Transforming Service into Civic Purpose: A Qualitative Study of Adolescent Civic Engagement and Purpose Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is quite an interesting take and assessment of the Fellows program. There are several positive aspects of the paper. First the authors engage in a nice integration of identity, civic engagement, purpose development and positive youth development scholarship. Second, the examination of theoretical lenses for the paper is quite detailed with an interesting examination of the intentions vis-a-vis the outcome of these engagements. These form the main strengths of the paper.

However, there are some suggestions for minor improvements as follows:

1. Justification on the focus-a few more lines on the rationale for the emphasis on young people and the readiness of literature on this area.

2. More on the actual fellowship program-was this designed with the intention to promote civic engagement? Were there any internal assessment of these to assess the outcomes against those of the intentions.  Can these be addressed in describing the program?

3. method-How were participants in the program accessed? Was a listing available? More on how they were encouraged to participate.  

4. Bracketing-How did the researchers separate their own experiences from that of what they were examining? There is mention or disclosure of this but with little discussions on how these were averted.

5. Practical implications-There is some discussion on the implications of this research within lines 522-525, however the paper can certainly benefit from more discussion on what this means for promoting civic engagement and shaping identity among young persons, despite the methodological limitations of the paper.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with an interesting topic, a program to actively involve adolescents into relevant issues affecting their present and future. The program and the research procedure are well described. The article is well written and the main challenges for qualitative research also correctly identified.

Also, having such a small sample of individuals (n=9) the qualitative approach is the right one. A description of all the participants in the program (75) would help to assess the representativity of the subsample, and maybe also some other interesting input. I don’t understand, however, why only 22 invitations were sent out of 75 participants, and how those 22 recipients were chosen. Claiming that “data and theoretical saturation were reached” with only 9 cases (with only 1 male in that sample) seems pretentious, especially when considering the multicultural background (United States, Malaysia, Canada, Dominican Republic, and Japan!). Particularly interesting would have been to know the reasons of those who did not participate.

If the authors would have applied half of the recommendations for further research, they indicated in the limitations it would have improved the paper substantially, however.

 

Typos:

Line 40 “aincluding” I assume you mean “including”

Line 120 “expectations” I assume you mean “exceptions”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read your article with great interest and can offer several comments for your consideration as you work to refine it. The first concerns your research design. You appear to turn to Freire midway to ground your analysis and I wonder if your piece could be stronger if you start there and clearly identify elements of his conceptualization that you aim to explore in your analysis and how and why those were evidenced by the program on which you report. A table showing the connection between those concepts and your specific research and interview questions would be immensely clarifying and also help your readers understand how and why you coded as you did. Second, it would be helpful to learn more about how you drew your sample and why and why you did not seek better gender balance more aggressively. Third, I found myself nodding in agreement with your self-critique at lines 490ff. and am not sure you have yet adequately addressed an analytical/theoretical contribution that would overcome it. Finally, you do not mention analytical generalizability, but you are engaged in just such an effort and if you can make that case by clarifying your conceptual frame and reporting your findings within it, may be able to overcome concerns that you re not reporting anything fresh. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors employ a fair amount of passive voice here and also misuse "impact" and "impactful" throughout. I think their word choice at various points is inapt but these are not major, even if nettlesome, issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a much-improved paper with most of the key components well substantiated and written. The addition of the reflexivity section adds to the read and the authenticity of the work. Authors can perhaps add just a few lines on whether there were any tensions on navigating this process. Additionally, there is some attempt in the introduction to introduce some theoretical parameters to the work (see pages 2-3). However, there was no discussion of the theoretical implications of the work. What do the findings suggest re directions for theorizations related to civic engagement and purpose development? How can these be advanced using relevant theories related to this work? This discussion would add to the contributions of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is fairly written.  

Author Response

1. This is a much-improved paper with most of the key components well substantiated and written. The addition of the reflexivity section adds to the read and the authenticity of the work. Authors can perhaps add just a few lines on whether there were any tensions on navigating this process. 
   1. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added into the reflexivity section this explanation: “Rather than creating tension, our reflexivity practice enhanced the richness and nuance of our understanding of the data, deepening our analysis and broadening our perspectives.”
2. Additionally, there is some attempt in the introduction to introduce some theoretical parameters to the work (see pages 2-3). However, there was no discussion of the theoretical implications of the work. What do the findings suggest re directions for theorizations related to civic engagement and purpose development? How can these be advanced using relevant theories related to this work? This discussion would add to the contributions of the paper.
   1. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have inserted this into the discussion section: “The study’s findings suggest theoretical implications for the role of experiential learning in promoting civic engagement and purpose development. Drawing on Lerner et al.'s framework of positive youth development and Malin et al.'s concept of civic purpose, our results underscore the potential of structured, experiential learning programs like CLF in fostering adolescents' civic engagement and facilitating the development of a sustained purpose. This supports the notion that experiential learning can be a vital component in guiding adolescents towards a more purposeful engagement in civic activities."

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has improved considerably.

I agree with its current state.

Author Response

1. The paper has improved considerably. I agree with its current state.
   1. Response: Thank you! 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed your revision with interest and can offer a few additional comments for your consideration. First, it would be useful to your readers to learn what you take the primary barriers you reference on page 1 line 33 to be?  Secondly, if you keep "assets" in that sentence, it would be similarly be helpful to indicate what you take those to be. Third, your sentence on line 34 on page 7 appears to be incomplete. Fourth, you note (and rightly in my view), that student disposition matters but may not alone dictate outcomes. The same could be said of program elements. Nonetheless, you contend on page 10 at line 74 that the program "empowered" participants to act. While I am not entirely clear what you meant here, I am very leery of the term  as it implies that the initiative lent these students agency, which it cannot and did not do by definition. It can encourage or spur action or activity (and seems to have done so to some degree) but agency is innate and whether an individual exercises it does not depend alone on an external lever.  Fifth, you note again on line 90 on page 11 the importance of preexisting motivation. I am sure you are correct and it therefore seems appropriate to be quite careful and humble about what you claim specifically for the program on this count as a result. Overall, I found your statement of analytic purpose on page 3 at line 23 ff. in this version clear and compelling.

Author Response

1. I have reviewed your revision with interest and can offer a few additional comments for your consideration. First, it would be useful to your readers to learn what you take the primary barriers you reference on page 1 line 33 to be?
   1. Response: We have clarified the reference to barriers in the first paragraph: “Among the primary barriers faced by adolescents are increasing mental health issues, societal pressures, and environmental concerns. Mental health, in particular, is steadily declining among adolescents [1-2], a trend that has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. Additionally, adolescents are confronted with the stress of societal expectations and the looming threat of environmental degradation, which compound their challenges.”  
2. Secondly, if you keep "assets" in that sentence, it would be similarly be helpful to indicate what you take those to be.
   1. Response: We have included in the mention of assets which ones we are referring to – resilience and purpose.
3. Third, your sentence on line 34 on page 7 appears to be incomplete.
   1. Response: We changed the punctuation of the participant quote to which we believe you are referring.
4. Fourth, you note (and rightly in my view), that student disposition matters but may not alone dictate outcomes. The same could be said of program elements. Nonetheless, you contend on page 10 at line 74 that the program "empowered" participants to act. While I am not entirely clear what you meant here, I am very leery of the term as it implies that the initiative lent these students agency, which it cannot and did not do by definition. It can encourage or spur action or activity (and seems to have done so to some degree) but agency is innate and whether an individual exercises it does not depend alone on an external lever. 
   1. Response: Excellent point. We rephrased the section in a way that acknowledges the intrinsic agency of the participants while also recognizing the role of the program in facilitating or supporting their actions. Here's a revised version of the section: “The present findings extend existing purpose development theory by offering further support for the importance of experiential learning in promoting civic engagement and purpose development. Participants describe how CLF provided a supportive and timely intervention that facilitated their ability to channel their existing interests into concrete actions and bolstered their motivation to pursue civic purposes. Specifically, participants engaged in prosocial civic action, supported by the collaborative environment of globally diverse peers and mentors. These relational and prosocial experiences encouraged meaningful reflection on their passions and reinforced their confidence in their own propensities [24]. The connections between CLF program components and participant outcomes that were revealed through data analysis are represented in Figure 1. This highlights how the program elements can play a role in supporting participants' agency, thus contributing to observed outcomes.”
5. Fifth, you note again on line 90 on page 11 the importance of preexisting motivation. I am sure you are correct and it therefore seems appropriate to be quite careful and humble about what you claim specifically for the program on this count as a result.
   1. Response: Point well-taken! We hope that the revised section and other edits throughout convey this caution.
6. Overall, I found your statement of analytic purpose on page 3 at line 23 ff. in this version clear and compelling.
   1. Response: Thank you!