Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the opportunity to review this paper as the author covers a very important topic. The author explores storying learning as transformative praxis with the example of urban water in Cape Town. I believe that the paper talks about a very important issue in an interesting country setting, and some parts are very clear, while some aspects need revision.

The link of critical theory and transformative learning is´convincing. Yet, the concept of t-learning needs to be more literature based, and the idea of t-learning as a process and structural issues need to be unpacked. The authors do not sufficiently touch upon structural aspects (linking to the high school context – curricula requirements etc. – how can t-learning be integrated in schooling?) and do not talk about transformation and what that means specifically. I feel the concept as transformative is taken as an umbrella term, and more in-depth literature could help (e.g. Leder 2018 on transformative pedagogic practice). African educational studies on transformative/environmental learning approaches should also be built on.

Empirical data should be supplemented with more data and observations, and examples of the 12 workshops. The two learning moments are insightful, but read a bit lengthy. I think they can be a bit shortened, and maybe a third insightful encounter could be added. Maybe some tables, figures, pictures as materials which could be added on the specific research?

The abstract needs more clarity in both language and empirical material – workshops with whom, where? T-learning needs to be explained as concept.

Language- revise long sentences into shorter ones. E.g. first and last sentence of the introductory paragraph. There are several grammar mistakes in the paper which need revision.

Positionality needs to come much earlier in the paper.  Well described on p.5, but short summary needs to come already in introduction.

I hope these suggestions will help to rethink the structure and approach of the paper a bit, narrowing it down to a few clear key messages, which are really needed in an underexplored area of research – transformative learning and water. Therefore, I see the potential of this paper to address a key research area!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you kindly for the effort and time you put into reviewing my paper. Please find my responses below.

Warm regards,

Anna James

Reviewer 1

Point 1: I appreciate the opportunity to review this paper as the author covers a very important topic. The author explores storying learning as transformative praxis with the example of urban water in Cape Town. I believe that the paper talks about a very important issue in an interesting country setting, and some parts are very clear, while some aspects need revision.

Point 2: The link of critical theory and transformative learning is´convincing. Yet, the concept of t-learning needs to be more literature based, and the idea of t-learning as a process and structural issues need to be unpacked. The authors do not sufficiently touch upon structural aspects (linking to the high school context – curricula requirements etc. – how can t-learning be integrated in schooling?) and do not talk about transformation and what that means specifically. I feel the concept as transformative is taken as an umbrella term, and more in-depth literature could help (e.g. Leder 2018 on transformative pedagogic practice). African educational studies on transformative/environmental learning approaches should also be built on. 

Response 2: I have drastically altered the section which establishes connections with the existing literature in order to focus in on transformative learning. I have shifted the section from a problematisation of critical theory to a deliberate engagement with theory on transformative learning rooted in the educational praxis of Paulo Freire. I have re-written this section drawing from the literature on transformative learning relating to the engagement with context, the treatment of experience and intersubjectivity. These entry points each take account of critiques within the field of literature as well as providing ways of thinking about learning with transformative goals. These are threaded into my discussion section. This presents a platform from which to contribute to the dialogue of T-learning as I believe this issue is doing.

Point 3: Empirical data should be supplemented with more data and observations, and examples of the 12 workshops. The two learning moments are insightful, but read a bit lengthy. I think they can be a bit shortened, and maybe a third insightful encounter could be added. Maybe some tables, figures, pictures as materials which could be added on the specific research?

Response to point 3:

In the methodology section I have included a table that traces the process of inquiry over all 12 workshops.

I have included an preliminary results section that traces the processes and outcomes of the initial inquiry phases which focused on forging a relationship and setting pedagogical goals together with the learners; tracing concerns about urban water as they exist over multiple landscapes the learners occupy: school, community, media. These phases are key to setting the direction of the inquiry and I believe give more of an idea about how the data was generated collectively. This section includes pictures and sketches from the processes.

I have shortened the two learning moments and clarified the purpose of thickly describing these these learning moments: they acts a kind of deepening of analysis as we went through the inquiry. This analysis is discussed in relation to the transformative learning theory in the section above.

Point 4: The abstract needs more clarity in both language and empirical material – workshops with whom, where? T-learning needs to be explained as concept.

Response: I have re-writtem according to what you have suggested.

Point 5: Language- revise long sentences into shorter ones. E.g. first and last sentence of the introductory paragraph. There are several grammar mistakes in the paper which need revision.

Response: I had this read by an experienced editor.

Point 6: Positionality needs to come much earlier in the paper.  Well described on p.5, but short summary needs to come already in introduction.

Response 6: I have included positionality paragraph in the introduction.

Point 7: I hope these suggestions will help to rethink the structure and approach of the paper a bit, narrowing it down to a few clear key messages, which are really needed in an underexplored area of research – transformative learning and water. Therefore, I see the potential of this paper to address a key research area!

Thank you for the comments they have helped me to develop as an early researcher. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Please have this paper reviewed for grammar and word choice. There are several instances where incorrect words were used. Pay special attention to the first few pages as you can lose your reader quickly with these grammar and word choice mistakes.

You mention T-learning (are you meaning T-shaped learning?) twice in your abstract and only once in the body of the paper. I recommend adding more information about T-learning in your paper or removing the term from your abstract.

Be sure to stay true to your title "Making (non)sense of urban water flows: qualities and processes for storying learning as transformative praxis." The manuscript, as it is now, only uses the term (non)sense once in the body of the paper. Drop the term from the title or use it as a continuous theme in your work. 

Since it is a central theme of your paper as indicated in your title and abstract, discuss the importance of story telling by adding theoretical contextualization. Consider drawing from the eco-theologian Thomas Berry's argument that humans "need a new story." Consider drawing from Maxine Greene's ideas of aesthetic education as they relate to narratives in education. 

Add a chart that outlines the different steps of your workshop related to the local water crisis. This graphic will provide necessary visual contextualization for your reader.  Perhaps you can create a chart pertaining to the "relationship building, sharing knowledge, posing questions, engaging information, presenting answers and back to relationship and back to questioning" (lines 204-206). Also, describe how you select the workshop participants in your methodology section.

Be sure to clarify what aspects of urban water you are discussing. Is it drinking water, storm water, wastewater or grey water? Elaborate on this, if it is all types of urban water be sure and state that. 

Give more background about arts-based participatory inquiry. Add citations about this methodology. How did you map out your existing knowledge of the path of water from source to sewage? Do you have photographs of this process and of the maps? What recommendations do you have for others who attempt this approach?

What is institutional ethnography (found on line 207)? Define this form of inquiry for your reader and provide more references. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you kindly for the effort and time you put into reviewing my paper. Please find my responses below.

Warm regards,

Anna James

Point 1: Please have this paper reviewed for grammar and word choice. There are several instances where incorrect words were used. Pay special attention to the first few pages as you can lose your reader quickly with these grammar and word choice mistakes.

Response 1: I had my manuscript read by someone else for readability.

Point 2: You mention T-learning (are you meaning T-shaped learning?) twice in your abstract and only once in the body of the paper. I recommend adding more information about T-learning in your paper or removing the term from your abstract.

Response 2: As this special issue is focused on T-learning which has been described as an emerging concept in the field of sustainability, I try to expand and further the dialogue but bringing T-learning into conversation with the Transformative learning theory. As Lotz-sisitka points out, sustainability concerns are only just coming into conversation with theories of learning that might support processes of change.

I have revised my theory section significantly to speak much more directly to the tools I am using to think about transformative learning. This is then a platform from which to contribute to the dialogue of T-learning.

Point 3: Be sure to stay true to your title "Making (non)sense of urban water flows: qualities and processes for storying learning as transformative praxis." The manuscript, as it is now, only uses the term (non)sense once in the body of the paper. Drop the term from the title or use it as a continuous theme in your work. 

I have emphasised the term (non)sense as a play on words that is informed by the theory of transformative learning. I carry it through the sections emphasising the praxis that supports it. In my conclusion I add a concern for taking (non)sense as a suggestion for serious and necessary transformative praxis so as not to come across as promoting (non)sense for its own sake.

Point 4: Since it is a central theme of your paper as indicated in your title and abstract, discuss the importance of story telling by adding theoretical contextualization. Consider drawing from the eco-theologian Thomas Berry's argument that humans "need a new story." Consider drawing from Maxine Greene's ideas of aesthetic education as they relate to narratives in education. 

Response: I appreciate this comment and have decided to remove storying from the title. It is engaged with in the discussion of arts-based modes, however I feel it’s role is not central to this paper.

Point 5: Add a chart that outlines the different steps of your workshop related to the local water crisis. This graphic will provide necessary visual contextualization for your reader.  Perhaps you can create a chart pertaining to the "relationship building, sharing knowledge, posing questions, engaging information, presenting answers and back to relationship and back to questioning" (lines 204-206). Also, describe how you select the workshop participants in your methodology section.

Response 5:

1.     I have added a table that traces how the different inquiry processes occurred over the 12 workshops.

2.     I have explained the selection of participants as limited by youth environmental organisation but the participants were invited. In this research design, the selection of participants is not as important as their willingness ot participtted:

a.     “The selection of participants was limited to learners involved in existing youth environmental organisations. As this research aims to explore learning praxis in practice the ‘selection’ was done via invitation to learners within organisations who were interested to join me in this project.”

3.     In addition to the table tracing the processes across our inquiry I have included an initial results section that describes the processes of relationship building and generating matters of concern.

Point 6: Be sure to clarify what aspects of urban water you are discussing. Is it drinking water, storm water, wastewater or grey water? Elaborate on this, if it is all types of urban water be sure and state that. 

Response 6: In the methodology section, I have clarified that these inquiries were not limited to a particular element of urban water. They were instead an attempt to grapple with the complexity of the urban water system and how to understand the crisis thereof… As such the particular aspects were not as important as the relationships between the elements of urban water that make up the whole and how it shapes the experiences of young urban South Africans. It is from the lived experience that this inquiry aimed to launch:

“The generative theme of urban water was decided on in conversation with the organization and the learners. As expanded upon in the section on water as a generative theme, the term urban water refers to a complex system of city ecology, it is not just the technical infrastructure but the assemblage of governance, social, economic, built environment, city ecologies. These inquries were instead an attempt to grapple with the complexity of the urban water system and how to understand the crisis thereof… As such the particular elements were not as important as the relationships between the elements of urban water that make up it’s operations and it’s effects on young urban South Africans. It is from the lived experience that these inquries aimed to launch.”

Point 7: Give more background about arts-based participatory inquiry. Add citations about this methodology. How did you map out your existing knowledge of the path of water from source to sewage? Do you have photographs of this process and of the maps? What recommendations do you have for others who attempt this approach?

Response: I have elaborated upon arts-based inquiry, how it has emerged as a method for socially engaged research. I also consider its form in the context of applied theatre and point out how in the context of Africa, the concern for interventionist theatre to be merged together with a critical analysis of the world.  I discuss the value of arts-based pedagogical sensibilities in looking critically and reflectively at any educational interactions. I include a reflection in the conclusion that it should not be considered an instrumental or automatic route to transformative learning. Instead it should be brought the curiosities and inquiry that the participants engage with. This is supported by a discussion of Norris’ wheel of tension in arts-based inquiry between pedagogy, politics, public dissemination and poesies

Point 8: What is institutional ethnography (found on line 207)? Define this form of inquiry for your reader and provide more references. 

Through addressing the comments provided by both reviewers, I have decided that the mention of institutional ethnography is not central to the focus of this paper. It therefore does not feature in this paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Author addressed my primary concerns. After some minor editing it should be ready for pbulication.

Author Response

Dear Stefan, 

Thank you for the second round of comments. I have worked on the internal coherence ensuring that there is a flow, connection and new distinct levels of abstraction. This culminates in the paper's objective to animate making (non)sense by weaving together the theoretical entry points and the discussion of the empirical analysis. This has resulted in some reduction of the text in some of the sections. My abstract is now also within the word count stipulated by the journal. 

Kind regards, 

Anna