Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this article will make a good contribution to the field. My comments focus on style, language, and writing. 

Page 1, line 31, please use a better word than a lot. We park cars in a lot, but use words like several or many. 

Line 34, delete the sentence, as the next sentence explains. 

Page 3, lines 12224, develop this idea with two more sentences. Right now the paragraph is not a developed paragraph. 

Good discussion on pages 3-6. 

Page 8, line 37, delete a lot and use a better word. 

Page 12 lines 565-569, also note that teachers do not want a fail. It affects their file. Time poverty is an important issue, but also the fear of failure. 

Author Response

 

Thank You for the referees’ professional comments. The feedback has been very helpful and knowledgeable in developing the article further. 

The changes in the manuscript have been done with different colors to show where there is new text or any changes. The only thing we have totally removed was the figure. There have not been any structural changes because we felt that we didn’t have enough time to consider them. We have concentrated on adding carefully the points the referee number 2 have suggested to us. The text has also gone through English language edition. 

We have concentrated especially on these suggestions from the review report:  

  

We have added more previous research in the article, especially about connective pedagogy. There is also now more theoretical discussions where we try to connect better the different concepts we are applying. There is more theoretical discussions in the result chapters. We have also added arguments why integrating ethnography is fruitful with this kind of framework. 
Referee: “My main arguments concern the theoretical framework of the article, the method, the structure and the analysis. The article needs to be revised in a serious manner. The article also lacks a chapter that would critically go through previous research done in the same field and a chapter that would more broadly and deeply go through the theoretical concepts of the study.” 

 

We have added more discussion about collaborative working (connective pedagogy) with third sector partner as the second reviewer suggested. 

 

Method section: we have added more detailed information. 
Referee: “The methodological and ethical process requires discussion. How were the informants selected? What was the criteria? What was involved in the ethical process? How was informed consent obtained? Did the researcher undertake any observational work? How were field notes created / written? How were field interviews transcribed? What was the process of analysis?” 

 

There are now quotes in the last result chapter where the presence of the data were weakest. Referee: “Empirical sequences analyzed are invisible in the analysis!” 

 

We removed the confusing and unexplained figure. 

 

We tried to answer the requested questions in the discussion chapter more carefully. Referee: “Conclusion requires a more developed synthesis and discussion to bring together the key contribution of this paper. The conclusion of the article does not bring the results on a more abstract level. How does the research contribute to the discussion of social practice theory, connective pedagogy, ethnography, problem-solving learning and collaboration? What were the limitations of the research? What could have been done differently? How should future research tackle these questions? What about ethical questions?” 

  

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article focuses on very important themes and the article itself is an important contribution to the academic studies on the challenges university teachers face when adapting connective pedagogy in organizing teaching.

My main arguments concern the theoretical framework of the article, the method, the structure and the analysis. The article needs to be revised in a serious manner. The article also lacks a chapter that would critically go through previous research done in the same field and a chapter that would more broadly and deeply go through the theoretical concepts of the study.

There are a few areas in which the author could undertake some further work.

The theoretical framework underpinning this work and also previous research needs greater clarity and description. Even though it is evident that the article deals with social practice theory and connective pedagogy, it is an interesting choice of the author not to describe/use the concept of social practice theory and connective pedagogy in the analysis. The author does not argument why this kind of choice has been made. I would recommend the author to frame the article within the theoretical discussions of social practice theory and connective pedagogy and link this with the concept of ethnography, problem-solving learning and collaboration (with the third actor, page 10, line 459, see new publications: Björk, K. et al. (2019) Collaboration and identity work: a linguistic discourse analysis of immigrant students’ presentations concerning different teachers’ roles in a school context; Basic, G. (2018) Successful Collaboration in Social Care Practice: Beneficial Success Points of Interest for the Young Person in Swedish Juvenile Care). I think this is a strong analytical line that can be further developed in the article. Now the hypothesis of social practice theory and connective pedagogy are not convincing enough and actually the author does not make much use of these concepts in the analysis itself. The methodological and ethical process requires discussion. How were the informants selected? What was the criteria? What was involved in the ethical process? How was informed consent obtained? Did the researcher undertake any observational work? How were field notes created / written? How were field interviews transcribed? What was the process of analysis? Empirical sequences analyzed are invisible in the analysis! Researcher need to describe ethnography in detail as the scientific method used in the study (see publications above where the method was used). References are missing in some parts of the article, for example: p 4, l 155-184; p 10 l 459-473. The picture on page 12 is confusing and unexplained. Conclusion requires a more developed synthesis and discussion to bring together the key contribution of this paper. The conclusion of the article does not bring the results on a more abstract level. How does the research contribute to the discussion of social practice theory, connective pedagogy, ethnography, problem-solving learning and collaboration? What were the limitations of the research? What could have been done differently? How should future research tackle these questions? What about ethical questions? Overall, this is a good paper but it could do with further clarity, focus and development.

Author Response

Thank You for the referees’ professional comments. The feedback has been very helpful and knowledgeable in developing the article further. 

  

The changes in the manuscript have been done with different colors to show where there is new text or any changes. The only thing we have totally removed was the figure. There have not been any structural changes because we felt that we didn’t have enough time to consider them. We have concentrated on adding carefully the points the referee number 2 have suggested to us. The text has also gone through English language edition. 

  

We have concentrated especially on these suggestions from the review report:  

  

We have added more previous research in the article, especially about connective pedagogy. There is also now more theoretical discussions where we try to connect better the different concepts we are applying. There is more theoretical discussions in the result chapters. We have also added arguments why integrating ethnography is fruitful with this kind of framework. 
Referee: “My main arguments concern the theoretical framework of the article, the method, the structure and the analysis. The article needs to be revised in a serious manner. The article also lacks a chapter that would critically go through previous research done in the same field and a chapter that would more broadly and deeply go through the theoretical concepts of the study.” 

 

We have added more discussion about collaborative working (connective pedagogy) with third sector partner as the second reviewer suggested. 

 

Method section: we have added more detailed information. 
Referee: “The methodological and ethical process requires discussion. How were the informants selected? What was the criteria? What was involved in the ethical process? How was informed consent obtained? Did the researcher undertake any observational work? How were field notes created / written? How were field interviews transcribed? What was the process of analysis?” 

 

There are now quotes in the last result chapter where the presence of the data were weakest. Referee: “Empirical sequences analyzed are invisible in the analysis!” 

 

We removed the confusing and unexplained figure. 

 

We tried to answer the requested questions in the discussion chapter more carefully. Referee: “Conclusion requires a more developed synthesis and discussion to bring together the key contribution of this paper. The conclusion of the article does not bring the results on a more abstract level. How does the research contribute to the discussion of social practice theory, connective pedagogy, ethnography, problem-solving learning and collaboration? What were the limitations of the research? What could have been done differently? How should future research tackle these questions? What about ethical questions?” 

  

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

By way of introduction, I thank the authors for a new version. The manuscript touches upon important issues, has an interesting theoretical perspective and analysis. However, I cannot find that the authors has taken the reviewer 2 comments into consideration. The way of developing the paper as suggested by reviewer 2 was a good advice that I think would have improved the manuscript.

There are four areas in which the author could undertake some further work (Please see previous comments):

The theoretical framework. The ethical process requires discussion. References are missing in some parts of the article. Conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for the critical and helpful feedback. We have now tried to make the changes more carefully and deepen the elements the reviewer has asked us to do. 

The changes have made with different colours: point 1 green (theory), point 2 blue (method and ethics), point 3 purple (references) and point 4 red (conclusions). 

The detailed answers to the questions are in the attachment (so you can see the colours).

Kind regards,

Kaisu

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx