Cultivating Community through Language Learning in a Benedictine Seminary Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article focuses on a topic that needs much more attention on the part of formators in Catholic seminaries. However, the article is clunky in its structure. At the time of presenting data, it does it in an unconvincing, unscientific way. The first section, which aims at providing a theoretical framework is largely disconnected, and at points dissonant, from the second part. The article would need major revision before being considered for publication as an academic piece. A few more specific observations:

 

Line 9: “in collaboration with a sister the Benedictine Monastery in Cuernavaca, Mexico” – Unclear sentence, “with a sister the Benedictine Monastery”?

 

Line 25: “(LS158)” – Space missing

 

Line 27: “Hoffman” – Author’s name misspelled: Hosffman

 

Line 38: “Raverty OSB” – Cite full name since this is the first time referenced. Also, place a comma after before the religious order reference.

 

Line 44: “At Saint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology, Benedictine hospitality is 44 practiced across the curriculum, creating an ideal site for active collaboration.” – This is a very broad statement. Share a few examples of how this happens.

 

Lines 56-58: “Durkheims’ insights on social solidarity are key to understanding how learners 56 acquire the values imbued in monastic communities and develop the cultural competence 57 and sensitivity to serve in diverse congregations.” – What are those insights?

 

Line 67: “years” – word should be in singular

 

Lines 72-73: This subtitle is misleading. It does not offer an in-depth analysis of Durkheim’s work. Also, its focus is not on the Benedictine network but of some principles of Benedictine life vis-à-vis hospitality.

 

Lines 107-116: - This section goes in circles about the concept of “mechanical solidarity,” yet it never defines it or provide any examples. Revise.

 

Line 119: “bonding through mechanical” – Unclear

 

Lines 122-129: This is all interesting but the fact that an author makes a comment about Benedictine life does not prove that such is a fact. This paper, as an academic exercise, needs to offer more evidence of activities, policies, and practices that illustrate the points highlighted. Also, much of the argument is being done in the abstract without reference to specific places.

 

Line 135: “seminarians.” – unnecessary period

 

Line 141: “Leanirng” – Typo

 

Line 148: “As the Vatican’s document on Dialogue and Proclamation (1991) states…” – Dialogue and Proclamation is a document on interreligious dialogue. The use of the quote is rather arbitrary, especially since the previous sentence is talking about dialogue with the poor vulnerable other. This section needs better citation. Also, the preposition “on” is not needed.

 

Line 160: “Limiality” – Typo

 

Line 223: “as Perrone notes” – Cite full name since it is the first time referencing the author

 

Lines 231-233: “One way to awaken students’ desire to serve the disadvantaged is to create encounters with an Other as part of the language experience.” – This language, which appears repeatedly throughout the paper is condescending. There seems to be an assumption that anyone who speaks a language that is not English, or someone who is an immigrant, is poor, needy, vulnerable. I strongly suggest addressing this condescending perspective and adjust the language.

 

Line 251: “within the Catholic Benedictine immerses” – A word seems to be missing.

 

Lines 265-267: These words are repetitive.

 

Line 273: “Hour” – Typo, “s” missing

 

Line 274: “Latino(a) teachers” – The term “Latino(a)” is being misused. Latino or Hispanic is used within the United States. Since the program is happening in Mexico, it is more accurate to say “Latin American” or “Spanish-speaking.” Revise the use of this term throughout the essay.

 

Line 291: “assess,” – Typo, it should be “assesses;” no comma.

 

Line 320: “Studies” – How many studies?

 

Line 330-332: “it shows that stu-330 dents in this study developed a deeper interest in cultivating and serving diverse communities as a result of their participation in the program” – Please say more about this. So far, no scientific evidence, qualitative or quantitative, has been shown to demonstrate this.

 

Lines 333-336: “The Spanish table at Saint Meinrad Seminary are liminal/liminoid weekly encounters where non-Latino seminarians meet for lunch and Spanish conversation with their fellow seminarians (Latino and non-Latino), instructors, and guests.” – The first part of the paper focused on Benedictine communities fostering hospitality toward the other, especially diverse communities. Yet, this analysis focuses on how seminarians engage in liminal/liminoid encounters among themselves. There seems to be a major disconnection here. Lines 339-341 say, “Unfortunately, students’ participation in diverse communities outside of the Catholic Benedictine network are not included in this study,” which could have been the best opportunity to redeem the analysis.

 

Lines 348-350: “More important, as it has been argued throughout this study, the liminal/liminoid encounters at the summer immersion reinforce the Benedictine value of hospitality in students’ self-representations, which in turn, shapes ways of 350 being in the world.” – This is an overstatement. The data and the analysis presented in this paper do not convincingly support this claim.

 

General notes:

 

The author repeats the expression “in this study” incessantly, yet at the time of getting to the actual study data all one finds is a report of a few lines from interviews and some general qualitative observations. The sample is too small. There is no reference to Institutional Review Board vetting. In fairness to the rigor of academic publishing and to the topic being addressed, this article should be rewritten instead as a reflection on an experience. One section that has potential is that on Benedictine hospitality. The use of Durkheim lefts any reader wanting. The use of quotes from authors and church documents is disorganized and non-systematic.

 

The author introduces “the study” over and over again, which points to the disjointed nature of the article. Introduce it once, and focus on it.

 

The author speaks regularly of “the Catholic Benedictine network,” yet most of the references are to two monasteries, one in the United States and one in Mexico. Revise.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you. I truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated into providing me with your valuable feedback. I carefully reviewed and edited my manuscript in accordance with your comments and suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the author/s for this paper, which presents the reader with a case study of a Benedictine approach to intercultural community-building through a bespoke second language acquisition programme. It describes the importance of community with the Benedictine tradition, and then set out the linguistic competences and development of participants on this programme. It is generally well clear and written. The juxtaposition of monastic ecclesiology with 2L acquisition is innovative. 

However, there are some elisions and lacunae in the argument at present.  

First, there is a major ambiguity about the unit of analysis. Is this a case study of one programme, or is a simply the data from the 12 participants? It is unclear what the case is here, and/or how it is being researched.

Second, this is not helped by the lack of a clear research aim or sub-questions. The use of the language test is presented as a solution but its is not clear what to, nor how this will tell us about the case. It shows the results of the approach, but not the approach itself, which is simply summarised in bullet points.

Third, Durkheim is useful, but more recent work on solidarity and language would be more focused.

Fourth, there is no discussion of research ethics. Have the participants agreed to this? Have AERA or equivalent codes been applied.

Last, the referencing is not APA. This requires the names and dates in the text. There needs to be consistency on the use of initials or first name, and capitals, in the reference list. There are some typos or grammatical errors throughout.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you. I truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated into providing me with your valuable feedback. I carefully reviewed and edited my manuscript in accordance with your comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Again, I would like to thank you for your valuable comments and the effort you put in revising my work. I have improved my manuscript as suggested, with special attention to the conclusion. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx