Capacitating Pedagogy to Inclusive Excellence through Bienvivance for Zero Waste of Human Resources: European Case Studies during the Lockdown on Vocational Education and Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Capacitating pedagogy to inclusive excellence through bienvivance for zero waste human resources: European case studies during the lockdown in vocational education and training School Management and Effectiveness

Aim of this paper is to serve inclusive excellence: toward human resources’ sustainability and zero waste of human resources.

I am not sure that this manuscript fits the scope of the journal. Probably, a pedagogical review would be more proper. 

There is a lack of references in the Introduction and maybe in the abstract. The authors should clarify whether the outcomes/conclusions of the case studies can be generalized or not and the relevant preconditions. To do that they should use pertinent arguments from the field of case study research in order to enhance the validity and/or reliability of their methodological approach (i.e. Yin, 1994). 

Authors should clarify and underline the scope, the aims, and the research questions/hypotheses of their research project.

The manuscript lacks novelty. Dozens of papers, regarding the implications and consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Lockdowns have been published.

The unit 3.2 is more descriptive and not so much explorative and/or explanatory.

Authors have to set and then respond to research questions/hypotheses. In the Discussion, the authors have expressed several ideas and arguments, but their remarks have not been always relevant to the evidence they have collected.

The references are relevant. They must use references more systematically in the whole manuscript, as the referenced sources are few. Also they should use more recent references (i.e. for the last 5 years), as many references are older.

Another suggestion is to note how many participants have been contacted during the evidence collection.

The notion of bienvivance is interesting but it is not novel nor innovative in literature (even if it has been expresses in other terms). The evidence is not well-organized (and probably is confusing), so it doesn’t allow the readers to understand it easily.

Moreover, within the pertinent unit regarding Bienvivance (lines 321-370) the authors’ argument have not been linked with Research Questions.

In the manuscript, several suggestions should appear to foster further research. 

The structure is not well-designed. For example, a part or the total unit “Bienvivance paradigm” should be transferred in the beginning of the manuscript as a part of the theoretical background.  

A lack of a strong link between discussion/conclusion and evidence also exists. Some parts of the manuscript can be characterized as waffler. The tables in the appendix are unclear, not directly linked with the Research Questions.  

The ethics statement is adequate. The quality of the paper is good enough, as it has been written appropriately.

Author Response

Review 1

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thanks for your tremendous work which help us to improve our article.

In the Introduction as in the abstract and the main text, more and recent references have been added.

To clarify the aims of the article, the purpose has been underlined with regards of the “bienvivance framework”.

The suggested 2 paragraphs (lines 321-370) about the framework have been moved to the top in a new section named “theoretical framework”.

It underlines the novelty of the bienvivance approach as it explains that it is inspired from neuro-psychopathology research, focus on inner resource to copy with daily life pressures and until now, no one expanded this "medical" approach to the economics and educational human development perspectives to copy with daily pressures and  can serve from normal life to unusual pressures as Covid-19 and lockdown to work at a better life by inner development for outer changes.

The 3.2 (now 4.2) paragraph is part of the “global outcomes”; this part remains descriptive as the explorative and explanatory part is on discussion paragraphs.

Also, according the limitations of case-study research (which the number of participants is noted in the table 1), a paragraph of limitations has been added in the corrected version and, larger and former research using the same curriculum protocol but designed in an experimental way which has been led for 5 years and its outcome published, has been added in reference. The case-study is part of the dissemination phase of this approach, applied in a VET school.

Thanks again for your constructive comments and suggestions, we hope that those modifications respond and bring clarifications. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall an interesting, well written and researched sounded text. Among the attractive sides are the originality of the approach, novelty of focus and contribution to research. I did however missed a more crtical discussion, in the conclusions, concerning consequences of choice of method and theories. A short meta reflection on this will increase the level and soundness of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thanks for your comments and suggestions. According your recommendation, the consequences of choice of method have been underlined in its limitations in a dedicated paragraph. 

Also a paragraph of meta reflection on the bienvivance approach and its added value for economics of human development for a better life attempt in the conclusion part to increase the level and soundness of the text.

Hoping those modifications respond to your suggestion, best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for allowing me to review this manuscript. Due to professional writing, I enjoyed reading it. I have no particular comments except about figures. Perhaps, it is a problem with the submitted files but could find alternative ways to make them much clearer? I recommend this for Figure n. 2

A few minor issues, English is good

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, Thanks for your comment and that you enjoyed reading it. Regarding the figure 2, it has been enlarged for an easiest reading and in case of difficulties remaining, it refers to the Appendix 2.

Hoping that this modification respond to a better visibility, best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I do thank the authors for the beneficial amendments