Citizenship Education in a World of Identity in Flux, Intercultural Conflict, and the Need for Belonging

Reviewers’ Comments

How Reviewers’ Comments were Addressed in Revised Manuscript

Reviewer 1

Quality of English Language

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be Improved

The content has been strenghtened in the revised article, according to reviewers’ comments, as explained in this change log.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be Improved

In the revised manuscript these have been strengthened, i.a. by a totally new methodological section , according to reviewers’ comments, as explained in this change log.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

Interesting contribution on the advantages of an intercultural citizenship education which would also take into account the global situation and threads, in a world marked by "globalisation 3.0" and weakened national states but also populism and nationalism.

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

The literature review on the interpretation of the global situation - the actual 'empirical field' of the article - is well presented and makes understandable why the aspects of the reconceptualized citizenship education defended by the authors at the end of their article would be appropriate

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

I have only minor corrections and improvement proposals which are inserted directly into the PDF (see marks and comments).

These have been attended to as explained in comments to annotated comments, in the PDF (which we send with the change log and revised manuscript)

Reviewers’ Comments

How Reviewers’ Comments were Addressed in Revised Manuscript

Reviewer 2

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

In the revised manuscript these have been strengthened, i.a. by inserting more references , according to reviewers’ comments, as explained in this change log.

I found this article very interesting. The author was able to integrate several sources into a cohesive thesis and made a compelling case for a different approach to citizenship education.    

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

As to the main question addressed by the research:

The author presents us with a statement of intent, of what the paper is about, almost like a lecture presentation or an opinion piece.

In the article it is stated tat the aim of the paper is to critically examine  citizenship education in the face of the new societal context, and to identify guidelines for the constructing of a reconceptualized citizenship education attuned to the exigencies of the current societal context. 

The topic relevant to the field and it address a specific gap in the field as well.

The topic adds to the academic debate on global citizenship, by revisiting traditional sources such as those by Fukuyama, Erikson, Dewey, Friedman and Maslow. The author then contextualises their thesis within the theoretical framework.

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

It add to the ongoing discussion compared with other published material.

The paper adds to the ongoing discussion on global citizenship, not from a specific context, but in broad terms. Global citizenship is presented as a universal concept.

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

Methodology improvements needed.

The author should be more explicit about the fact that it is a comparative literature study. The author can then also cite references on that research methodology.

In the revised section the methodological section has been improved as suggested by the reviewer.

The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

I believe the author provides an adequate conclusion. The conclusion is derived from the author’s analyses of the texts and the thesis presented in the article.

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

The references are appropriate.

The author has referenced the standard texts on the subject and appears to have chosen these specifically to present his thesis.

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

The table in the manuscript is sufficient and appropriate.

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

The author has included the main researchers in the field, and the purpose of the article is the author's thesis, so although there may be other references on the topic, the primary and well-known references eg Erikson, Friedman, Dewey, Fukuyama, make for a compelling theoretical foundation for the article.  

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.

I accept the article in its present form

We note with gratitude this assessment of the reviewer.