Open reviewing process

Developing a transformative, cooperative living theory through mentoring EDS children and youth in Bangladesh

Re: Developing a transformative, cooperative living theory through mentoring EDS children and youth in Bangladesh

by Marie Huxtable -
Number of replies: 0

On behalf of Lesley

Publishing criteria. The paper:

- Meets publishing criteria – just write yes in the appropriate box


- Where publishing criteria not met please give details as to what author/s need to address to meet publishing criteria.

1. is of a high academic and scholarly quality. It provides a well-reasoned argument and demonstrates that you have creatively and critically engaged with your own thinking and the thinking of others

I still do not think this is publishable as it is too rambling and does not follow a coherent line of thought. So much of it focuses on the case study and then the last bit on the living theory is very repetitive. I do not think they have addressed my first critique as follows:

and also structure of the article. More evidence is needed to show validity of claims made. I suggest that the authors might consider restructured into a case study, with the claims of the living theory being discussed within the case. If they used that approach they could first give overview of EDS, then theoretical framework of TLT and Bronfenbrenner, then present case of Abdullah and present evidence to back up claims to knowledge, which will lead up to an account of their living-educational-theory and then a conclusion at end.  As a reader, I felt it was repetitive, too long and difficult to follow and believe at times since little evidence was presented


2. clearly includes the distinguishing qualities of a Living Educational Theory methodology and/or makes a contribution to the field of Living Educational Theory research - see

I am not sure it does at the moment as the claims to knowledge about mentoring these children are not foregrounded as a consequence of critical reflection on practice. I think that if the story is cut down significantly, and the focus is shifted to what was learnt, what was changed and influence of that change on their own learning and the learning of others, then it would make a good contribution. The theory is about mentoring but very little on mentoring is discussed. Another approach would be to present their claims to knowledge about mentoring and then use examples from the case study to support these claims – in any case the article needs to be cut down by several thousand words

3. includes a clearly written description and explanation of the context(s), purposes, processes and outcomes of the research

Context is clear, and the purpose of doing the research but the living theory and its significance for others does not come out clearly

4. can be understood by practitioners from diverse fields of practice, research and cultural contexts as well as experienced Living Educational Theory researchers

Several statements are not explained and unless the reader was familiar with them (e.g. sustainable development, I thou relationship) they would not understand

5. has all claims supported by appropriate evidence

Claims are not clear but the case study did show how they mentored to support Abdullah

6. communicates clearly how knowledge claims are validated

Not really

7. provides sufficient details of the normative background of your research


8. is at least 5,000 and no more than 12,000 words long in total (including references and appendixes)

Yes, but it is very repetitive and could be cut down considerably

9.   is written in English of a standard appropriate for an international academic journal, has been thoroughly checked to ensure that English spelling and grammar has been used throughout, and all references are correct in both the text and references list.

Not at this stage

Other notes:

The potential is there for a powerful article that explains how unconditional positive regard (Rogerian theory) and support can be used to mentor at risk youth and bring about positive change in their thinking, behaviour, attitudes. At least, that is what I learnt from the article even if the term was not one used by the authors. It was also confusing to have just one voice, but three authors – we did not hear their voices except as reported by first author