Dear Kelly and Sabre
In my earlier comments, I concentrated on your use of 'We' as your voice within the paper. I shall limit myself to this area in this response because other reviewers have covered the bulk of the EJOLTS evaluation criteria.
Put simply, I think that you have achieved a shift in the text to the point where it can act as an exemplar to others who wish to research and write with a 'We' / I~We methodology and voice. In my experience, others have previously expected me to take their 'We' on trust (as a sort of conflation of two 'I's); you make quite clear how you individually and collectively work within your 'We' so that the voice within the text is distinctive, authoritative and convincing. Thus, at the start of the paper, you introduce the notion of a joint enterprise:
"We were learning about ourselves through each other and, in turn, deepening our capacity to connect to others. ... how we relate and engage with others, including each other, through our roles as inquiry leaders and learners ..." (p.1) and "... Our narrative weaves two primary voice(s) into what we use as 'we' in our writing. Our 'we' is the result of collaborative writing and reflecting between [us]. Although we use the language of ‘we’ in the body of the text, we also include our individual voices, indicated in italics, to share the individual nature of our experience, perspectives and growing awareness of the influences on and of our learning." (p.2)
The section I~we Collaborative Writing fully works out these initial points and completely addresses (and then some more) my earlier concerns, especially where you say:
"As we joined together in this co-writing dialogue we noticed that our lived ontologies (how we come to know the world) reflected an understanding of our shared social constructionist (Gergen, 1999/2015) and humanist (Rogers, 1961) orientations to knowing the world as interconnected and relational, and where we see the inherent potential goodness in individuals and groups from the assumption that we are each striving to become self-actualized as part of what it means to create a better world and reach our highest good (Lange, 2006 as cited in Groen & Kawaliluk, 2015, p. 172). Our co-writing helped us make the relational nature of our knowledge(s) more explicit and facilitated our desire to inquire more deeply into the ways that we worked and lived with others …" (p.3).
When in the Concluding Reflection you state ...
"Through this inquiry we noticed that ‘I's’ became ‘we's’ through our emerging collective wisdom. We see this wisdom as holding the power to generate new and greater potential through how we each enact this growing collective wisdom in our separate worlds." (p.13)
... I feel that the paper as a whole feeds directly to this point and enables me to fully hear the voice of your 'We' as I understand and embrace your concept of "growing collective wisdom in our separate worlds".
In addition to the main subject-matter of your paper (whose review has been covered by others), you have laid out some important principles about 'understanding your we' in a clear and accessible form. As noted above, I would recommend a close reading of it to anyone who wishes to present such a joint Living Theory enquiry.