Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting topic to be explored related to engineering education and innovation. The authors had seek to explore the impact of professional connections from engineering education related associations on innovation adoption.  However, there are major issues with the draft.

1. There are no visible figures in the draft. The discussion cant be substantiated without them. 

2. The choice of only two guilds and how can they be used to represent all the other association out there. How is the results of this study generalizable if this is not address well?

3. The actual questions of the questionnaire should be presented and there must be an establish link between the question and the quantitative study results. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

Thank you for your timely reviews and helpful feedback. We have addressed all feedback as outlined below.

 

Reviewer 1

Feedback

This is an interesting topic to be explored related to engineering education and innovation. The authors had seek to explore the impact of professional connections from engineering education related associations on innovation adoption.  However, there are major issues with the draft.

1. There are no visible figures in the draft. The discussion cant be substantiated without them. 
2. The choice of only two guilds and how can they be used to represent all the other association out there. How is the results of this study generalizable if this is not address well?
3. The actual questions of the questionnaire should be presented and there must be an establish link between the question and the quantitative study results. 

Response

1. It appears that there was a system error that prevented the reviewers from viewing the figures in the initial submission. Figures are included in the resubmitted manuscript.
2. An explanation for why these organizations were chosen and how they might be generalizable was added. (See lines 72-76)
3. The questions from the questionnaire have been included as a supplemental file in the article pdf.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study and a well-written paper. Please ensure to include figures in the manuscript for the final draft.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your timely reviews and helpful feedback. We have addressed all feedback as outlined below.

Reviewer 2

Feedback

This is an interesting study and a well-written paper. Please ensure to include figures in the manuscript for the final draft.

Response

It appears that there was a system error that prevented the reviewers from viewing the figures in the initial submission. Figures are included in the resubmitted manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented is interesting and relevant to the scope of the journal. However, some suggestions for changes should be taken into account:

- The abstract should explain the methodology used.

- The article should be structured, with a section detailing the methodology adopted.

- The theoretical framework should be supported by more authors.

Thank you

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your timely reviews and helpful feedback. We have addressed all feedback as outlined below.

Reviewer 3

Feedback

The work presented is interesting and relevant to the scope of the journal. However, some suggestions for changes should be taken into account:

1. The abstract should explain the methodology used.
2. The article should be structured, with a section detailing the methodology adopted.
3. The theoretical framework should be supported by more authors.

Response

1. The journal has a word limit of 200 words for the abstract. We worked within this limit to include as much detail as possible regarding the methodology. It is not possible to add more details of the methodology to the abstract without sacrificing details regarding the motivation, research questions, or results.
2. A section heading change was made from Materials and Methods to Methodology to make the location of the methodology section clearer. A new subheading was also added to highlight the description of the survey instrument.
3. The theoretical framework section has been expanded to include more detail regarding previous research. The social aspect of changemaking has been expounded upon, and the research gap is highlighted more clearly. (See lines 60-71)

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The resubmitted draft does not appear to be the final manuscript. There are ?? for example in line 102 and 164 for example. On top of the annotated draft, a complete final clean draft should be presented. 

1. How does the discussions in 3.1 and 3.2 answer RQ1 / RQ2 is unclear. 2. Need to explain how the survey questions were able to capture interaction and adoption of innovation more clearly. How was the survey data used directly in generating the social networks can be elaborated. 3. How was the frequency of use of innovation determined and measured? 4. The links between integrating reflections and entrepreneurial mindset in the classroom has not been clarified. 5. Line 164, The codebook is not found. 6. Only 8 groups is seen in Figure 3 while Table 1 mention to be 9? 7. Fig 3 How sizes indicate how frequently each instructor uses entrepreneurial mindset in their classroom ? How was the data acquired and reflected? 8. How is Fig 4 different than Fig 3 is not clear. How is the pattern different must be illustrated. 9. With that many limitation to the approach and findings, how is the knowledge of this research useful or generalizable beyond the two organization? Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript has gained more scientific potential with the changes made.  I will take it into account in future work.

I leave the link to two interesting papers that may help you in your future research.

 Thank you

 

https://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/41676/1/73078570.pdf

https://revistas.rcaap.pt/motricidade/article/view/25790

Author Response

Thank you for sharing the two articles - art and creativity are certainly very important components of engineering training.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

I could see that some minor changes have been made, but they have not been clear enough to warrant a change in my recommendation.

 

1. How does the discussions in 3.1 and 3.2 answer RQ1 / RQ2 is unclear.

a. RQ1 asks “How does the overall social structure of KEEN differ from that of

CPREE?”. This is answered in the text using several common measures of

networks: Community Detection (3.1.1) and Echo Chamberness (3.1.2). We have added a summary sentence to section 3.1 to highlight the main takeaways from the analyses.

Question: " Using standard network analysis tools, we show that the communities detected for KEEN and CPREE have different structures, which reflect the intentions of the organizations themselves. Additionally, the structure of the two organizations’ networks suggests that CPREE members may have had several routes for support whereas KEEN members tend to have a single "expert" in their immediate network acting as a primary knowledge disseminator. " - How is this shown is unclear. How was the analysis done between Fig 3 & 4 is not clearly demonstrated. 

 

b. RQ2 asks “How do measures of social network structure relate to faculty’s

adoption of the innovation?”. This question is answered throughout 3.2, but we call the reviewer’s attention to this particular sentence: “Despite the small sample size, this analysis indicates that those with a less dense ego network (meaning fewer interconnections between collaborators) use the pedagogical innovations slightly more often than those with denser ego networks.” Please advise if additional clarification is needed.

Questions: How was the ego network measurement done with the survey question? How was the collaboration activity of a member determined using the survey? 

 

 

2. Need to explain how the survey questions were able to capture interaction and adoption of innovation more clearly. How was the survey data used directly in generating the social networks can be elaborated.

a. A table of survey questions used to generate this data was added

Question: Where is it? What is the role of each question to the key findings should be highlighted.

b. More detail has been added to the methods section to reflect how survey data was processed. A table of relevant survey questions has been added to demonstrate where particular data points (such as interaction type and frequency of adoption use) were captured. Additional detail has been provided regarding the process for creating social networks from the survey responses.

3. How was the frequency of use of innovation determined and measured?

a. See 2b.

Question: The answer is still unclear.

 

7. Fig 3 How sizes indicate how frequently each instructor uses entrepreneurial mindset in their classroom ? How was the data acquired and reflected?

a. See 2b.

Question: The answer is still unclear.

 

8. How is Fig 4 different than Fig 3 is not clear. How is the pattern different must be illustrated.

a. Clarifying text was added to highlight the clusters that represent the trends discussed.

Question: The answer is still unclear. For all answers please do quote the line number. 

 

9. With that many limitations to the approach and findings, how is the knowledge of this research useful or generalizable beyond the two organizations?

a. The purpose of this research is not to provide widely-generalizable results but rather to share how the social aspects of two organizations focused on pedagogical change affected faculty participants’ likelihood of implementing that pedagogical change. This result supports prior findings that show that social connections are important for change-making. Text to make this clear was added to the Limitations and Future Work section.

Questions: How was hierarchical vs. decentralized proven from the Fig 3 and 4?