Welfare-Partnership Dynamics and Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is a need to give contexts (social, economic and historical) as to why and how these welfare-partnership vis-a-vis to sustainability development exist in the first place among these network organizations. 

Discussion on linking it to Social work principles and values can be seen lacking; even contribution to social work and welfare theory and practice has not been presented nor examined. 

Author Response

I am grateful to reviewer 1 for the valuable suggestion of contextualization and conceptual clarification of social partnerships, fully agreeing that this clarification, since the introduction, allows us to reinforce the guiding thread of the research and clarify the usefulness of this research.

I appreciate the suggestion to discuss the link to Social Work principles and values, however, in this case, despite also using social work literature, I considered that the focus on Social Work principles and values is outside the scope of the article. These social partnerships mobilize various disciplinary areas and are therefore not professional contexts exclusively used by social workers. More importantly, an article in preparation, which I am working on, follows this suggested thematic line- Professional Identity of Social Workers and Eco-Social
Development.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is generally well written and has the potential to advance theory and understanding.  The concept of welfare partnerships can be better developed in relation to the collaboration and regional governance literatures.  In particular the institutional collective action framework (Policy Studies Journal 2013) is very relevant.  Linking the theoretical framing to the. ICA framework and its application would strengthen the manuscript.  Also the empirical work of Antonio Taveras applying ICA to Europe and to Portugal might be addressed as well.

Author Response

I am grateful for the suggestion by reviewer 2 to deepen the concept of social partnerships by mobilizing literature on collaboration and regional governance. Unfortunately, the submitted manuscript did not clearly present the relationship between social partnerships and territorial governance in the theoretical review. This suggestion was crucial to strengthen the article, in the introduction, conceptual clarification, presentation of results and discussion.

Also grateful for the suggestion to include a reference to the work of António Tavares, which I keep on my table for future researches, I did not consider it opportune for this article as it escapes the main scope, the relationship between the pluri-institutional structures of social partnerships with sustainable development. The partnerships under analysis cover public entities - central and local government - private non-profit entities and social and economic
groups in the community.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very well written paper. I have only one quite minor suggestion which is to add a time frame for the data collection. It looks like 2017-2018. This matters as contextually then it would be important to note that this work was pre-COVID and further work might be warranted to consider the impact of COVID on the sustainability or continuance of these projects. 

Author Response

I appreciate the suggestion of reviewer 3 on clarifying the deadline for data collection, a topic that made it possible to clarify the methodology used, namely in updating data on ongoing projects in the post-covid phase. Unfortunately, the initial manuscript did not address the collection deadline, as it placed the present article in the course of a doctoral research, completed in 2019, given the character constraints that the author stipulated. This explanation was introduced in the method, namely between lines 338-346.

Reviewer 4 Report

 

For the authors’ guidance my evaluation and some constructive remarks that would help to improve the paper’s quality are included below:

 

General Comments & Strength of the Paper

General Comments: There are some interesting and important insights in this article. In more detail, these are the main points that could be improved:

 

Introduction

While the introduction provides an overview of some key themes of “sustainable development”, “community development”, “partnership”, it remains unclear how these used for this specific piece of work. A few terminologies used in the article need more unpacking at the start, particularly for those approaching the article for the theory and concepts. For instance, these notions ought to be considered in the framework of the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (https://sdgs.un.org/goals).

 

Research Questions: Why did the authors not specify specific research inquiries that are relevant to the study? (They only stated one question in abstract: What can we learn from the experience of municipal social action partnerships likely to assist us in building sustainable development formulas?) Several research questions can be included in the text. In case when research questions are identified, then the authors can attract the attention of readers who are able to conceive the framework of investigation at first glance. I recommend the authors to come up with their research questions, and why the research is interesting and relevant to the field. The lack of research questions makes the study difficult to understand.

 

Literature review

The key arguments would benefit strongly from further fleshing out.

 

Methodology

I recommend the authors clarify their methodology in detail (e.g., research paradigm: positivism/post-positivism/constructivism/critical theory, research design, research tools, and so on), making sure that their planned methods/research tools are fully detailed. They ought to give attention to justifying their chosen methodology in terms of demonstrating applicability, adjustment, and usefulness in the paper.

 

Strength: The cases studied illustrate the usefulness of adopting a sustainable development model in welfare partnerships, guided by the objectives of a place-based approach and materialised in new paradigms of development, institutions, knowledge, practices, and networks; new visions of cohesion, integration, and correction of asymmetries that take into account efficient resource allocation, the articulation of local and inter-municipal objectives, innovation, and the capacity for strategic predictability of new products.

 

Originality: I have detected a 4% iThenticate Similarity Index Analysis Score excluding quotes and bibliography (Please see Attachment for the iThenticate Similarity Index Analysis Report) that is acceptable/tolerable for peer reviewed journals. The international standard of tolerance level for peer-reviewed journals is max. 15%.

 

Sophistication of the Argument

Supportive statement: The topic area is problematised, the discussion has an obvious structure, moving from a general to a more focused theme(s), ideas are clearly/fully developed, and circular reasoning is not used. The conceptualisation has enriched a substantial depth by the application of case study approach. The main ideas presented by the authors are obvious/intelligible and presented in a logical, easy-to-follow manner; the main themes are well-structured and summarised; ideas/insights are not “out-of-the-blue” i.e., they develop as a result of the discussion.

 

Critique: The article largely lacks precision and at times clarity. The argument is not always clear. Moreover, various statements are postulated without clear argumentation and the connection between the points made remains at times obscure. The theoretical and methodological basis for some of the evaluative statements should at time be made clearer. The construction of methodology is inadequate. I recommend the authors to search for how to apply parametric tests more appropriately. I may recommend the authors an engaged scholarship approach that can synthesise the viewpoints and attitudes of “academia”, “government”, and “practitioners” in terms of implementation of UN-SDG goals and theory-practice combination. To what extent socio-economic approaches based on UN-SDG goals and public policy discourses can be successful for clarifying dialectical relations in the framework of the research limitation? I think the authors may imply the direct effect of stakeholder theory (i.e., both key stakeholders and miscellaneous stakeholders) on public policy. Perhaps, the role of key stakeholders – both “public” stakeholders and “civil” stakeholders – in the context of  community and sustainable development can be worth for further investigation.

The paper lacks a clear (and interesting) research question, and this could also be linked to the fact that a theoretical part is seemingly a bit weak. The readers understand somehow “what” the paper attempts to do, they also get the “how”, however the most interesting question, the “why!!!” is not tackled.

“What-Context”: It is about the descriptive nature (e.g., quotations of the relevant literature, clarifying notions, etc.) of this study.

“How-Context”: It is associated with the “methodology and research tools (e.g., argumentation, justification, research enquiry, and so on.)” used in this investigation.

“Why-Context”: It is more relevant to the originality, added value, specific contribution to the existing literature, implications for future studies and so on. I recommend the author to enrich the “Why-Context.” The author should give more detailed clarifications about the research findings and the originality of this investigation.

 

Concluding Remarks

I appreciate there has been a lot of reading and ground covered. The study may have a stronger focus, compelling argument and discussion, and an indication of why the paper holds value to the readership of Sustainability (MDPI). I recommend the authors reconsider the approach adopted here; think about the research questions they wish to examine; make sure the literature review is a lot more cohesive, and make sure the link between the research questions and empirical results is a lot “tighter” than presented herewith.

In light of the above, I recommend revisions but hope this article proceeds to publication thereafter. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I thank reviewer 4 for the analysis, reading and relevance of the suggestions for improvement, namely:
- The suggestion to clarify the concept of social partnerships since its introduction, placing there the relationship with the 2030 agenda for sustainability. Although I addressed this issue in the manuscript's conceptual explanation, the approach taken since the introduction has allowed me to emphasize the relevance of research and the use of case studies to demonstrate the utility of using sustainability formulas in social partnerships.
- In fact, I recognize that the proposal to unroll the research question and integrate them in the text made it difficult to understand the study. As a result, in addition to the key question, which appeared in the manuscript's abstract, I included two more research questions at the point of methodology, and throughout the text, I highlighted the link between the research questions, the results, and the discussion.
- Clarification and methodological detail suggestions, including the research paradigm sequence, methodologies, and tools. I now consider this topic to be more robust, as it has allowed me to clarify justifications for using case studies as a methodological option since it focuses on paradigmatic cases, allows for the collection of in-depth information, and demonstrates similarities that reveal the utility of sustainable development formulas in social partnerships. The methodology chapter underwent significant revision.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

 

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to you for your scientific efforts during the revision process. Great job. Congratulations!