundancy, and improving the logical flow between sections would enhance readability and coherence.

In addition, the level of critical engagement with the literature remains somewhat limited. Although the manuscript mentions tensions such as power dynamics and structural constraints, these points are not explored in sufficient depth. The discussion tends to emphasize the benefits of dialogic approaches without equally strong analysis of their limitations, challenges in implementation, or possible unintended consequences. A deeper and more critical engagement with existing research would strengthen the scholarly contribution of the paper.

There are also some concerns regarding the use of sources. While the manuscript includes a number of recent references, it occasionally relies on non-academic sources, such as media articles, to support key arguments. These should either be replaced with peer-reviewed sources or used more cautiously. Greater emphasis on high-quality empirical studies would improve the credibility of the work.

The quality of writing needs improvement. The manuscript contains several long and complex sentences that reduce clarity, as well as instances of awkward phrasing and minor grammatical issues. In some places, the language is repetitive or imprecise. Careful editing for language, structure, and style is required to ensure that the arguments are communicated clearly and effectively.

Author Response

Comment: 

The paper shows potential and draws on a wide range of contemporary literature; several important weaknesses need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

A primary concern is the lack of methodological clarity. The manuscript does not clearly define its nature, whether it is a conceptual paper, a narrative review, or a case study. Although the authors refer to an “evidence-based” and “theory-informed” approach, there is no explicit explanation of how the literature was selected, how the case of the OASIS program was analyzed, or what methodological framework guided the study. This absence of a clearly articulated design weakens the academic rigor of the manuscript and makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the validity of the claims being made. The paper would benefit significantly from clearly stated research questions and a transparent description of its methodological approach.

Response: 

Design and Analytical Approach

This study adopts a theory-informed narrative review design complemented by an illustrative institutional case. Narrative reviews are appropriate when the goal is to synthesize diverse literatures, identify conceptual linkages, and generate interpretive insights rather than to estimate causal effects or effect sizes. In this article, dialogic practice functions as the central analytic lens through which existing scholarship and institutional practices are examined.

Literature Identification and Synthesis

Peer-reviewed literature was identified through targeted searches in education, psychology, disability studies, and higher education journals, prioritizing work published between 2002 and 2026. Emphasis was placed on research addressing dialogic pedagogy, student belonging, neurodiversity in higher education, UDL, coaching and mentoring models, and trauma-aware pedagogy. Inclusion criteria favored empirical studies, systematic and narrative reviews, and theoretically substantive conceptual work. Non-academic sources were used sparingly and only to contextualize broader enrollment or demographic trends.

Case Selection and Role

The OASIS program at Pace University was selected as a descriptive case because it represents a long-standing, institutionally embedded neurodiversity support model that explicitly emphasizes relational and dialogic practices across academic, social, and vocational domains. The case is not treated as empirical evidence of program effectiveness, but rather as a concrete illustration of how dialogic principles may be operationalized within a higher education ecosystem.

Data Sources and Limitations

Case-related information was drawn from publicly available university materials, program documentation, and institutionally reported outcomes. These data are used illustratively and interpreted with caution. They are not independently verified, are not disaggregated by student identity variables, and do not support causal inference. These limitations are treated as central analytic considerations rather than shortcomings to be minimized.

Comment: Another key issue is the strong reliance on the OASIS program as a central example without sufficient critical distance. The manuscript presents impressive outcome figures, such as high retention and graduation rates, but these appear to be drawn from institutional reports rather than independently verified sources. There is limited discussion of how these data were generated, what their limitations are, or how they compare to other programs or contexts. As a result, the discussion sometimes appears overly positive and insufficiently critical. A more balanced treatment, including acknowledgment of potential biases and limitations in the reported data, is necessary.

Response: I have removed much of the specific reference to the OASIS program throughout the body of the manuscript, however, this is a case study example and highlighted due to its unique approaches, there are few programs in which to compare it to on both the national scale and within the metro area. However, i have adjusted the institutionally reported outcomes for OASIS include high retention and graduation rates relative to national estimates for neurodivergent students. These figures, while promising, are derived from internal reporting rather than independently evaluated datasets and should be interpreted as descriptive rather than causal indicators of program impact.

The manuscript also suffers from repetition and a lack of concision. Core ideas, particularly those related to dialogic practice, belonging, and inclusion, are repeated across multiple sections without substantial development. This repetition reduces the overall clarity and impact of the argument and makes the paper feel unnecessarily long. Streamlining the content, removing redundancy, and improving the logical flow between sections would enhance readability and coherence.

Comment: In addition, the level of critical engagement with the literature remains somewhat limited. Although the manuscript mentions tensions such as power dynamics and structural constraints, these points are not explored in sufficient depth. The discussion tends to emphasize the benefits of dialogic approaches without equally strong analysis of their limitations, challenges in implementation, or possible unintended consequences. A deeper and more critical engagement with existing research would strengthen the scholarly contribution of the paper.

Response: This article has argued that dialogic practice offers a conceptually robust and ethically compelling framework for advancing inclusion and belonging for neurodivergent students in higher education. Through a theory-informed synthesis and a reflexive institutional case, the analysis highlights how dialogic approaches can support engagement, communication, and self-advocacy—while also revealing significant limitations related to evidence quality, equity, scalability, and institutional context. Rather than offering definitive claims of effectiveness, the article underscores the need for independent, longitudinal, and intersectional research capable of evaluating dialogic models across diverse settings. Dialogic practice, when embedded within structurally supportive institutions, may serve not as a universal solution, but as a critical component of more humane and inclusive higher education ecosystems.

Comment: There are also some concerns regarding the use of sources. While the manuscript includes a number of recent references, it occasionally relies on non-academic sources, such as media articles, to support key arguments. These should either be replaced with peer-reviewed sources or used more cautiously. Greater emphasis on high-quality empirical studies would improve the credibility of the work.

Comment:The quality of writing needs improvement. The manuscript contains several long and complex sentences that reduce clarity, as well as instances of awkward phrasing and minor grammatical issues. In some places, the language is repetitive or imprecise. Careful editing for language, structure, and style is required to ensure that the arguments are communicated clearly and effectively.

Response: I have completed another round of edits 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The paper heavily rely only on internal data (like 85% retention). It would be useful to add independently verified data and, if possible, comparing participants with similar non-participants to show real impact.
• Disaggregated analysis of data by gender, socioeconomic background, and other relevant groups will be helpful to demonstrate whether the model works equally well for all, especially marginalized students. This can enhance empirical evidences for or against inclusion. 
• Large part of references are West-centric. The author include studies or examples from outside the U.S. to make the model more broadly applicable and culturally relevant.
• Author should clarify how the model can be funded and sustained over time (scalability), and address practical challenges like rigid curricula or accreditation requirements.
• A thorough proofreading required before returning to the editor. 

Author Response

Comment: The paper heavily rely only on internal data (like 85% retention). It would be useful to add independently verified data and, if possible, comparing participants with similar non-participants to show real impact. 

Response: Given this is a case study and non human research, the data used is that of IPEDS and the University's public data. 

Comment: Disaggregated analysis of data by gender, socioeconomic background, and other relevant groups will be helpful to demonstrate whether the model works equally well for all, especially marginalized students. This can enhance empirical evidences for or against inclusion. 

Response: Please see above, I have reported only using publicaly available data, and this is the no how this particular data is collected and shared at the NYSED (state) and IPEDS (federal levels)

Comment: Large part of references are West-centric. The author include studies or examples from outside the U.S. to make the model more broadly applicable and culturally relevant. 

Response: This is a case study comparing to US programs as the model was based in ABA which is a US model. Additionally, this type of program does not typically exist outside of the US/Canada

Comment: Author should clarify how the model can be funded and sustained over time (scalability), and address practical challenges like rigid curricula or accreditation requirements.

Response: 

1. LIMITATIONS & SCALABILITY

Revised

The OASIS model is resource-intensive, relying on sustained staffing, small caseloads, and high-frequency interaction. These characteristics raise important questions about financial sustainability, staff workload, and equitable access. Institutions with rigid curricula, accreditation constraints, or limited funding may be unable to adopt similar models at scale. Moreover, high-touch dialogic practices carry risks of emotional labor and fatigue for both staff and students if not paired with clear boundaries, workload protections, and mental health infrastructure. Addressing these constraints is essential if dialogic approaches are to move beyond isolated programs and inform system-level inclusion strategies. 

Additionally, the program is used in 6 Pace University schools and accreditation is too broad a topic for this paper.

Comment: A thorough proofreading required before returning to the editor. 

Response: Revisions throughout

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was excited to have the opportunity to review the manuscript Dialogic Practice as a Vehicle for Inclusion: Navigating Belonging, Engagement, and Complexity in a Neurodiverse Higher Education Landscape. But after reading it, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication. While authors include trappings of a research manuscript (i.e., a Methods section), and they refer to it as a case study, they do not present data sources, document how those data were analyzed, or situate their work within the research literature. Ultimately, this appears to be a thinly-veiled advertisement for Pace University's OASIS program. It should not be included in a research journal.

Author Response

Comment: I was excited to have the opportunity to review the manuscript Dialogic Practice as a Vehicle for Inclusion: Navigating Belonging, Engagement, and Complexity in a Neurodiverse Higher Education Landscape. But after reading it, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication. While authors include trappings of a research manuscript (i.e., a Methods section), and they refer to it as a case study, they do not present data sources, document how those data were analyzed, or situate their work within the research literature. Ultimately, this appears to be a thinly-veiled advertisement for Pace University's OASIS program. It should not be included in a research journal.

Response: 

Although the OASIS program is discussed in detail, this article does not evaluate the program’s effectiveness nor argue for its superiority over other models. Instead, the program is examined reflexively, with attention to its design logic, institutional positioning, and boundary conditions. By foregrounding limitations related to scalability, resource intensity, equity, and data transparency, the case is used to illuminate broader tensions inherent in dialogic, relationship-intensive approaches to inclusion rather than to promote a specific institutional initiative.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial improvement and addresses several of the major concerns raised in the previous review. However, several areas still require minor revision before publication. The manuscript would benefit from explicitly stated research questions to further strengthen conceptual and methodological clarity. Although limitations are now acknowledged, some interpretations of the OASIS program outcomes remain somewhat overstated given the absence of independent evaluation and comparative data. More cautious wording is recommended when discussing retention, graduation, and employment outcomes.

Additionally, the manuscript still contains some redundancy and repetition across sections, particularly regarding belonging, dialogic practice, and coaching. Further streamlining would improve readability and overall coherence. Some non-academic and media-based references should also be used more cautiously or replaced where possible with peer-reviewed sources. The manuscript would benefit from another round of professional language editing to address awkward phrasing, grammatical inconsistencies, and overly long sentences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English has improved in the revised manuscript; however, the paper would still benefit from additional language editing to improve sentence clarity, reduce repetition, and correct minor grammatical and stylistic inconsistencies.

Author Response

Reviewer memo:

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf