Cultivating the Future in Higher Education: Fostering Students’ Life-World Becoming with Wisdom Pedagogy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find my responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides a descriptive view of the higher education development. Even though, the there is no specific research problem included, the theoretical background proves high competence of the author to open the discussion with a wisdom pedagogy to be included in the higher education.

Author Response

Please find my responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article represents a valuable contribution to the theoretical advancement and conceptualization of the objectives and structure of HE. Clearly, the contribution is not configurable in terms of an empirical research, nor does it have the claim to do so. The authors rather wish to solicit and problematize a different vision of university teaching, overturning - better, taking beyond - its goals and its mission.

In doing so, they choose a logical and very solid argumentative structure that, starting from a glance at the past and the present, launches into future hypotheses, not at all abstract or vague. The greatest merit of the contribution, in fact, is precisely that of soliciting a revision of the HE by basing its thesis on well-argued and exhausted theories that, in line with their vision, range in different disciplinary sectors.

The theoretical richness, robust and diversified, the clarity of presentation, the narrative coherence and, lastly, the authors'awareness of the objective value and limits of the work, make this article worthy of publication.

It was a really enriching - yet challenging - reading

If I really had to give some advice, I would suggest to systematize tips and indications in the form of synopsis and/or diagrams capable of guiding the reader in grasping the operational implications in a more immediate way. Moreover, the narrative path from the past to the present could be combined with graphics that point out the salient passages and the connections identified by the authors.

Author Response

Please find my responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Discussion and conclusions can be improved

Author Response

Please find my responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors address an interesting idea within this paper. Some valuable points are made, though I feel there are some changes that could be made to improve the paper that would make it more citable and would widen the interest among an international community. Overall, the paper is well written, but I would ask the authors to consider the following:

1. The quote (lines 25-27) needs a source.

2. I suggest that figure 1 is removed. This figure does not advance the argument or support the reader.

3. I appreciate the author's focus on German philosophers, but this does rather restrict the perspective that develops. Where the authors consider ideas like 'life-word becoming', the discussion would be strengthened by reference to some of the French philosophers such as Gilles Deleuze.

4. The concept of 'the ecological university' needs to move beyond a repetition of Barnett's work (pp. 7-8). There are other authors that need to be discussed here to offer a more critical analysis of the idea. 

5. I have some concerns over Figures 2 and 3, and with the idea of ' emancipatory competence' in general. The figures need some further development on a number of counts. The orientation seems wrong to me: having 'Higher Education' at the top and 'knowledge' at the bottom implies some sort of hierarchy. I suggest rotating the figures through 90' so that the two key concepts appear on the same level. The linking arrows also need more explanation. Only the middle three arrows have labels - the upper and lower three arrows are left blank. You need to support the reader through these figures as they cover complex ideas and support the text. The focus on 'competencies' is problematic. Competency is quite low in the expertise hierarchy and so this need re-thinking or greater justification. If you consider the work of Leesa Wheelahan, then the idea of competency is quite hegemonic, and not at all emancipatory.  The usage here is highly problematic. 

6. I think the title should be revisited to better align to the focus of the paper and to better attract an international readership. 

I feel that points 4 and 5 above require some substantial development before the paper can be published.

Author Response

Please find my responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

The article is generally well written but I suggest to rethink such problems as

1. Bildung vs. Geisteswissenschaften problem in Higher Education. Bildung is a more general concept but for HE more important seems to be (in the context of the article) the Geisteswissenschaften concept and the necessity of joining research practice and teaching methods.

2. References are generally appropriate but for any kind of  interpretation of the academic teaching more important are: Weber, Jaspers, Habermas (see also the comments to the concept of Humboldtian university at the end of XX century)

3. Regarding the future I suggest to rethink the context of new technologies and key competences. In my opinion this 2 topics should be wider described.

4. Finally the article ignores the problem of the political sphere. We can't say anything about the future, if we are not able to find a cure for the ignorance of the crowds. It would be nice to stress/ underline the role of HE in the process of building wisdom intra and extra muros as well.

Author Response

Please find my responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

I am not convinced about the value of the quote (from the authors) [lines 25-28] unless there is some context to this. Such quotes are usually from noted philosophers or researchers. To quote yourselves in this way seems odd. Maybe explain how this quote informs your work - or delete it.

We can agree to disagree about Figure 1, but there are better ways of summarising the ambiguity of Bildung.

The authors are reluctant to extend the literature review - but they could better acknowledge its limited scope.

The over emphasis of Barnett's work remains. This is a weakness of the paper. It needs more balance here and a better engagement with the ecological ideas. It would be better to take the time to develop this properly rather than rush to publication.

Even without arrow heads, the orientation of the figure 2 is suggestive of a hierarchy. The links added are very superficial and it would be better to develop these into dynamic propositions to help the reader.

The title remains un-attractive. How will researchers land on this work, what would their likely searches be? 

The focus on 'competence' still jars.

I feel that most of the weaknesses highlighted in the initial review remain. 

The changes suggested are likely to increase the citation of this paper. But if the authors insist on retaining these elements in the current format, that is their choice. 

Author Response

Please find my responses to Review round 2 in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf