(Re)imagining Entangled Sustainability: A Human and Nonhuman Theorisation of Belonging to Safeguard Sustainability’s Holism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, the rationale of the study is never explicated. The authors never say that why we need to (re)think children’s be-longing, and what’s wrong with the current theories and approaches. Without a robust analysis, it is not enough to say that “we propose a rethinking of belonging from the fixed, arborescent, and stable understandings”.
After three readings, I still do get the main argument of the paper. The paper is more like a collection of disconnected concepts. And it is never explained or justified, why these concepts, what is the additional value they offer for understanding belonging, practised by children and teachers.
To whom these toolkits are addresses? For other researcher or educators?. My impression is that these toolkits are too fuzzy and complex for educators to adopt, to transform, and to put into practice. The authors maintain that “the theoretical toolkits presented below intend to provide conceptual tools to teachers that take the loop of exploration into account in their practice”. This promise is never delivered. What is done, is presented a collection of concepts, which are never really connected to actual daily practice to advance our knowledge about belonging.
The language the authors use is very complicated. I do understand that the aim is to ‘deconstruct’, but this should not be done at the expense of clarity. Sometimes the sentences do not have meaning or do not make any sense - concepts after concepts, and not used in very systematic or analytical way. See example below:
““It (rhizome) underlines the multiple and fragmented nature of belonging characterised by movement and becoming whilst allowing belonging to be thought of as going across the human and non-human, as material and non-material, as related to events in time, artefacts, places, sensations, and differences or similarities social experience” What doees this mean? How does this help teachers to understand children’s belonging? Please give some concrete pedagogical examples.
Explain what you mean by exploration and cultures of exploration. Especially, what kind of a new understanding they offer.
Authors write: “cultures of exploration as pedagogical promises… a way of understanding early childhood education, its complexity and its unavoidable contextuality, particularly in regard to local and micro nuances”. So what is the novelty aspect here? This is what authors of sociocultural theories (Vygotsky, Rogoff) have been arguing for decades.
Explain the relationship of the different concept: rhizome, perfomativity, illusio, and together-apart, diffracting/intra-acting. They are presented, but do not build any coherent whole to understand belonging. Explain more clearly, how these concept help us to understand exploration, and sustainability. Sustainability in mentioned in the paper only twice, so it is really difficult to understand how this paper advances our understanding of sustainability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are very thankful for constructive feedbacks that allowed us to improve the text significantly. The major revisions we have done respond holistically to all the suggestions that we've received. Below we pointed out the main aspects that has been changed:
1) we did a rethinking of this article's contribution: insted of looking at sense of belonging through a random collection of theoretical toolkits we chose the post-human ones at the ones that can extend understanding of sense of belongign in a way that involves the environmental and economic pillar, and thus safeguard the holism of sustainability;
2) we checked and extended our sources and references (what changed our way of thinking of this paper's contribution);
3) we precise that the paper is written for policy makers, academics and profesisonals. Our conclusion addresses each of this reader group. We illustrate our theoretical reflection with empirical examples, to make our reflectiom more clear and accessible for diverse readers;
4) we've worked on the paper so that it is not a collection of random theories trying to explain sense belonging (when ignoring the theories' histories and paradigms). This is why we took departure in the need of balancing the knowlege on social, economic and environmental sustainability within the discourse on education for sustaianable development, and by using post-humanism inspired theoretical toolkits, we try to describe and reflect on the concept of the sense of belonging (ascribed to the social pillar of sustainability) and show how such theorisation invites the expertise and interest of other pillars. We thereby show a way of balancing the amount of knowledge in different pillars not by producing relevantly more in each of it, but by searching for theoretical toolkits that would enable holistic and more interdiciplnary writings (as it is in sustainability's origins).
thank you again for the possibility of improving the manuscript.
Your sincerely,
Alicja Sadownik and Josephine Gabi
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper reporting on belonging in the early years. This is an interesting and engaging theoretical study. It is timely, as belonging in ECEC is gathering momentum in research, policy and practice. I found the manuscript interesting to read. However, in its current form, the manuscript is not quite ready for publication. The main reason being the need to liase the paper to the current discussion around belonging in the early years. That aspect requires revision and further strengthening, including foundational literature pertaining to belonging in ECEC. Some questions that might be helpful to consider are: how does your article contribute to the current state-of-the-art in the discussions around belonging in research, policy and practice? What is original about your article and how is it different from the rest of the literature in the early years? What aspects / dimensions / perspectives around belonging were invisible and how does your article shed light on them? Another important point to consider is whether and how the different tools from the toolkit are put into dialogue from different theoretical and epistemological stances.
All the best with your article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are very thankful for constructive feedbacks that allowed us to improve the text significantly. The major revisions we have done respond holistically to all the suggestions that we've received. Below we pointed out the main aspects that has been changed:
1) we did a rethinking of this article's contribution: insted of looking at sense of belonging through a random collection of theoretical toolkits we chose the post-human ones at the ones that can extend understanding of sense of belongign in a way that involves the environmental and economic pillar, and thus safeguard the holism of sustainability;
2) we checked and extended our sources and references (what changed our way of thinking of this paper's contribution);
3) we precise that the paper is written for policy makers, academics and profesisonals. Our conclusion addresses each of this reader group. We illustrate our theoretical reflection with empirical examples, to make our reflectiom more clear and accessible for diverse readers;
4) we've worked on the paper so that it is not a collection of random theories trying to explain sense belonging (when ignoring the theories' histories and paradigms). This is why we took departure in the need of balancing the knowlege on social, economic and environmental sustainability within the discourse on education for sustaianable development, and by using post-humanism inspired theoretical toolkits, we try to describe and reflect on the concept of the sense of belonging (ascribed to the social pillar of sustainability) and show how such theorisation invites the expertise and interest of other pillars. We thereby show a way of balancing the amount of knowledge in different pillars not by producing relevantly more in each of it, but by searching for theoretical toolkits that would enable holistic and more interdiciplnary writings (as it is in sustainability's origins).
thank you again for the possibility of improving the manuscript.
Your sincerely,
Alicja Sadownik and Josephine Gabi
Reviewer 3 Report
Article review: “Experimenting with theoretical toolkits to (re)think Children’s 2 Be-longing in Early Childhood and Care Settings”
Dear Authors,
I will give my review according to the required issues of the journal, but also in relation to this being a theoretical paper and not empirical. My very first comment is that the theme of your paper is interesting and relevant for the field of ECEC, but also that readers might be somewhat familiar to these theories from their past due to the depth of theorizing.
My expectations from the title was that I would now read some explicit connections between social sustainability and belonging, but to me this is not that clearly stated as I think you could have, as it stands now sustainability is in the background while belonging is focused. This could perhaps be strengthened if wanted.
Introduction
In your very first sentence you have a strong argument that is vital for your article, namely that social sustainability is becoming increasingly connected with ECEC. I had then expected a reference to be a prominent and well-known researcher in the field, but was surprised that you refer to your own, not yet published work. To me you need to strengthen this argument with more solid references because it is an important argument and forms the relevance for your study.
Otherwise the introduction gives a good picture of your intended focus.
The aim and research questions are not written in a clear and traditional way within empirical research based on practice. Even though this is a theoretical paper I think you could pose the aim and RQs more clearly and explicit. Now you present a kind of problem in the introduction but it would be easier for the reader to follow your text if you had some clearly defined questions you seek to examine in the theories. I think this is a matter of clarification only.
When it comes to the review question if methods are clearly described, I think that is not really the question here since you have not analyzed the theories according to a method e.g thematic analysis or discourse analysis. But you could give a description of how you will deal with the theories in a structured way.
From my point of view, what I could give you feedback on is the structure of your argumentation making it relevant and easy to follow in relation to the focus of your article.
As it stands now you have 9 parts where you describe and explore some theories relevant for “belonging” in ECEC. I follow your line of structure but still due to my comments regarding the RQs I think you could have framed the parts due to some vital problems you want to examine or even more clearly stated in line 44-49. I think it is here I miss one part explicitly examining the relation between social sustainability and belonging in ECEC, consider that in relation to the start of your article and also the title.
Your ambitions to initiate deeper reflection on the sense of belonging (line 393) is fulfilled since I find the theories presented to be comprehensive and also evoke some critical reflections.
The examples given from practice are familiar to those who have experienced them, and thus given the paper trustworthiness.
/ Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are very thankful for constructive feedbacks that allowed us to improve the text significantly. The major revisions we have done respond holistically to all the suggestions that we've received. Below we pointed out the main aspects that has been changed:
1) we did a rethinking of this article's contribution: insted of looking at sense of belonging through a random collection of theoretical toolkits we chose the post-human ones at the ones that can extend understanding of sense of belongign in a way that involves the environmental and economic pillar, and thus safeguard the holism of sustainability;
2) we checked and extended our sources and references (what changed our way of thinking of this paper's contribution);
3) we precise that the paper is written for policy makers, academics and profesisonals. Our conclusion addresses each of this reader group. We illustrate our theoretical reflection with empirical examples, to make our reflectiom more clear and accessible for diverse readers;
4) we've worked on the paper so that it is not a collection of random theories trying to explain sense belonging (when ignoring the theories' histories and paradigms). This is why we took departure in the need of balancing the knowlege on social, economic and environmental sustainability within the discourse on education for sustaianable development, and by using post-humanism inspired theoretical toolkits, we try to describe and reflect on the concept of the sense of belonging (ascribed to the social pillar of sustainability) and show how such theorisation invites the expertise and interest of other pillars. We thereby show a way of balancing the amount of knowledge in different pillars not by producing relevantly more in each of it, but by searching for theoretical toolkits that would enable holistic and more interdiciplnary writings (as it is in sustainability's origins).
thank you again for the possibility of improving the manuscript.
Your sincerely,
Alicja Sadownik and Josephine Gabi
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that the authors have done a good job whilst revising the manuscript.It is much more coherent, explicit, and flows in a logical manner. Practical examples make the complex concepts and their relationship more understandable, and easier to grasp. To my evaluation, the manuscript can be published.
