Open reviewing process
Our Understanding of Mutuality When Reflecting on our Values and Experience of Caring. Dyke, A. and Hutchison, S.
Dear Sonia and Amy - I have enjoyed very much reading your paper on
Our Understanding of Mutuality When Reflecting on our Values and Experience of Caring.
I also think that Brian makes a very good point about the importance of mutuality in the title, but the present lack of focus in the Abstract on mutuality, is an issue you could address. I know that your focus on mutuality emerged as you produced the paper together but I'm wondering if you might continue your conversation together on your paper, without the pressure of meeting a June publication deadline? It seems to me that you could focus some attention in your paper, as Brian is suggesting on the importance of mutuality in your understanding of your values and experience of caring and that your paper could then be ready for publication in the December Issue - it could be published on the EJOLTS site as soon as it is ready. The reason that I am suggesting working on the paper to communicate the meaning and importance of mutuality as an explanatory principles and living standard of judgment is that it could help with your writing Sonia on your Ph.D. thesis on a living-theory of caring and help Amy to appreciate that in your experience of mutuality, Amy is assisting Sonia in developing and clarifying meanings of mutuality in a living-theory of caring.
I have attached some quotes from Martin Buber on mutuality in the relation in education which you might find helpful in clarifying your own meanings.
Sorry for the long silence, Amy and I have had lots going on. I am pleased to say Amy has graduated and has her first job and moved to her first post university home and I have handed in a first draft of my PhD.
We have responded to the reviewers commets and have added some comments which are highlighted in yellow in our response. We worked hard at this, as we found it hard to see that there needed to be changes, but we hope we have met the reviewers critique and hope we will now be ready for publication in the December issue of Ejolts.
Dear Amy and Sonia
Well done on this iteration, which I am happy to recommend for publication with minor tweaks (the pedant comes out again!) I attach the track changed version. It's all little stuff and query re how you acknowledge reviewer input, not any substantive issue.
I think it's a lovely paper; your processes are very transparent and totally in accord with your claim to mutuality. I had to copy the URLs into a separate window to access the video clips but I'm not that techie so it may be just me.
Obviously you need to wait for Brian's and Sadrudddin's comments as well but I do look forward to seeing this in print.
p.s., I told you I'm not techie! Just got this error message, which I have never seen before, while trying to upload the file. A PHP extension stopped the file upload. I will now try emailing it directly to you, Sonia, as you've communicated with me by email in the past. Wish me luck!
(Edited by Marie Huxtable - original submission Thursday, 26 October 2017, 10:25 PM)
Hi Amy and Sonia,
Thank you both for this new iteration of your paper on mutuality – it has given me much to think about and to respect, and has challenged me as a learner-reviewer of EJOLT. I think your paper has taught me about a power of mutuality. I feel that the validation you have gained through the Skype Research Group has been working well in the background, and possibly there is scope to include more on this process.
Your paper has given me ideas about how I could work with others in the future and I am very grateful, and understand that:-
‘By writing with Amy and being committed to us having an equal voice in the paper, I have seen how we have been able to develop a process that has enabled us to have our own unique ‘I’ voice, whilst also having a process that enables a truly mutual ‘we’ voice, to be heard’. Page 6
In my last post to you I wrote ‘I am still unclear about the value-based explanation for your educational influence around mutuality’ but now I am starting to believe that I am a witness to your living educational theory of mutuality being strongly supported by your values of empathetic love, hope, participation and justice. Because of your hope you are resilient. Which brings me to mention my observation that this new iteration does not differ that much from the last, but perhaps now I am understanding why. To me this raises questions about the relationship between validation and review activities, and am sure there is more that could be explored here.
In the abstract you identify four key findings:
Areas of mutuality that we had not predicted
Deeper understanding of your relational dynamic
Introduction to your let of mutuality
Guidance on writing a dual authored paper
Would you like to describe in turn each of 1 – 4 above in more detail, with specific examples; in the conclusion. If this were done then I think your messages would be communicated more clearly to readers and I would be happy to recommend publication.