Perceived Social Norms and Agripreneurial Intention among Youths in Eastern DRC

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should follow a structure according to a solid scientific work and too long , I suggest to be  (1) Background,  (2) Methods,  (3) Results,  (4) Conclusions .

literature section need to be improved  . While establishing the hypotheses, the authors must give an extensive background. 

 The Authors used (SEM) to test the second and third research hypotheses,  which  is a combination of two statistical methods: confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis. but I didn't see that in the  results.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your review comments. We appreciate the time you took in reading and commenting our paper. You will certainly find that the paper’s content has positively changed based on your comments. Please, find here below a description of how your comments were addressed:

Comment 1: The reviewer suggested the review of abstract (Background, Methods, Results and conclusions) and make it shorter.

Response:  The abstract has been reviewed.  It has been reduced to 202 words instead of 242. The key methods used were included and we followed the structure as per the reviewer‘s guideline.

Comment 2: Improvement of literature review section and provide extensive background while establishing hypotheses.

Response:  We have included a section on theory and concepts, at the beginning of the literature review section. We have reorganized the literature review into different sections for a better formulation of hypotheses. We first started with theory and concepts and we provided the background for the Hypotheses 1a, b, and c. Then we have provided the background for PSN-AI relationship and Hypothesis H2a is derived. Next, PsyCap and AI relationship is explained and this has led to H2b.  The mediating role of PsyCap in the relationship between PSN and AI is explained. We have thus derived H3. The moderating effects have now been explained one after the other, unlike what we initially did. Thus, it was easier to formulate H4a, b, c, d, and e.

Comment 3: The authors used (SEM) to test the second and third research hypotheses, which is a combination of two statistical methods: confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis, but I didn't see that in the results.

Response:  The results section has been changed. We relied on PLS Smart Software to examine the relationships between the latent variables. The path coefficients are provided in table 3. The empirical SEM model is also presented before table3. The confirmatory factor analysis indicators are presented in table 4.

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors for the effort made.

I submit the following comments to improve the document.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1.- The idea of ​​the study seems interesting, different and even necessary.

2.- Regarding the presentation, the document is difficult to read fluently in all its sections. Some concepts and ideas are mixed, and the authors do not focus on presenting the strictly necessary and justifying aspects in an orderly manner. It should not be a question of quantity.

3.- Regarding the content, from the beginning, the necessary aspects of the study are not exclusively addressed, in an updated manner, with sufficient depth and persuasion. It happens from the summary to the conclusions.

4.- There is no minimal and sufficient literature review regarding the dependent variable, or about the TPB model used.

5.- The model is very simple in terms of dimensions and relationships; there is no clear relationship between the formulation and justification of the hypotheses and the proposed model.

6.- The methodological section is poorly developed, and the most appropriate methodology is not used for the study of the proposed causal model, which is excessively simple.

7.- Due to the limitations above, the discussion and conclusions cannot be adequately substantiated. For example, the discussion does not cover the hypotheses raised and the agreement or not with other authors' contributions.

8.- The conclusions should be improved, including limitations and future lines of research.

9.- The references are incorrectly arranged and presented.

10.- There are some coincidences (+ 10%) (Turnitin) with a work done by one of the co-authors (reference number 5 of the document). For example, lines 194 to 204. This aspect should be reviewed and include such a reference in those sections.

Ephrem, A.N., Namatovu, R. and Basalirwa, E.M. (2019), "Perceived social norms, psychological capital and entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Bukavu", Education + Training, Vol. 61 No. 7/8, pp. 963-983. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2018-0212

ABSTRACT

The summary is too broad and lacks clarity. It should be more synthetic and structured in a way that includes the following clearly:

The contextualization of the study

The main objective

The justification

The sample used

The methods used

The main findings and conclusions

The novel contribution

The sentences are very long.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction should be reformulated and be shorter, clearer, direct and persuasive, without returning to the same topic or idea once it has been addressed. Other studies or their source data should support each idea.

The order of the introduction could be this:

1. a) Importance and social and economic justification of "agribusiness" and its study in general and in the country under study.
2. b) The responsible role of the country's rulers in promoting this field under study.
3. c) Presentation of the importance and necessity of the intention to undertake in this field.
4. d) Justification of why the entrepreneurship of the country's youth is relevant and necessary.
5. e) Specification and justification of the segment of young people under study.
6. f) Presentation and justification of the existing models and variables in the formation of the intention to undertake in this field and the model and variables chosen in the study.
7. g) State the objective at the end of the introduction, as well as the method used and the study's novel contributions.

In particular:

1.- The numbering of the citations does not follow a consecutive order. For example, the first appointment is number 59 (line 35).

2.- Lines 39 and 40 states that the sector's future is linked to the country's youth's participation. What institution or authors suggest and reinforce this idea?

3.- Line 41: What does the agricultural intention refer to? Moreover, immediately the term of intention to undertake is introduced. Moreover, in line 48, the concept agripreneurial intention is introduced. This relationship of concepts should be better explained.

4.- Lines 61 to 64 should be presented before presenting the concept of agripreneurial intention.

5.- In my opinion, lines 64 to 75, both included, contribute little to the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL MODEL, AND HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS

1.- There is no literature review on the dependent variable or other variables and relevant concepts of the study.

2.- Figure 1 should collect more information, such as a complete detail of the hypotheses and their sign. For example, the following hypotheses are not identified in the model:

H2a: Favorable perception of social norms about agribusiness as a career option has a positive effect 192 on youth intention to engage in agripreneurship in the DRC.

H4a. The effect of PSN on AI is stronger for females than males; 277

H4b. The effect of PSN on AI is stronger for rural youth compared to urban youth 278

H4c. The effect of PSN on AI is stronger for less-educated youth 279

H4d. The effect of PSN on AI is stronger for youth who have access to funds 280

H4e. The effect of PSN on AI is stronger for youth who can access land.

4- The model is too simple; it should be complemented with some significant latent variable.

5.- The current state of the theories used is not adequately explained.

6.- None of the hypotheses are adequately supported, justified or presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1.- There is a lack of data from the sample, such as gender, educational level. It is not justified why that segment of the population was chosen. Why is the 18 to 30 age bracket chosen?

2.- The studies consulted for the design of the items are not cited.

3.- The questionnaire or scale design process is not explained.

4.- It is not explained or justified why the structural equations or the model used are used. The most widely used model today is PLS.

5.- The number of items for each dimension seems excessive.

6.- Some items are very general and are not related to the object of study (e.g. resilience items). Others are.

RESULTS

1.- The analyzes carried out are not detailed, nor are they the most appropriate for the proposed model.

2.- The authors apply a regression equation to study a causal model made up of dimensions. There is no analysis of the measurement model or analysis of the structural model or the model's predictive potential. The significance of the indicators about their dimensions is not analyzed.

3.- Lack of study of normality and kurtosis, validity, reliability.

DISCUSSION

1.- Some aspects of the discussion are included in the results section.

2.- It is complex to follow the line of argument and identify how each of the analyzes and their results justifies the discussion.

3.- There are some formal errors. For example, lines 472-473.

CONCLUSIONS

1.- The dimensions and variables observed are not easily manageable by companies and the government in the short term.

2.- Limitations and future lines of research must be included.

REFERENCES

1.- The references are arranged alphabetically, not in order of presentation.

2.- The references are not written by SUSTAINABILITY. For example, the dates of the references, abbreviation of the journals.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your review comments. We appreciate the time you took in reading and commenting our paper. You will certainly find that the paper’s content has positively changed based on your comments. Please, find here below a description of how your comments were addressed:

1. General comments. We thank the reviewer for appreciating the overall research idea. The reviewer suggested focusing on presenting the strictly necessary and justifying aspects in an orderly manner. In addition, he requested for more literature about the dependent variable and the theory of planned behavior. We were asked to provide more explanation on the formulation of hypotheses and to rely on the most appropriate methodology. The reviewer suggested adding the limitations and future lines of research. He/she also requested to check the presentation of the references.

 

Response:  The whole paper has been revised from abstract to the end as indicated by the track change mode. Some unnecessary aspects have been removed, especially in the introduction.  We have dedicated about 400 words to explaining the theory used and the dependent variable at the beginning of literature review. We have reorganized the literature review into different sections for a better formulation of hypotheses. We first started with theory and concepts and  we have provided the background for PSN-AI relationship and Hypothesis H1 is derived. Next, PsyCap and AI relationship is explained and this has led to H2.  The mediating role of PsyCap in the relationship between PSN and AI is explained. We have thus derived H3. The moderating effects have now been explained one after the other, unlike what we initially did. Thus, it was easier to formulate H4a, b, c, d, and e. We have now estimated the model by PLS method as requested by the reviewer. We relied on PLS Smart Software. The limitations and lines for future research were already included to the paper since the first submission. They are followed by the conclusion section. Some references were poorly presented in the text and this has been corrected. The references at the end of the manuscript have been reorganized by order of citation instead of alphabetical order.

2. Abstract: The reviewer suggested making the abstract brief and clear.

 

Response:  It has been reduced to 202 words instead of 242. The key methods used were included and we have structured this part based on the reviewer‘s guideline. We have structured the abstract as follows: background, objectives, methods, findings, originality, conclusion (implications of the findings). We made an effort in reducing the length of sentences.

3. Introduction: The reviewer suggested that the introduction should be reformulated and be shorter, clearer, direct and persuasive, without returning to the same topic or idea once it has been addressed. Other studies or their source data should support each idea.

Response:  The introduction has been revised and the ideas have been rearranged to make the story clear to the reader and shorter. We have moved from 1483 words to 905 words. We have focused on the importance and justification of the study then we relied on the theory of planned behavior to illustrate the key variables used and their relationships. We have explained the relationship between the two independent variables of our research (Perceived social norms and Psychological capital) with the TPB constructs. We then describe the context of the study and the particularities of youth agribusiness in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have highlighted the objectives of the research, its contributions and the outline.

4. Literature review, conceptual model and hypothesized relationships:

• The reviewer suggested adding more literature review on the dependent variable and other variables of the study. This has been addressed in section 2.1. Theory and concepts. In addition, we provided literature on the independent variables in the next subsections of the literature review.
• The reviewer suggested that figure 1 should collect more information, such as a complete detail of the hypotheses and their sign. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added the hypotheses in the model. The model is a simplified representation of the phenomena under investigation. The details and explanation of the conceptual model are presented and discussed before each hypothesis. The signs are implied in each hypothesis formulated. For example, H4.c. the effect of PSN on AI is stronger for less-educated youth, means that educational level plays a negative moderation role in the relationship between PSN and AI. Thus, the expected sign is negative.
• The reviewer believes that the model is too simple, thus he suggests complementing it with some significant latent variables. The variables used are latent in nature except gender, level of education and location which were of easier observation. We do agree that there is an endless list of potential drivers of agripreneurial intention. However, for reason of conciseness, and based on our knowledge of the youth agripreneneurship in the area under investigation, we have focused on some specific variables as outlined in the model. The predictive power of the model (44.5%) was globally significant.

5. Material and Methods:

• The reviewer requested for more explanation about the reason for the choice of 18 to 30 age bracket. The age bracket was instead 18 to 35 years (sorry for the error). This was based on the African Union Youth Charter age bracket of youth definition.
• The reviewer believes that the studies consulted for the design of the items are not cited. They are cited and properly referenced. AI was inspired from studies [40, 87]. Reference numbers [18, 34,40, 44] inspired the design of PSN instrument scale. PsyCap items were adapted from reference number [25].
• The reviewer claims that it is not explained or justified why the structural equations or the model used are used. He suggests the use of PLS. We have provided the advantages of SEM and the reasons for its use at page 8. PLS is a method to estimate the SEM parameters among others, like maximum likelihood. We then met the reviewer’s suggestion, by running a two stage PLS. We relied on the PLS Smart software. The results changed slightly.
• The number of items is excessive and some items are general. The items were adapted from existing studies and the sources are provided.

 

6. Results:

The reviewer suggested that the analysis carried out was not the most appropriate for the proposed model, and recommended the analysis of the structural model predictive power.

Response:  The method issue has been addressed using PLS. Each dimension is associated to its latent variable in the empirical model (Figure 2). The model fit indicators for confirmatory factor analysis have been added and interpreted (Table 4)

The reviewer noted the lack of study normality, validity and reliability.

Response:   Reliability and validity information has been provided in table 4. We have not performed normality analysis because the SEM specification minimizes the residual error in the endogenous latent variables [37] and reduces the bias in the estimators [42] regardless of the normality of the variables [74].

7. Discussion:

• The reviewer suggested to checking the results section and to remove any discussion related aspect. This has been done especially for the moderators’ implications;
• Formal errors like the one in lines 472-473 were corrected

 

8. Conclusions: The limitations have been included and were there even before. We included them before the conclusion section as per the Sustainability journal guidelines for authors.

9. References: The references have been rearranged in order of presentation and not by alphabetical order as recommended by the reviewer.

Kind regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

0.- General comment

 

I congratulate the authors for the effort made.

The document has been considerably improved after revision. However, you can still further improve the order in which the content is presented. Sometimes it goes back and forth instead of grouping it together.

 

1.- Abstract

 

1. a) The summary must justify why the theory of planned behaviour and the variables used are chosen, as is the case of the perceived social norm.

 

2.- Introduction

 

62. a) Sentences too long. For example, lines 31 to 34; 58 to 62.
63. b) At the end of line 62, some reference should be included.

 

3.- Literature review

 

124. a) Some references should be added to justify the text of lines 119 to 124.
125. b) The explanatory text of line 185 to 187 should be included before hypothesis 1.
126. c) Study variables (e.g. PsyCap, PSN) should be explained in more detail. It is one thing to define what the letters mean and another to explain state of the art about these variables, even briefly.

 

4.- Methodology

 

1. a) The aged sample seems too large to be young. The selection of that cohort should be somewhat better justified.
2. b) It should be explained how the sample was accessed to the specific subjects.
3. c) It should be justified why PLS is chosen.
4. d) Does the percentage of women and men represent the study population?

 

5.- Results

 

1. a) I find it difficult to follow the analysis and results. The authors do NOT use the recommended analysis guidelines when using the PLS model of structural equations, such as the following:

 

Ali, F .; Rasoolimanesh, S.M .; Sarstedt, M .; Ringle, C.M .; Ryu, K. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 514–538.

 

Hair, J.F .; Risher, J.J .; Sarstedt, M .; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24.

 

1. b) Due to the above, I cannot verify the discussion.

 

6.- Conclusions

 

1. a) There are no limitations or future lines of research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for the time took in rerevising the manuscript. Your comments have been of significance help in improving the quality of our communication. Below are your comments and our response on each.

0.- General comment

I congratulate the authors for the effort made.

The document has been considerably improved after revision. However, you can still further improve the order in which the content is presented. Sometimes it goes back and forth instead of grouping it together.

Response: thank you so much for the compliment. We have rearranged the flaw of ideas in the text, especially in the literature review and introduction sections. We hope the content reads now well.  

1.- Abstract

1. a) The summary must justify why the theory of planned behaviour and the variables used are chosen, as is the case of the perceived social norm.

Response: Thank you so much for the comment. We could do this, however the summary is becoming long. The justification is included in introduction, literature review and discussion sections.

2.- Introduction

Sentences too long. For example, lines 31 to 34; 58 to 62.

Thank you so much for this comment. The sentences have been checked and corrected.

At the end of line 62, some reference should be included.

Thank you so much for the comment. The references have been added.

3.- Literature review

a). Some references should be added to justify the text of lines 119 to 124.

References have been added. Thank you for the suggestion.

b). The explanatory text of line 185 to 187 should be included before hypothesis 1.

Thank you for the suggestion. This has been done as indicated by the track change mode.

1. Study variables (e.g. PsyCap, PSN) should be explained in more detail. It is one thing to define what the letters mean and another to explain state of the art about these variables, even briefly.

Thank you for the comment. PsyCap and its constructs are illustrated and explained from lines 125 to 141. The concepts have been illustrated throughout the whole paper. PSN and its constructs are explained or illustrated from lines 142 to 155, from lines 171 to 194.

4.- Methodology

1. a) The aged sample seems too large to be young. The selection of that cohort should be somewhat better justified.

Response: Thank you so much for the comment. The definition of youth by age was based on the African Union Youth Charter age bracket of youth definition [83]. We have highlighted this in lines 311 and 312.

1. b) It should be explained how the sample was accessed to the specific subjects.

Response: Thank you for the comment. This is explained in lines 319 to 323, if you are reading the revised manuscript in simple markup mode. 

 

1. It should be justified why PLS is chosen.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The reasons for the use of PLS−SEM have been provided in lines 357 to 369, if you are reading the revised manuscript in simple markup mode. 

1. Does the percentage of women and men represent the study population?

Response: We would arguably say no, although official data about the ratio young women to men is not available. Young men were most willing to participate in the study despite our effort to involve as many ladies as possible.

5.- Results

1. a) I find it difficult to follow the analysis and results. The authors do NOT use the recommended analysis guidelines when using the PLS model of structural equations, such as the following:

Ali, F .; Rasoolimanesh, S.M .; Sarstedt, M .; Ringle, C.M .; Ryu, K. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 514–538.

Hair, J.F .; Risher, J.J .; Sarstedt, M .; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24.

Response: Thank you so much for the comment, although it looks like not clear. These two papers recommend the use of PLS Smart in analysing data with PLS−SEM Model, which has been used in this study. We are failing to understand which specific guidelines were not used or followed in analysis. It is also true that several books and research papers have been written on the use of PLS PLS-SEM and there is no consensus on the best analysis or best model fit indicators. We cannot insure you that we have done each and everything recommended in the two papers, however the analysis we performed aligns with most of the two papers’ recommendations. Sometimes, the recommendations in both papers are inconclusive.  We assessed the model’s measures reliability and validity and we evaluated the structural model.  We did not cite any of these two papers, however we relied on similar papers and got the same guidelines. Now, that we have read these two papers, they have been referenced in our study.

1. b) Due to the above, I cannot verify the discussion.

Response: Due to the explanation provided, please be kind to proceed with revising the discussion.

6.- Conclusions

1. a) There are no limitations or future lines of research.

 

Response: The limitations and future lines of research are there. We have added them in conclusion (lines 655 to line 673, if you are reading the revised manuscript in simple markup mode. ) unlike in the initial version where they were included in discussion.

 

Best regards,