A Genealogy toward Methodic Doubts in Educational Leadership Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Upon a careful review of the article "A Genealogy Toward Methodic Doubts in Educational Leadership Research," it becomes evident that there are specific areas where the discussion on research methodology could benefit from further refinement and depth to align more closely with the stringent standards expected of academic scholarship. While innovative and engaging, the article's introspective and narrative-driven approach raises questions about the rigorous application and critical evaluation of research methodologies in educational leadership.

l Structured Review of Research Methodologies: Though insightful, The manuscript's reliance on autobiographical narratives could be complemented by a more structured review or meta-analysis of existing research methodologies. Such an endeavor would solidify the base for advocating methodic doubts and provide a more grounded critique of the methodological landscape within the field.

l Operationalization of "Methodic Doubts": The central tenet of methodic doubts is philosophically compelling; however, its practical application within educational leadership research requires more precise delineation. The manuscript would benefit from examples that operationalize this concept, showcasing its impact on research design, execution, and interpretation. This would offer readers a tangible pathway to incorporate methodic doubts into their methodological considerations.

l Interplay Between Theory and Method: While the manuscript aptly notes the significance of theory-method interactions, a deeper critical examination of how specific theoretical frameworks shape and are shaped by methodological choices is necessary. Highlighting examples where traditional methodologies might limit theoretical exploration, and vice versa, could enhance the argument for a reflexive methodological stance.

l Engagement with Methodological Debates: A more pronounced engagement with the ongoing qualitative versus quantitative debate would enrich the manuscript. By critically evaluating the merits and limitations of both approaches, supported by literature, the author can more convincingly argue for adopting methodic doubts to transcend traditional methodological dichotomies.

l Incorporation of Diverse Perspectives: The manuscript's narrative would be further strengthened by engaging with a broader spectrum of scholarly opinions and critiques. Addressing counterarguments and alternative methodological propositions demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the field and situates the discussion within a broader scholarly conversation.

In essence, while the manuscript "A Genealogy Toward Methodic Doubts in Educational Leadership Research" introduces an intriguing critique of conventional research methodologies, enhancing its structure with empirical evidence, theoretical analysis, and broader scholarly engagement is essential for meeting the rigorous standards of academic scholarship. These modifications would elevate the manuscript's contribution to the field and encourage a more nuanced dialogue around methodological innovation in educational leadership research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

I am indebted to you in that (1) you did not allow my critique of current practices, specifically of peer reviewers, dissuade you from making pertinent remarks on how the manuscript needed to be revised, and (2) for pushing me to contextualize, operationalize, and historicise "methodic doubts" inside educational leadership research.

The revised manuscript highlights all the substantive revisions which includes a new Section 5 on the origins of educational leadership research going back to the survey era of urban research for school districts. I cannot escape from the US-centricity of this manuscript, but I hopefully made it more understandable to international readers.

You pushed me to operationalize methodic doubts even as I refuse to give canned answers to what our journals might include. In other words, for me, methodic doubts is a professional responsibility and duty of educational leadership researchers. It is not a matter of being satisfied with current academic publishing. 

My signposts in the genealogy are neither subtle nor prescriptive: as a participant observer in each of these twists and turns, it seems to me that the hegemony of traditions in academic scholarly first need to be pointed out before we can expect the field to engage in counterarguments on alternative ideas. We are so invested in being "successful" at publishing that I am at a loss for how to incentivize methodic doubts practically.

Lastly, I have cleaned up citations as you indicated.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a highly original and reflective piece of work that traces the author's journey as a researcher of educational leadership where he/she raises methodic doubts about the field and how it has taken too many turns away from pursuits of the truth.  The author refers to the negative impact of key US based education movements including school reform, leadership standards, and turnaround schools on educational research, and points to educational leadership researchers, except for a handful of scholars, who have been subsumed by an education research agenda set by policy makers. The article is very "US centric" which is understandable, but the author would benefit by making the point that the movements referred to (eg standards, school reform, etc) affected education systems in many countries throughout the world not just the USA.

I like the paper and important point it is making. It is both provocative and interesting. While it is written well for the most part, it would benefit by tighter editing. I suggest a more focused abstract (i.e., the last sentence is vague);  closer editing throughout (Who is Angel, line 29?; seems to be a verb missing from lines 353-355); and more attention to referencing (i.e., using the correct referencing style and Foucault is mentioned in line 29 but is missing from the reference list).

Author Response

I am very appreciative of your critical remarks in terms of helping see how we detoured from the pursuits of truth. As you will see by my highlighted sections, I addressed all of you comments. Being schooled in APA formatting presented a bit of a challenge with references, but I managed, I think. And while I cannot escape from the US-centricity of the manuscript, I hopefully presented a fuller picture of the context and history that have created what I as seeing as an intractable problem in academic scholarship in educational leadership.

My edits throughout were meant to both tighten and ease the flow of ideas so that international readers can see what we (all?) are up against.

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The viewpoints in the abstract should not be prominent, and the use of I should be minimized as much as possible;

2. Genealogy is best presented with a diagram.

Not suitable for authors to write papers in the first person (I).

Author Response

You will note that except for your call for a Figure to represent the genealogy - which I agree with - I made all the other changes to some extent. I say to some extent because as a personal journey, I had to keep the first person pronoun. That said, I minimized its use.

You indicated needed changes in the abstract and in contextualizing methodic doubts. I added an historical Section (5) to the manuscript so that readers - both US and international - can recalled how the field of educational leadership emerged and how notions of science, efficiency, and hierarchy (status of researchers) all emerged, at least in the US in the early 20th Century.

Where you and I still are distanced is that this critical essay where I position myself as a participant-observer, is not a traditional manuscript with a research design or research questions. I jump over these and around these traditional subheadings as I try to reconnect leadership theories to descriptive, creative, and synthetic methods - which I argue is the responsibility of individual researchers study by study. While my call is to restructure educational leadership research, I do not have a fully developed picture of what these alternative theory-method interactions might be.

Again, thank you for pushing me to revise.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After careful evaluation, I am pleased to note that the authors have followed the previous recommendations and enriched the articles to bring them more in line with the standards of academic publishing. These improvements have not only deepened the research but also enhanced the academic value of the papers, demonstrating the authors' strength and insight in their respective fields. In addition, the authors are open to criticisms and suggestions, and have made timely adjustments to the direction and content of their research, which has greatly improved the overall quality of their papers. All these aspects are conducive to fostering extensive discussion and participation in the academic community, thereby promoting academic development and innovation in the field. I consider this article valuable and worthy of publication.