Entrepreneurial Literacy of Peasant Families during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper was an interesting read. Its scope is relatively small and the findings are not game-changing, but they can nevertheless be useful and the paper provides some insight into the Indonesian reality (more on that in a minute). However, the paper can benefit from a series of improvements.

1 - The first thing worth mentioning is that you should specify everywhere in the paper (starting with the title) that this situation is specific to Indonesia. It might be occurring somewhere else, but you don’t bring forward any evidence for that. Thus, a generalisation overstates the paper’s reach and purpose. I also understand that the authors feel encouraged to address a “gap”. But I do not really think that there is one. Other authors have carried out research on Ethiopia and India. Is that not enough? Then again, there is perhaps a gap when it comes to the Indonesian case.

2 – The abstract could and should reveal a bit more about the conclusions

3 – With regard to the literature review. The paper presents a solid and updated list of bibliography. Yet, there are two main topics that the authors analyse and study that should be underpinned with some more investigation from relevant peers.

Terms such as entrepreneurial literacy and agricultural literacy are very interesting, but they are not the same thing, as it seemingly appears sometimes (the reasoning being: that farmers have agricultural literacy, which thus enables them to become more entrepreneurial, thus agricultural literacy somehow equates to entrepreneurial literacy – that is not the case). You should also add some more references on entrepreneurship (and entrepreneurship literacy) and its modern concept – as it is no longer seen as just the ability to open and run a business. I will not mention here references, as there are plenty of them available. These foundational terms should be clearly exposed and defined, with the help of academic referencing.

When it comes to the changes in the global environment faced by peasants, I would recommend the authors to study and analyse the following articles:

•          Mashizha, Tinashe. (2019). Adapting to climate change: Reflections of peasant farmers in Mashonaland West Province of Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies. 11. 10.4102/jamba.v11i1.571.

•          Chipenda, Clement. (2021). Peasant production and livelihoods in times of crisis: An exploration of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on peasants in rural Zimbabwe.

The same reasoning applies to the factual need (and benefits) for peasants to acquire formal knowledge and have access to entrepreneurship education.

There are currently multiple examples of new and updated research on these topics, so it is important that the authors look can strengthen their statements.

I suggest the authors analyze the following papers and investigation:

•          Deekor, Holly. (2019). The Role of Agricultural Entrepreneurship Education in Employment Generation and Community Empowerment. 3. 6-10.

•          Rengganata, S., Kantun, S., & Sukidin (2020). Benefits of literation information against improvement of mushroom agriculture in Rambipuji, Jember District. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 485.

•          Emmanuel, M., Preston Orieko, C., & James Gichuru, K. (2022). Adoption-Diffusion Model of Farm Innovations: Its Applicability to Radical Terraces Project in Rwanda. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology.

•          Bassim H. Kshash (2020) Training needs of okra growers: a case study, International Journal of Vegetable Science, 26:5, 433-440, DOI: 10.1080/19315260.2019.1640335

Finally, this paper is submitted to a journal on (and entitled) Sustainability. The word is not mentioned in the paper and the references are not particularly aligned with the topic. While I understand that the journal’s scope is vast, I suggest that the authors should consider referencing some literature on sustainability or bridge the gap between their paper and the topics of sustainability.

4 – Case study analysis

I would suggest you reflect on your hook (and thus strengthen your argument) based on Robert K. Yin’s (Case Study Research: Design Methods, 2018) 5 characteristics that make a case study relevant: “be meaningful, complete, have alternative perspectives, record sufficient evidence and be built on relevant qualities”. It would be interesting to see included in this paper some discussion about each of the cases selected, looked through this prism. This way, authors could validate (or possibly discard) their options. I do have some concerns about the validity of the case studies.

5 - I would like to know if the authors considered the possibility of using the Delphi method to collect the opinion of a greater number of specialists/entrepreneurs on a national scale, from other regions of Indonesia. I believe that this study could have adopted the Delphi Study Technique to validate the results obtained through consensus.

I think that the use of a Delphi panel, composed of agricultural professionals from other regions of Indonesia, isjustified. This way authors could validate the results obtained, considering the experiences and knowledge of other professionals - which should represent a broad spectrum of agricultural paths and experiences. Each person in the panel should be recognised as a leader in their field. It would then be interesting to verify whether or not the results of this panel would be in line with the results indicated in the research carried out, namely in the way in which entrepreneurship literacy is obtained. For example, the cited paper “Spanning the Gap: The Confluence of Agricultural Literacy and Being Agriculturally Literate” uses the Delphi method.

6 – Concerns with methods

Indeed, I believe that some “blind spots” exist and that the methods could be better explained. The section is too short in my opinion and not satisfactory

Is it said stated that the validity of the data was verified using the triangulation technique. However, I do not understand clearly the conclusions attained by this triangulation.

The paper “Bridging entrepreneurial competencies and business model innovation: 529 Insights on business renewal in the small horticulture businesses in Finland” (13) uses a methodology in which cases can be compared and contrasted. Maybe the authors can find in it some inspiration for a revised version, since comparison and contrasting may be interesting. 

Concerning interviews: how were these conducted? What instruments/methods did you use? To what authors/papers/textbooks did you resort to?

According to Creswell (2007 – just one example), interviews are always conducted according to a protocol. What was yours? I think the readers would benefit from your explanation in this specific regard. 

7 – Entrepreneurship education

As mentioned before, key concepts such as entrepreneurship appear, but not in a clear way. Also, there is the relevance of entrepreneurship education, as per papers 1 and 14 in the bibliography. Thus, I think that references to entrepreneurship education (and everything that might come along with it, such as skills, financial literacy, public policies to implement entrepreneurship programmes in Indonesia, etc…) should be included in this paper. Since I believe this topic is so important for the paper, it should be included in the literature review as well. 

8 – Questions

On page 4: “The peasant family behavior results from interaction with the social and economic environment. It can be seen through concrete actions, such as applying any knowledge or understanding gained from the environment.” Based on what/who?

On page 4-5, the authors come up with several aspects of what they consider to be “Agricultural entrepreneurship literacy”. How did they come to these categories? Based on what/who?

On page 6 the authors say: “The changes in the socio-economic environment during the COVID-19 pandemic specifically encouraged the peasants to take the right attitude in managing their agricultural businesses”. What exactly is this “right attitude”?

All in all, this paper is interesting, but still has some rough edges that can be limed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Recommendation: Revision Required

Title: Entrepreneurial Literacy of Peasant Families During COVID-19 2 Pandemic

Reviewer point:

1.      The purpose and reasons for the research need to be conveyed in more detail.

2.      Need to be delivered Grounded Theory

3.      The author has written down several theoretical conditions from relevant and current sources, but it still does not convey an overview of the empirical conditions that make the research gab and become the idea of this research.

4.      The research question must be clear

5.      The theory used has been pointed out and referred to several relevant research results from reputable journals.

6.      The description of the findings is not enough. It is needed to refer back to the results of other studies, highlighting their differences and contributions.

7.      References are suggested using John W Crosswell's book

8.      The reasons for the subject selection and the study's location.

9.      The triangulation procedure  must be clear

10.  The appearance of the image and the table is clear

11.  And it has been described in detail in the existing table.

12.  The treatment of the research results is delivered in more detail and refers to the reinforcement of grounded theory. And it provided an implementation in the field (actual conditions).

13.  The conclusions have already been well conveyed. It is expected that this item of judgment is in response to the findings of the existing research objectives. Researchers should emphasize the practical implications of the results of this study. For example, it would be wiser if the main findings of this paper could explain the phenomenon that exists today. Also, the author has not presented the boundaries of the research paper. It is necessary to convey practical implications in detail.  And recommendations for further research.

14.  It is necessary to convey the uniqueness and differentiation of this study from previous research.

15.  There have been no detailed research limitations.

16.  The author needs to get the results of the study according to the structure of the structure and flow according to the template

17.  Professional reading needs to be done to translate the language

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 This manuscript explores the “entrepreneurial literacy” of peasant families in Sulawesi, Indonesia, before and after therecent pandemic of Covid-19. The authors interviewed six familes from December 2020 to March 2021. In the introduction, the paper does not provide the aim of the study and does not present the structure of the article, but somehow present data and methods.

I ask the authors to attein to a more precise definition of “agricultural literacy, socio-economic literacy, entrepreneurial literacy”, terms that recurr often and interchangeably, and to attein to greater consistency in their use.

Your deinition of entrepreneurship that “refers to doing new work and innovating in modern ways in everyday life” is narrow and limited to the agricultural (botanical?) setting. Expand or clarify you are specifically making reference to this context.

Table 1 is unclear if “Process of Developing Entrepreneurial Literacy” is splitted in internal and external. If not, do not replicate the title.

Results are mainly descriptive; it is hard to see how the different dimensions link to eachother and, more in general, how entrepreneurial (and agricultural) literacy impact the behavior of the peasant family. I am just saying that it is not a reliable study to make a contribution to the theory. The authors recognized the limits of such a short time form the event Covid-19 to appreciate any relevant change. At the same time, the implications of this work are not visible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I am glad to see how much your paper improved. Do consider using the Delphi method in the future. I will recommend publishing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: Entrepreneurial Literacy of Peasant Families During COVID-19 2 Pandemic

Reviewer point:

1.      The purpose and reason for the research need to be conveyed in  more detail è Ok

2.      Need to be delivered Grounded Theoryè  Ok

3.      The author has written down several theoretical conditions from relevant and current sources, but it still does not convey an overview of the empirical conditions that make the research gap and become the idea of this research. è Ok

4.      The research question should be straightforward è Ok

5.      The theory used has been pointed out and referred to several relevant research results from reputable journals.  è Ok

6.      The description of the findings is not enough. It is necessary to refer back to the effects of other studies, highlighting their differences and contributions. è  Ok

7.      References are suggested using his book John W Crosswellè  Ok

8.      The reasons for the subject selection and the study's location. è Ok

9.      The triangulation procedure  should be straightforward è Ok

10.   The image and table views  are clearè Ok

11.  And it has been described in detail in the existing table.  è Ok

12.  The treatment of the research results is delivered in more fact, and refers to the reinforcement of grounded theory. And had implementation in the field (actual conditions). è Ok

13.  The conclusions have already been well conveyed. It is expected that this item of a conclusion is in response to the findings of the existing research objectives. Researchers should emphasize the practical implications of the results of this study. For example, it would be wiser if the main findings of this paper could explain the phenomenon that exists today. Also, the author has not presented the boundaries of the research paper. It is necessary to convey practical implications in detail.  And recommendations for further research. è Ok

14.  It is necessary to convey the uniqueness and differentiation of this study with previous research.

15.  There have been no   detailed research limitations  .  è Ok

16.  The author needs to convey the results of the study according to  the structure of the structure and flow according to the tamplateè  Ok

17.  Need to do prof reading to translate languageè Ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I acknowledge the effort of the authors in the revision of this paper that led to some improvements. I must say at the same time that it is still not close to what I expected. The key issue with this paper is that the study of six cases is not suited to provide general conclusions, so the authors should lower their ambitions to contribute with generalizable results and instead put more emphasis on the context. This is the real motivation behind this case study approach. While there is a theory, that your study confirms, the need to put the theory into context is relevant, then, to find variations more than consistency with the theory is the contribution that you can provide to the reader.

I ask the author to add more context-based insights and reduce the emphasis on general results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The present revision is a further step foward. The article is now in a shape that the editors can consider for pubblication. Having say that, I still have doubts about the contribution of this 6 cases analysis, but I do not see other relevant ways to improve the paper. I left this to the editors' judgement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx