SDG4 and the Ambiguity of Sustainable Development: The Case of Poor Schools in South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A well-written and researched paper. It would have been stronger with more engagement or dialogue with literature or voices from the poor schools, or scholarship from marginalized communities. While critical social theory is appealing, critiques of South African inequity also have deep roots in South African voices, including Biko and Joel Slovo/ Ruth First, among others. The methodology section does not adequately identify the subtype of the design. While the article mentions that this is a qualitative paper, it would benefit the reader if the subtype of design was mentioned.For example, case study/ phenomenology/ narrative inquiry/ grounded theory are all types of qualitative methodologies, but it is not clear which one is being used in this article.

Author Response

Dear Colleague

Thank you for your very useful critique. The issues you raised have now been addressed. See document with track changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

It is a pleasure to review your manuscript. Please follow my comments to improve it.

1. There are some unnecessary spaces across the whole document. Fix them.
2. Before methodology please present each section.
3. It must be detailed the Critical Social Theory concept and implications.
4. It must be described the software and analysis technique used.
5. It must include the discussion.
6, It must include the conclusion.
7. The reference must follow the MDPI references style.

Author Response

Dear Colleague

Thank you for your very useful suggestions. These have been duly addressed (see track changes).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction is oversized, it needs to be restructured.

There is no separate subsection for letrical review.

 

The research methodology is too short. The qualitative research must focus on understanding the research topic, research hypotheses and research questions. Research questions are not formulated.

The validity criteria of the qualitative research are not presented, respectively:

a) Why is a qualitative analysis considered appropriate?

b) Presentation of the researcher's perspective;

c) Were any „objectification” techniques applied;

d) Application of quality control procedures;

e) Credibility of the results.

A distinct sub-chapter is necessary in which the conclusions, research limits and future research directions are presented.

The bibliography is not in accordance with mdpi standards.

Author Response

Dear Colleague

Thank you for your useful suggestions, which have now been duly addressed. (see track changes)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is ready to be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much, please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work was improved according to the requests, which contributes to increasing the scientific relevance of the study.

Author Response

Thank you very much, please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf