While We Are Here: Resisting Hegemony and Fostering Inclusion through Rhizomatic Growth via Student–Faculty Pedagogical Partnership
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the document attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The paper could be of interest for the broader academic community. The subject is relevant and in line with the aim and scope of the journal’s special issue. But the general impression after reading is that of a very nice success story, without providing the expected critical analysis of the situation.
Response: We are glad that you think the paper is relevant and could be of interest. It was indeed a successful example, and that is why we offered it, but we have added more critical analysis in the revised discussion section.
The method section could be improved and the discussions and conclusions should be more consistent.
Response: We have revised both as detailed below.
The paper could have been more structured, allowing the reader to easily follow the key elements of the rhizomatic growth process, not only the two subjective sides of the story.
Response: We have added more subheadings to help clarify the organization.
Title:
- I personally do not see the meaning of the phrase “While We’re Here”. Could you please explain which was the reasoning behind this?
Response: Thank you for posing this question. If the meaning is unclear to you, it will be unclear to others. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction was intended to signal the meaning, but it was, perhaps, too telegraphic. We have added a new second paragraph that endeavors to make our meaning clear (lines 33-44).
Keywords:
- The keywords are well chosen. Maybe a keyword related to autoethnographic case studies would be relevant.
Response: We have added “autoethnography.”
- Introduction:
- The introduction is relevant to the topic and provides the necessary insights.
- I would suggest to introduce a short paragraph explaining the concept of rhizomatic growth (as found in the literature), with its main features, which maybe are further brought into question within the case study. Also, it would be appropriate to emphasize its importance for sustainability education.
Response: The third paragraph of our introduction had been intended to provide that explanation, but, like our first paragraph, may have been too telegraphic. We have revised that third (now fourth) paragraph to provide what we hope is a clearer explanation of the concept of rhizomatic development for human sustainability (lines 63-82).
- Context: XX Program as Providing Brave Space for Inclusion, Rhizomatic Growth, and Sustainability
- More details about the program would be of interest: which is the main scope of the program? Which are the criteria for joining the program? How is the selection done? Are the students who participate in this program trained at the beginning?
Response: We have added detail to address each of these questions (lines 99-110).
- The chapter could be more structured, maybe with subchapters or highlighted phrases.
Response: We have added subsections with headings.
- Line 178-180: “A ‘rhizomatic’ notion of development recognises that some of the most powerful ways of engaging in and understanding growth are nonlinear, non-hierarchical, multiple, and unknowable in advance.” – are there any references to sustain this affirmation?
Response: This set of qualities is moved to our original definition of rhizomatic in the fifth paragraph of the introduction after reference to Deleuze and Guatarri, who make this argument (lines 74-75).
- Methods
- This section does not provide enough details for the case study to be replicated. Some information about at least how the exposition of the story was performed are necessary: the authors 2 and 3 were told after their partnership ended to simply share their reflections or some key aspects were discussed before?
Response: In lines 231-244 we have explained that Author 3 and Author 2 documented, both in spoken exchanges and in written reflections, the ways in which this work affirmed and extended the inclusive pedagogical strategies Author 2 had already developed and the ways in which the partnership work made them both feel more included in the XX and XX College communities. In composing their case study, Authors 3 and 2 drew on the notes they kept throughout their partnership as well as engaged in retrospective analysis to trace the development of their partnership within the terms that rhizomatic development offers.
- Line 200: “this work affirmed and extended the inclusive pedagogical strategies Author 2 had already developed” – some examples would be useful to better understand the context and the process of becoming.
Response: We offer these details in the case study itself.
- Building Pedagogical partnership for Inclusivity
- The process of rhizomatic growth could be emphasized in an objective manner after each section presenting the Author 2’s and Author 3’s voices. The section lacks critical analysis / objective perspective. The personal experiences should be assessed in parallel, in an objective manner from the perspective of: rhizomatic growth, sustainability education, inclusion, resisting hegemony, ….
Response: In keeping with the method we used, that values subjectivity and first-person narrative, we are committed to keeping the narrative as it is. Since Reviewer 2 finds the narrative the most powerful part of the article, we do not want to disrupt it, and to do so would contradict our stated goal and method. To address your recommendation, we have reorganized the discussion to offer more critical analysis of how the partnership supported rhizomatic growth, inclusion, resistance to hegemony, and human sustainability.
- The challenges of the partnership and how these were overcome is not mentioned. I suggest to include some words about how the authors 2 and 3 coped with the uncertainties and contradictions, if any.
Response: Authors 3 and 2 do address challenges they encountered and describe how they overcame them, but we have amplified these in the discussion (e.g., lines 469-476; lines 497-521).
- The two authors (2 and 3) do not provide practical details about how their partnership took place – topics of discussion, meetings setup, etc. – these are elements needed to reproduce the case study in a similar way or to extrapolate it to other context.
Response: The goal of the case study is not that it be replicated but rather that it share two people’s experiences. That is the purpose of autoethnography. Other partnerships would have a different focus, and the partners would need to take their own particular approach. There are general guidelines about approaching partnership included in one of the references removed for review. We have signaled this in the text (lines 253-256).
- Line 250-252: “[…] of providing equal learning opportunities for my students. Author 3 patiently entertained my incessant questions regarding various aspects of the course and provided me with tangible teaching strategies to test and adopt in the classroom.” – it would be relevant to mention some examples.
Response: We have added examples (lines 293-297).
- I acknowledge and salute the positive effects this pedagogical partnership had on the two persons involved (Authors 2 and 3), but there are also other beneficiaries of it which are not mentioned (the students in the classroom of Author 2). It would have been relevant to find out to which extent this partnership improved the inclusion (and the sustainability) among the students in the classroom.
Response: Author 2 quotes students who were enrolled in his courses (lines 357-366), providing insight into the benefits they experienced. We have highlighted these in the discussion section (lines 522-527; lines 591-597).
- To facilitate the reading, I would recommend to include a summary of this success story with its key elements.
Response: We have addressed this recommendation in the revised discussion in which we address how Author 3’s and Author 2’s partnership supported rhizomatic growth as a perpetual process of becoming, inclusion, resistance to hegemony, and human sustainability (lines 456-600).
- Line 305-311: I appreciate the examples given in these lines.
- Line 292-293: I would encourage to present examples, maybe in a separate section for examples.
- Line 312-321: I would have liked to see more details about the questionnaire - results, analyzes, interpretations, etc.… - I understand that the focus of this paper is the relationship, but further material to support the efficiency / the positive effects of this partnership on the pedagogical process would have been valuable.
Response: Rather than summarize, we have revisited key points in the discussion (lines 456-600). As you note, the focus is on the partnership, and Author 2 does include some feedback from students, but space does not allow more.
- Resisting Hegemony and Fostering Inclusion through Rhizomatic Growth via Student-Faculty 409 Pedagogical Partnership
- This section should be extended.
Response: We have reorganized and expanded.
- Please include some comparisons with the results of other similar studies.
Response: There are no similar studies. We have noted where related work can be found.
- I suggest to present a section of lessons learned. What went good and wrong? What could be done better in the future? Which were the factors that favored this success story? Is there any generalization possibility? How can this case study be replicated to other situations?
Response: This kind of section would be appropriate to a different kinds of article, but not an autoethnography that aims to convey the lived experiences of these two people. We are not aiming for generalizability. We have tried to emphasize in the discussion section the key outcomes related to the themes of the article: supporting rhizomatic growth, inclusion, resistance to hegemony, and human sustainability. We have also keyed the recommendations to the experiences outlined in the case study.
- There are no remarks about the long term effects of this partnership – are there sustainable results?
- Which are the main conclusions and contributions of this paper?
- Which are the next research directions?
Response: There are a number of places where Author 2 and Author 3 comment on what they are carrying forward. We have reiterated thse in the new discussion section, and we have added suggestions for future directions for research.
- Recommendations for Developing Brave Spaces of Pedagogical Partnership for Inclusion and Rhizomatic Growth
- I appreciate the recommendations given, but they have no direct connection with the case study presented. Please mention the background which led to these points. And please include at least some recommendations based on the conclusions from this particular case study.
- Line 478: Do you have any recommendations for developing countries where there is no possibility of financial support?
- Line 469-470: “While it may not be possible at your institution to develop a pedagogical partnership program with as many options as the XX program offers” – I would recommend to reformulate this phrase. There are no detailed information about the options of the XX program.
- I would like to see some comments about the utility of this study.
- Line 486-488: This is self-citation. I would recommend to rephrase this paragraph in order to emphasize the arguments why this is needed. Please include a comparison with other relevant studies, to make clear why this citation is relevant.
Response: We have revised so that our recommendations link directly with the emphases of the case study and discussion. Thank you for pointing out the disconnect. We have also included in the recommendations suggestions for how to draw on existing resources.
References
- The References’ list cannot be checked entirely, as some of them were removed for review.
- Please check References 1, 2, 46 – they are identical
- References 30, 31, 32 are identical
- 22 and 42 are identical
- 9 and 35 are identical
Response: This repetition appears to be the way the journal wanted the references. We have replaced repetition with Ibid and op. cit. If the editors want a different format, we would be glad to revise further.
The English language and style are good!
I find the paper’s topic interesting and appropriate for the journal but in my opinion the paper needs to be improved.
Response: Thank you! We hope the revisions we have made improve the paper. We think they do, and we thank you for your detailed feeedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a powerfully and well-written and researched article that dynamically brings partnership and sustainability into an important conversation with one another. I feel that this article is absolutely a great fit for this particular publication and will contribute greatly to (and draw readers from) a range of fields.
Overall I feel that a strategic balance has been struck between relevant literature, contextual description, and personal narrative, however I suggest that the authors add at least one additional citation or example to their opening section situating institutions (in)efforts toward inclusivity.
I think that the narrative sections are the strongest and most compelling and that they represent each of the different authors equally. A sentence or two in the opening and/or methods section about why these particular authors chose to utilize narrative for this particular project would strengthen the article as well as provide important insight into the process and written product of your partnership (akin to the fantastic explanation of the bamboo metaphor on p. 8).
I appreciate the steps and suggestions that the authors conclude the article with. If possible, I think it would bolster that section as well as the overall article as a resource if a few more citations of recommended reading (especially related to students-as-partners literature) were included.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
This is a powerfully and well-written and researched article that dynamically brings partnership and sustainability into an important conversation with one another. I feel that this article is absolutely a great fit for this particular publication and will contribute greatly to (and draw readers from) a range of fields.
Response: Thank you for your enthusiasm and affirmation!
Overall I feel that a strategic balance has been struck between relevant literature, contextual description, and personal narrative, however I suggest that the authors add at least one additional citation or example to their opening section situating institutions (in)efforts toward inclusivity.
Response: We have added reference to several other institutions (lines 46-56).
I think that the narrative sections are the strongest and most compelling and that they represent each of the different authors equally. A sentence or two in the opening and/or methods section about why these particular authors chose to utilize narrative for this particular project would strengthen the article as well as provide important insight into the process and written product of your partnership (akin to the fantastic explanation of the bamboo metaphor on p. 8).
Response: We explain the method more thoroughly in the method section and have added a short paragraph at the end of that section to address your suggestion (lines 231-244).
I appreciate the steps and suggestions that the authors conclude the article with. If possible, I think it would bolster that section as well as the overall article as a resource if a few more citations of recommended reading (especially related to students-as-partners literature) were included.
Response: In response to Reviewer 1 and this feedback, we have revised to be more directly connected to the experiences of Authors 2 and 3 and to connect to other resources.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is very good and seem to be very interesting and usefull in wich concerns to academic teaching context.
We just sugggest to develop a little more this part:
Autoethnography draws on researchers’ lived experiences to “describe and 192 critique cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences” [39] (p. 1), and “collaborative 193 autoethnography” is an approach through which “a group of researchers [pools] their stories to 194 find some commonalities and differences” with the goal of discovering “the meanings of the stories 195 in relation to their sociocultural contexts” (p. 17). Such a research method is at once collaborative, 196 autobiographical, and ethnographic [40,41].
This as to do with the method, but how abou the technique and strategie? It is important to clarify more this methodology also wich concerns time and space of "observation".
Author Response
The article is very good and seem to be very interesting and usefull in wich concerns to academic teaching context.
We just sugggest to develop a little more this part:
Autoethnography draws on researchers’ lived experiences to “describe and 192 critique cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences” [39] (p. 1), and “collaborative 193 autoethnography” is an approach through which “a group of researchers [pools] their stories to 194 find some commonalities and differences” with the goal of discovering “the meanings of the stories 195 in relation to their sociocultural contexts” (p. 17). Such a research method is at once collaborative, 196 autobiographical, and ethnographic [40,41].
This as to do with the method, but how abou the technique and strategie? It is important to clarify more this methodology also wich concerns time and space of "observation".
Response: We have clarified how Author 2 and Author 3 engaged in the autoethnographic method (lines 231-244).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the efforts to approach and to reply to each comment!
Thank you for extending the discussion and analysis section and for clarifying the methodological aspects. I feel that the revised version of the paper (and the abstract) will be more attractive to readers from different fields, even encouraging them to foster similar partnerships. Including other examples of programs fostering student-faculty partnerships and similar experiences from the literature is beneficial. I understand the arguments provided for using the first-person narrative, thank you!
Overall, I consider this paper original and well-written!
