Of Microscopes and Meeting Places: A Literature Review Examining Barriers to Indigenous Participation in STEM
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main issues are:
1. The title is misleading since I am not sure that a non-systematic analysis of three papers should count as a literature review.
2. The research question “To what extent do Native American students’ perceptions and characterizations of engineers contribute to their participation in engineering?” (Page 3, lines 105-107) is very strange for the review-type paper. Also, it is not appropriate for this manuscript since only one out of three analyzed papers is related to this question. Additionally, the authors wrote “To further the search for the answer to the question, “To what extent do Native American students’ perceptions and characterizations of engineers contribute to their participation in engineering?” the researchers will develop a study and carry out research in the field.” (Page 17, lines 737-740).
3. It is strange to see the use of the PRISMA methodology (designed for systematic reviews) in a non-systematic literature review.
4. The 6. Discussion section is too long compared to other parts of the manuscript. In this section everything except the first and the last paragraph is unnecessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to read our work and give thoughtful suggestions. Compared to comments about small areas for improvement, your comments caused us to think deeply about the overall look and feel of our work—an exercise we may have otherwise missed if we were primarily focused on addressing small grammatical or phrasing errors. Your guidance encouraged us to go back through our paper to confirm that every piece of the content moving forward from this stage is relevant and helps support our purpose. We sincerely thank you once again for taking the time to help us move this work one step closer to being available to the world.
Best,
- authors -
The main issues are:
1. The title is misleading since I am not sure that a non-systematic analysis of three papers should count as a literature review.
- While we appreciate the suggestion offered in this comment and we acknowledge this paper isn’t a traditional systematic literature review, we believe that it fits into the category of “literature review.” In the Methods section we explicitly state that this paper uses a non-systematic literature review method. Additionally, this method best suited the purpose of this paper due to the close reading that was required to thoroughly understand and communicate the methods used and the results found by the leading studies on the topic.
2. The research question “To what extent do Native American students’ perceptions and characterizations of engineers contribute to their participation in engineering?” (Page 3, lines 105-107) is very strange for the review-type paper. Also, it is not appropriate for this manuscript since only one out of three analyzed papers is related to this question. Additionally, the authors wrote “To further the search for the answer to the question, “To what extent do Native American students’ perceptions and characterizations of engineers contribute to their participation in engineering?” the researchers will develop a study and carry out research in the field.” (Page 17, lines 737-740).
- The research question was updated to reflect the suggestion offered in this comment. The question “To what extent do Native American students’ perceptions and characterizations of engineers contribute to their participation in engineering?” (Page 3, lines 106-108) was replaced by “What factors have the greatest influence on the rate of Native American student participation in engineering?” Likewise, in the Future Work section, the same replacement was made (Page 19, lines 755-757). Additionally, in the future work section, the description of the focus of the proposed future study was expanded to better reflect the conclusions drawn in this paper (Page 19, lines 760-762).
3. It is strange to see the use of the PRISMA methodology (designed for systematic reviews) in a non-systematic literature review.
- The PRISMA chart and the references made to the PRISMA chart were removed from the paper to reflect the information provided in this comment.
4. The 6. Discussion section is too long compared to other parts of the manuscript. In this section everything except the first and the last paragraph is unnecessary.
- Based upon our own experiences with the information presented in the Discussion section and the feedback we received from the other reviewers about the value of the details presented in the Discussion section, we feel that drastically shortening the Discussion section would have negative consequences on the detail and analysis offered in this paper. The Discussion section was revised to improve clarity and readability based on the paragraphing and grammar suggestions of the other reviewers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an important and well thought out piece of scholarship. The focus on core papers in the field and a close reading and critique are valuable both for our field and the training of future researchers. There are some minor grammatical and expression issues in places but does not affect the work, merely interrupts the otherwise excellent scholarship.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some minor grammatical and expression issues I imagine these will be picked up during the final copy-editing phase.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to read our work and give thoughtful suggestions. Your comments and words of encouragement helped us polish our work to improve the clarity of our message and the strength and credibility with which we communicated it. Your words were a welcome reminder of how far this work has come and the importance of author effort and care in the academic sphere. As we work on future projects, we will reflect on your guidance to help us remember to discuss what matters and to make those topics matter to us. We sincerely thank you once again for taking the time to help us move this work one step closer to being available to the world.
Best,
- authors -
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an important and well thought out piece of scholarship. The focus on core papers in the field and a close reading and critique are valuable both for our field and the training of future researchers. There are some minor grammatical and expression issues in places but does not affect the work, merely interrupts the otherwise excellent scholarship.
- The feedback offered in this comment was reflected in the paper using the spelling and grammar editor feature on Microsoft Word. Any errors missed by this check will likely be corrected during the final copy-editing phase, as mentioned in the comment below.
Comments on the Quality of English Language There are some minor grammatical and expression issues I imagine these will be picked up during the final copy-editing phase.
- The feedback offered in this comment was reflected in the paper using the spelling and grammar editor feature on Microsoft Word. Any errors missed by this check will likely be corrected during the final copy-editing phase, as mentioned in this comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 53 Use a dash (-) instead of a comma between "achievement" and "take".
Line 176 Insert "STEM" between "optimize" and "knowledge".
Line 461 Instead of "prompted" use another word like "signaled".
Line 504 Instead of "several pictures" use "copies".
Line 553 Instead of "increased" use "large".
Line 735 This reads like you want to improve isolating practices. Is that what you mean?
Line 753 Instead of "their investigations on Native American students", say something like "Native Americans in academic settings".
Comments on the Quality of English Language
If you used more paragraphs, it would be easier for Native Americans and non-Native Americans to read. The sentences starting on the following lines should really be the starts for new paragraphs: 307, 381, 397, 409, 419, 435, 445, 462, 475, 486, 496, 510, 518, 525, 530, 538, 556, 566, 591, 610, 616, 626, 634, 652, 659, 666, 672, 684, 723, 730, 762.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to read our work and give thoughtful suggestions. Your perspective was incredibly beneficial in helping us improve the clarity of this paper, which will increase the connection the readers are able to have with its message. We greatly appreciate the attention to detail you gave while reading and reviewing this paper and the care you put into crafting your comments. We sincerely thank you once again for taking the time to help us move this work one step closer to being available to the world.
Best,
- authors -
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Line 53 Use a dash (-) instead of a comma between "achievement" and "take".
- The suggestion offered in this comment was added to the paper.
Line 176 Insert "STEM" between "optimize" and "knowledge".
- The suggestion offered in this comment was added to the paper.
Line 461 Instead of "prompted" use another word like "signaled".
- The suggestion offered in this comment was added to the paper.
Line 504 Instead of "several pictures" use "copies".
- The suggestion offered in this comment was added to the paper.
Line 553 Instead of "increased" use "large".
- The suggestion offered in this comment was added to the paper.
Line 735 This reads like you want to improve isolating practices. Is that what you mean?
- The question posed in this comment was reflected in the paper by adding the word “reducing” between the phrases “improving inequitable conditions and,” and “isolating practices in STEM education,” in the sentence starting on Page 19, line 750. This edit clarifies the intended message to ensure that the reader understands that ethical considerations should contribute to reducing isolating practices in STEM rather than being left to guess what “improving…isolating practices in STEM,” means.
Line 753 Instead of "their investigations on Native American students", say something like "Native Americans in academic settings".
- The suggestion offered in this comment was added to the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Language If you used more paragraphs, it would be easier for Native Americans and non-Native Americans to read. The sentences starting on the following lines should really be the starts for new paragraphs: 307, 381, 397, 409, 419, 435, 445, 462, 475, 486, 496, 510, 518, 525, 530, 538, 556, 566, 591, 610, 616, 626, 634, 652, 659, 666, 672, 684, 723, 730, 762.
- The suggestions offered in this comment were added to the paper. New paragraphs now start at all of the sentences mentioned above.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made some adjustments based on my comments and suggestions. However, I still have some concerns regarding the length and content of the Discussion section. I am unsure if it is ethically acceptable to include that amount of information from three analyzed studies in the Discussion section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on our work. Upon reflecting on your comment, we decided not to shorten the Discussion section of this literature review due to typical study reporting conventions that promote a Results section that only has raw results and a Discussion section that is filled with all of the synthesis and new learning that took place as a result of the study. As noted by Paul Oliver’s Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students, literature reviews intended for a general, not engineering-specific audience, it can reasonably be argued that at the “undergraduate or master’s levels, the literature review for a dissertation may typically be 2000 or 3000 words in length. A doctoral thesis may often be about 80,000 words long, however, and the literature review at least 20,000 words, and maybe more.” He continues to say that the length of a review undoubtedly has numerous impacts on the writer, including subject selection, length of analysis and synthesis, and usefulness of the review after it is completed. This combined with the comments we received from the other reviewers that highlighted the value of having such a detailed analysis of the three works and our own perception that having a dynamic Discussion section improves readability caused us to maintain the section as it is. Thank you again for your time and suggestions.
Best,
