Open reviewing process
Living Research: How do I realise my capacity to create knowledge as I live towards my professional values in my practice? Caitriona McDonagh and Bernie Sullivan
Paper submitted for review
Dear Caitriona and Bernie
I did enjoy reading this paper (track changed version attached). It is a most interesting account of work you have both done together, and is well supported with video evidence of its effects on folk you've worked with.
You need to ensure (a) that the 'voice' (I, we, you) is consistent throughout the paper, and that your values are clear. There are a couple of places where values are stated without being further elaborated, and one or two where it's hard to tell whether it's Caitriona's values or Bernie's, or a jointly-held value. I had the same peer feedback on my own submitted paper last year, and found it valuable. We can think we have made things crystal clear until somebody else reads it!
The paper was well structured and referenced, and I do think it will not take a lot of extra work to get it to publishable level. You will, of course, look forward to what your other two reviewers have to say.
Thank you for your swift response to our paper. You have made some useful and insightful comments on our draft, especially around our use of voice and the lack of clarity that occurs in relation to this at times. We will take your advice into consideration in our next draft.
Caitriona and Bernie.
In light of the comments from one reviewer on our first draft, we felt that those reviewing our paper, might find it easier if we addressed those points. So we are attaching an amended draft.
Hope this is helpful,
Bernie and Caitriona
Sorry I have been away arranging my mother's funeral and estate.
I enjoyed reading the draft and the topic under discussion, and found it worth-while. Most I have no issue with, but I did get bogged down/bugged by the question What is meant by knowledge in this context. I didn't get a clear view of what knowledge is being claimed. I have written these thoughts in the attached which I hope is helpful. Stephen
Catriona and Bernie
I enjoyed reading the latest draft. I notice that your statements about knowledge is more measured and cautious now. Knowledge can be an ambiguous word. You mention “objective knowledge” and “tacit knowledge”. The problem is that there is impreciseness in the literature. “Tacit knowledge” is really “tacit assumption” – that which we think we know before reflecting on it and discussing it. Knowledge may stand for “opinion”. “Objective knowledge” is probably evidence-based, but there is in general inadequate discussion of what constitutes knowledge. How subjective knowledge fits in is up for grabs. I know what I know on the basis of thought and reflection. Persuading others, who may not have reflected similarly, or may have reflected differently, can be challenging. All knowledge is challengable, that is the nature of science. If your Living Theory challenges accepted opinion, I am all for it. And it will itself be challenged by others. This is the nature of knowledge. I hope you will continue to reflect on these aspects of the nature of knowledge in future publications.
The paper meets all the criteria for publication and I am recommending the EJOLTs Editorial Board accept for publication as it stands (given the authors give it a final check through for grammar, references etc)
Hello Caitriona and Bernie,
I really enjoyed reading your article and have added some tracked comments for you to consider on the attachment below. Your research ties in so closely with my own and is an area I am particularly interested in.
The article reads well and reflects your shared research, as well as wider current research. I particularly found the supporting video clips useful and they are well placed within the article. I found the changes in terms between Living Theory and action research a little confusing, but please see the comments I have attached.
I hope the comments are helpful and look forward to seeing the finished article published.
Thanks for your insightful comments on our paper.
They gave us much food for through and helped clarify our thinking around values and knowledge creation.
We have redrafted the paper and hope we have addressed all your concerns.
Caitriona and Bernie
Dear Catriona and Bernie,
I have really enjoyed seeing the development and evolution of your joint article, particularly as I mentioned, it links so closely with my own research and is an area I am passionate about. I do hope there will be further articles about the groups you are working with, from your perspective and theirs as researchers.
Your writing is very engaging, creating a sense of flow for the reader. I also love the video clips, which give authenticity and deeper meaning than words alone.
The paper meets all the criteria for publication and I am recommending the EJOLTs Editorial Board accept for publication as it stands.
With best wishes,
I have now read this latest iteration and concur with Stephen and Joy that it is a good account that has taken into consideration reviewer feedback. I, too, recommend to the Editorial Board that it be accepted for publication.