The reviewed article, “Engaging critical methodologies in qualitative research methods with undergraduate psychology students”, aims “to illustrate and analyse efforts to teach undergraduate qualitative research methods by employing critical methodologies”. For this purpose, the authors describe their experience “teaching a group of undergraduate psychology students on an accredited degree. We are teaching them qualitative research methods which while not at all necessarily community or critical by nature, offers us some opportunities to do things differently.” In practice, this involved presenting the students with a broad, challenging research question (what does psychology offer community?), about which they had to propose a research project and write a research report, based on a data bank provided by the authors. Finally, the authors critically reflect on their experiences conducting this non-conventional teaching experience, and how it could be of use to other community psychology teachers.

First and foremost, the authors deliver on the aim of sharing their experience teaching critical qualitative methodologies. Here it is remarkable to note that the ever-elusive concept of ‘critical’ is clearly and succinctly defined. Most importantly the authors share their experience beyond description, offering interesting reflections on their own teaching practices. In particular, the authors’ reflection on their own ‘success’ with the students, measured as their satisfaction at the end of the course, is quite valuable. Mostly because it (critically) assesses the different ways in which this satisfaction could actually be counterproductive for their goal of promoting reflexivity. It is always good to see authors explicitly avoiding complacency with their own work, as it is a reminder that group thinking within any scientific community must be always avoided. By doing so, the authors remain faithful to their commitment to reflexivity—both in teaching and in doing research.

Also, the reading of the article is straightforward, using a language that is simple, on point, and also inviting to non-experts. The setting of the experience is described in detail and the methodological decisions taken (especially regarding ethics) are thoroughly justified. On a minor note, there is a typo at the beginning of the final paragraph of page 16 ('expereince’).

There are, however, some minor corrections that I suggest to the authors. First, the discussion should be further developed—unless a word-count limitation is set. In its current form, this section does not contribute to the text in the same measure that previous sections do. The implications for teachers worldwide could be a direction in which it could be expanded.

Second, I think that the article could highly benefit from adding further examples for the following statements:
- “As such, it is useful to consider many of the issues of meaningful engagement, knowledge construction and their consequences and the implications of how we are structurally positioned (e.g. student- teacher), “inside” the higher education community” (pp. 2-3)

• “Some of these are so dominant and entrenched, they become synonymous with “truth” and “reality”, rendering interrogation all the more difficult, but vital.” (p. 4)

• "We may problematise underlying assumptions and consider community-relevant questions, such as: whose interests are served by the construction and legitimisation of this knowledge?” (p. 4)

• “We contend that this discomfort can be productive and even sometimes necessary to fostering new ways of relating to one another, communities and the discipline.” (p. 4)

• “Students’ reactions to the unit have required us to reflect quite carefully on some elements which we automatically included without extensive reflection to begin with because of our background in critical, community, qualitative work” (p. 12)

Please note that I am not criticizing the lack of examples, but suggesting that adding more than one example could make the article appealing to a wider audience. Since examples like this could be thought-provoking experiences for readers who teach courses on community psychology.

Third, regarding the following idea: “Students are increasingly positioned as consumers of a product which they should feel satisfied or ‘happy’ with and there is an emphasis upon delivering clear, absolute answers to problems” (p. 5) While I completely agree with the authors, I would add here the over-emphasis on developing ‘market-valued professional competences’, typically meaning technical skills which avoid critical questioning assumptions. Moreover, it would be interesting to include references that cover how the neoliberalization of higher education has occurred in Australia.

Fourth, regarding that "there are not many contemporary examinations of the ways psychological discourse might produce effects for or interact with, groups of individuals, communities or societies, rather than individuals.” (p. 6) I think that Valsiner’s 2012 “A Guided Science” might provide examples to those exceptions.

Finally, unless it is journal policy, I would suggest the authors to write the abstract in a more cohesive way, avoiding the division by sections that is currently used.

All in all, the article is certainly a contribution to increase reflexivity—rather than complacency—on teaching critical qualitative methodologies and community psychology. Moreover, the article is well written and uses a straight-forward language that invites wider audiences to read it. Therefore, I have suggested the editor to consider this article for publication, pending the minor revisions outlined above.

The revised manuscript represents a relevant improvement in relation to the first manuscript. Importantly, the authors carefully responded to the commentaries made by the reviewers and the editor; sufficiently addressing those I made (e.g., the abstract).

Maybe the most substantial point that I still consider to be lacking is the discussion. While it has been expanded and improved, especially regarding the contribution of the article, I think that the authors could frame this contribution in a way that appeals more directly to international audiences. For instance, mentioning that addressing rural communities could be important for other regions in which urbanization is far from complete (e.g., Latin America). Likewise, the relevance of being careful while doing research together with participants from First Nations could of importance for North American audiences. In sum, to make explicit this kind of parallels rather leave them implied. I think that his kind of relation is also implied while mentioning the constrains of neoliberally-structured higher education institutions but, again, not made explicit. And the article would definitely benefit from showing the former, as it would directly appeal to instructors beyond the Australian context.

Additionally, the methodology still lacks the necessary clarity about how the experience unfolded. For example, in the methodology section it is explained that one research question is presented to the students. However, when describing the process, the authors note that students could make the question more specific or even change it altogether. This kind of inconsistencies (detailed below) should be fixed in order to avoid confusions.

In the following you will find further comments (mostly but not exclusively on writing) that I consider necessary to address before publication. (Comments are located on pages according to the track-changes-clean Word manuscript attached.)

P.2 “On this designated conference theme”
This expression is unclear.

P.2 “...which encompasses; explicating theoretical framework and positions of the authors”
This part of the sentence is difficult to understand.

P.4 “Prilleltensky (1994) describes the way in which to be critical has been appropriated within positivist discourse:”
The argument made by Prilleltensky should be presented, as it clarifies how this has happened.

P.4 “Within a critical framework, the ways through which knowledge is constructed and legitimated is as much a site for inquiry, as the resultant claims we make.”
The last part of the sentence should be clarified.

P.5-6 “We contend that this discomfort can be productive and even sometimes necessary to fostering new ways of relating to one another, communities and the discipline. This may for example, include the destabilising of problematic power differentials in our research and teaching, towards more collaborative projects with shared goals and control.”
Since ‘relating differently’ is one of the three pillars of the authors' approach, I think that it should receive further attention, similar to how ‘challenge taken for granted assumptions’ was covered.

P.6 “For example, there is rarely time and spaces to explore positivist scientism assumptions that underpin psychological theories and evidence.”
Since this point is mentioned in several occasions it should be defined or exemplified rather than just mentioned.

P.7 “We constructed the following question” should be in line with the text.

P.7 “The elements described in the introduction formed a rationale for posing this question”
Since this sentence is still within the Introduction (1.2) it should refer to the previous sub-section.

P.7 “It asks a question of psychology rather than community or society as is often the case…”
I suggest to replace “question of” with “question about”, similar with adding “about” after “rather than”.

P.8 “We felt the question offered a pluralism in the data which could be collected and the ways students could research and construct answers to the question.”
Please avoid repeating ‘the question’ in this sentence and paragraph.

P.8 “This section describes the design of the teaching unit in which we aim to employ critical community methodologies”.
Here “aim” should be replaced with “aimed”.

P8-9. “However, it also includes poststructural, feminist, queer theoretical...” Example references should be added for each topic.

P9. “The online educational space is one site, which has everything students need for the unit – unit outline, links to readings, 10 topics with written topic content and embedded one hour lectures, guided activities and a forum for asynchronous discussion. Synchronous discussion also takes places as online video meetings.”
Unless is a custom-made platform, it would be desirable to explicit the online platform used. Also, it should be explained to what degree students were familiarized with this delivery method. The typical length of synchronous discussion (and if they were compulsory) should be added.

P9. “At the start of the semester, the students are introduced…"
I suggest to use past tense in this paragraph and the whole section, as it stands for the methodology used.

P.10 “The limits of a 14 week unit…”
I suggest using “limitations” instead of “limits”.

P.11 “We aimed to attract…"
I would either remove the ’some’ before each group or detail the exact number of participants interviewed for each group.

P.11 “...dominant forms of psychology was/is constructed”
I suggest to replace “was/is” with the simpler “has been”.

P.11 “...particularly where participants could be revealing something that might have repercussions for their employment for example”
For students of participants employment? This sentence should be better contextualized and explained.

P.12 “They included academic researchers in psychology, practicing psychologists and non-psychologists who have experience of psychology as a system”
As noted above, the exact number for each group should be added, probably between parentheses to avoid interrupting the text.

P.12 “Some were from very different contexts globally to the students and very different contexts to the ones in which dominant forms of psychology were constructed”
Examples of this diversity should be made explicit.

P.12 “...great care has been taken not to recruit problematically”
I think it would be valuable for the authors to note what they consider to be the typical issues in recruiting.

P.13 “Having experienced this learning and teaching engagement with students in the qualitative research methods subject, over three successive years…"
If the results presented address three years of teaching the course, it should be explicitly noted in the previous section that the process described was repeated three times (ideally including the years in which it happened).

P.14 “In this way we aim to produce an account that rather than being grounded in traditional research processes, relates differently to the experience and communicates to readers of the paper claims which have value.”
This sentence encapsulates a crucial point: the contribution made by the article to its audience. Therefore, its second part (“relates differently” onwards) should written in more detail.

P.16 “While the main research question can be used, it is quite broad, particularly for short research reports the students are required to submit, and so they are invited to choose their own research questions.”
This option was not mentioned in the previous section. It should be included in order to have a better grasp of how different the new question could be and how could it be answered through the data bank, or if students could look for their own sources.

P.17 “Many rural psychologists in Australia for example deal with complex multiple relationships…"
A few examples should be mentioned about this interesting point.

P.17-18 “We have very little interview data for that and so they also use additional data, which we have collected from some excellent online resources.”
It would be valuable for the reader to know about this online resources. Please mention and reference them.

P.18 “We therefore have a set of suggested research questions that are answerable using the data we have, so that those who find the independence is not for them can use these suggestions.”
This reads as contradictory with was stated in the previous section.

P.19 “...although we have both conducted positivist work”
I suggest to replace “we have both” with “the authors”.

P.20 “we introduce the following as readings: Parker, 2005, p.25; Stainton-Rogers, 2011, p.279”
Since they are not quotes, I suggest to remove the page numbers for these references (unless suggested by other reviewers or the editor).

P.20 “We are suspicious of this sense - there seem to be very few students who openly challenge us about the content and process and this may be a result of our comparative positions in authority - we would welcome dissenting conversations but we rarely have them.”
For simplicity, I suggest to replace the dashes with commas.

P.22 “But this certainly feels a little dangerous as to whether there will be consequences for showing students of psychology such opinions about psychology.”
It would be interesting to know about this potential consequences, as I have trouble envisioning them.

P.22 “The very difficult and time consuming aspects of the unit are absorbed by the time spent by teachers, rather than the system, which maintains a homogenous way of measuring quality and time in teaching practice.”
This paragraph addresses maybe one of the most relevant topics of critical research: how to survive within an institutional environment that is built around very different (if not opposite) tenets. For this very reason, it would be interesting to read more about how the authors consider that they could go beyond the current systemic/institutional lockdown.

P.23 “We locate the case study…"
I suggest to replace “the” with “our”.

P.23 “...as enacted within HE contexts”
Since this abbreviation has not been used before, I suggest to introduce it the first time 'higher education' is mentioned, or stick to the full ‘higher education’.

P.23 “including HE communities (Lykes, Lloyd & Nicholson, 2018; Moane & Quilty, 2012; Sonn, 2004; Watkins, Ciofalo & James, 2018”
There is not much added by repeating the references used in the middle of the paragraph.

P.24 “...the intense pressure that contemporary psychology study in higher education creates”
This part of the sentence is unclear.