Is an Intergenerational Program Effective in Increasing Social Capital among Participants? A Preliminary Study in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

#1 The author's analysis of only a small number of samples to represent the entire population of the group has inherently unobjective research limitations.It is recommended that the author should more accurately think about the consistency of research topics and research scopes, so as not to fail to produce appropriate correspondence.

#2 Because the author discusses the topics too extensively, the process of time may be limited to a certain point in time, which will cause bias in the research and analysis. Therefore, in addition to the sample selection considerations, whether the left and right cross-sections of the time axis should also be considered in order to be objective Present the causality of the research topic.

#3 The author's questionnaire source basis did not introduce a rigorous, consistent and objective scale presentation, so whether the results of the causal relationship analysis are sufficient to represent the correctness of the original scale is open to question.

#4 The research hypothesis proposes to present a research framework diagram to illustrate the relationship between the two dimensions. At the same time, the reference source of the coupon scale must also be a very rigorous use of questionnaires. In addition, this selection must also carefully consider the meaning of sampling and object selection. In order to truly reflect the causal relationship between research topics and objects.

Author Response

#1 The author's analysis of only a small number of samples to represent the entire population of the group has inherently unobjective research limitations. It is recommended that the author should more accurately think about the consistency of research topics and research scopes, so as not to fail to produce appropriate correspondence.

Thank you for your insightful comments they will be duly note and implemented in our future research. As this is an exploratory research, the limitations you have pointed out which were the size of the sample, topic and scope will be resourceful pointers in our future research.

#2 Because the author discusses the topics too extensively, the process of time may be limited to a certain point in time, which will cause bias in the research and analysis. Therefore, in addition to the sample selection considerations, whether the left and right cross-sections of the time axis should also be considered in order to be objective Present the causality of the research topic.

The limitations have been acknowledged and noted in the paper.

#3 The author's questionnaire source basis did not introduce a rigorous, consistent and objective scale presentation, so whether the results of the causal relationship analysis are sufficient to represent the correctness of the original scale is open to question.

The limitations were introduced in the discussion section.

#4 The research hypothesis proposes to present a research framework diagram to illustrate the relationship between the two dimensions. At the same time, the reference source of the coupon scale must also be a very rigorous use of questionnaires. In addition, this selection must also carefully consider the meaning of sampling and object selection. In order to truly reflect the causal relationship between research topics and objects.

The introduction section was revised and the limitations were commented in the paper. As this was an exploratory research, the limitations introduced in the paper and the comments delivered through reviewer 1 will be key in our future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the researchers for their contribution to science. The issues raised by the researchers are very important for building solidarity between the generations, especially in an ageing society. 

I would ask that the cultural context in Korea be added. What place does the elderly have in Korean society. The authors write about intergenerational rivalry, and I am interested in the issue of respect for old age. 

The description of the research carried out is logical and clear. Certainly, the obtained research results should be treated as an impulse for further research. The authors have critically evaluated the results of their research, which is commendable.  Indeed, the research sample is small. It would be worthwhile to continue the programme with other participants. 

Author Response

1. I would ask that the cultural context in Korea be added. What place does the elderly have in Korean society? The authors write about intergenerational rivalry, and I am interested in the issue of respect for old age

RESPONSE:  Thank you for the useful comments. As you suggested, we added the cultural context in Korea in the first paragraph of introduction section (page 1).

2. The description of the research carried out is logical and clear. Certainly, the obtained research results should be treated as an impulse for further research. The authors have critically evaluated the results of their research, which is commendable.  Indeed, the research sample is small. It would be worthwhile to continue the programme with other participants.

RESPONSE: Thank you for kind remarks.  Also, we mentioned study limitations and ideas for future research in the discussion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for sharing their work. I have enjoyed reading it and I think it fits perfectly with the journal and, more specifically, with the special issue in which its publication is requested. Perhaps it is a work that, going into more detail, would have a better place in other more theoretical fields of study.

I will try to provide a series of recommendations that could help to improve the proposed work:

- Abstract. I believe that this section should include a small global introduction to the topic at hand and not take the final conclusions for granted from the first line (lines 52 and 53). It is necessary to state in this first section the objectives of the work in order to be able to answer them later in the conclusions.

- Introduction. From the outset, the authors focus on the term "Intergenerational Programs" in a global and generic way. In my opinion, a previous contextual framework is missing in which the state of the question is presented in a global way, and then a more detailed breakdown of the objectives and state of the question of the specific topic chosen by the authors: intergenerational problems in the workplace. 

I believe that an in-depth "Academic Review" section is required. This is a subject that has been widely studied in the academic field, with positions for and against. Authors should take this into account before going into the specific details of their research. In the part referring to "Social Capital" (lines 159-187), very generic aspects applied to very different realities are again raised. The authors, in my opinion, should increase their research and be able to show concrete results that have been achieved in this area and, especially, in the field of action of their specific work. I have the impression that this section is a small sample of various references on the different fields of action of the "Social Capital" concept. The same happens in the section "Impact of Intergenerational Program on Social Capital" (lines 188-248), which is presented from a very theoretical point of view. I believe that, given that we are talking about an academic research article, there should be more depth in the study.

- Materials and Methods and Results. As I mentioned before, I believe that it is necessary to include a previous point referring to the suitability of the methodology used. It would be necessary to explain why this methodology is appropriate for the proposed study and to introduce similar studies in which this type of system is related to similar objectives and results. The key question to be answered by the authors is: is this study really necessary and are its contributions relevant from an academic point of view? I believe this point is crucial. Relating a very theoretical and very complex study to a sample of 56 individuals and being able to extrapolate the results. 

- Discussion. I believe that this section should include the possible limitations that, in the opinion of the authors, the study presented could have. Likewise, I believe that an attempt should be made to extrapolate the conclusions in order to give the work a global academic contribution.  That is, in my opinion, the authors should clearly indicate their most relevant contributions from an academic perspective by providing concrete, clear and well-developed results, not only descriptive conclusions.

I encourage the authors in their task and hope to continue to enjoy reading the revised work.

Author Response

1. Abstract. I believe that this section should include a small global introduction to the topic at hand and not take the final conclusions for granted from the first line (lines 52 and 53). It is necessary to state in this first section the objectives of the work in order to be able to answer them later in the conclusions. 

RESPONSE: Following your comments, we revised the abstract.             

2. Introduction. From the outset, the authors focus on the term "Intergenerational Programs" in a global and generic way. In my opinion, a previous contextual framework is missing in which the state of the question is presented in a global way, and then a more detailed breakdown of the objectives and state of the question of the specific topic chosen by the authors: intergenerational problems in the workplace.

RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing out a valuable comment. Revisions were made to provide clarity. Please see from the second to the fourth paragraph in the Introduction section.

3. I believe that an in-depth "Academic Review" section is required. This is a subject that has been widely studied in the academic field, with positions for and against. Authors should take this into account before going into the specific details of their research. In the part referring to "Social Capital" (lines 159-187), very generic aspects applied to very different realities are again raised. The authors, in my opinion, should increase their research and be able to show concrete results that have been achieved in this area and, especially, in the field of action of their specific work. I have the impression that this section is a small sample of various references on the different fields of action of the "Social Capital" concept. The same happens in the section "Impact of Intergenerational Program on Social Capital" (lines 188-248), which is presented from a very theoretical point of view. I believe that, given that we are talking about an academic research article, there should be more depth in the study.

RESPONSE: As per your comments, we revised the Introduction, in overall. Especially, please see “1.1. Social Capital Theory as a Conceptual Framework” and “1.2. Impact of Intergenerational program on Social Capital”.

4. Materials and Methods and Results. As I mentioned before, I believe that it is necessary to include a previous point referring to the suitability of the methodology used. It would be necessary to explain why this methodology is appropriate for the proposed study and to introduce similar studies in which this type of system is related to similar objectives and results. The key question to be answered by the authors is: is this study really necessary and are its contributions relevant from an academic point of view? I believe this point is crucial. Relating a very theoretical and very complex study to a sample of 56 individuals and being able to extrapolate the results.

RESPONSE: In the section of "2.2.4. Data analysis", we added the information of suitability of methodology and sample size.

5. Discussion. I believe that this section should include the possible limitations that, in the opinion of the authors, the study presented could have. Likewise, I believe that an attempt should be made to extrapolate the conclusions in order to give the work a global academic contribution.  That is, in my opinion, the authors should clearly indicate their most relevant contributions from an academic perspective by providing concrete, clear and well-developed results, not only descriptive conclusions.

RESPONSE: We added the conclusion of this study at the end of this manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

#1 Select from the sample's description: "The final sample size was 53; 30 older adults and 23 younger adults responded to both the pretest and posttest among the initial 56 program participants.", indicating that the author did not select the sample according to the general statistical sampling method, how It can represent the analysis of a wide range of issues such as "Sustainable Society for All Ages: The Effects of Intergenerational Program on Social Capital Among Participants in Korea".

#2 The statistical sampling problem of too large scope and too few samples is still not solved, and the empirical results are open to question.

#3 Both the research hypothesis and the question items lack clear statements, especially the source basis of the question items, and the author completely lacks the process of academic rigorous processing.

#4 There is almost no statistically rigorous method to reprocess the analysis process. Therefore, whether the research results can provide practical reference value is open to question.

Author Response

1. Select from the sample's description: "The final sample size was 53; 30 older adults and 23 younger adults responded to both the pretest and posttest among the initial 56 program participants.", indicating that the author did not select the sample according to the general statistical sampling method, how it can represent the analysis of a wide range of issues such as "Sustainable Society for All Ages: The Effects of Intergenerational Program on Social Capital Among Participants in Korea".

RESPONSE: We mentioned that our sampling process is based on previous studies. Please see the first sentence of “3.2.1. Data collection”. We also changed title.

2. The statistical sampling problem of too large scope and too few samples is still not solved, and the empirical results are open to question.

RESPONSE: In the section of 3.2.4. Data analysis, we added the information of suitability of methodology and sample size. In the previous studies we referenced on were also based on small samples with similar size. This research was conducted to explore the significance of intergenerational interaction and has thus proved significant.

3. Both the research hypothesis and the question items lack clear statements, especially the source basis of the question items, and the author completely lacks the process of academic rigorous processing.

RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing out a valuable comment. Revisions were made to provide clarity. Please see the section of 2. Literature Reviews. Further revision to meet reviewer’s comment would require to repeat the entire research. Please understand that this research was conducted to prove the hypothesis that intergenerational interaction, to some extent, had influence. The author invites the reviewer to collaborate in a more satisfying research going forward.  

4.There is almost no statistically rigorous method to reprocess the analysis process. Therefore, whether the research results can provide practical reference value is open to question.

RESPONSE: In the section of 3.2.4. Data analysis, we added the information of suitability of methodology and sample size. The author invites reviewer to provide more constructive advice in future research as there were limitations that did not allow the current study to meet reviewer’s standards within the given time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, first of all, thank you very much for the effort made in revising the work and for taking into account the recommendations made. However, I believe that the improvements made in the new work still have the same shortcomings as the previous version. 

• One of the most necessary recommendations was, in my opinion, to introduce a more in-depth literature review of the aspects studied. Unfortunately, this has not been done and only one new bibliographic reference has been introduced in the new work, number 37 in line 212.
• In the same sense, the only contribution made outside the "Discussion" section refers to the swAge model (lines 210-216) and refers to a mere description, so I believe that the shortcomings pointed out in the previous review are maintained. That is why it was indicated that a thorough academic review was necessary to provide concrete results and applications beyond purely descriptive aspects. The same shortcoming is still observed in the methodological section. I still think it is necessary to include a previous point referring to the suitability of the methodology used and to explain why this methodology is adequate for the proposed study. This is the main point that should be required of an academic article, whose main objective should be its academic contributions.
• The "Discussion" section (lines 501-540) has been improved but, in my opinion, the results are still very generic and do not contribute much. For example, when the authors point out as a final comment "It is necessary to develop a program and curriculum that allows older generations to look at the younger generations from a new perspective in a changing society. It is also necessary to reflect the characteristics and positions of various generations to increase social capital for all ages in the work environment. When future researchers design the intergenerational program, the older participants can demonstrate their strengths and achieve self-fulfillment based on the meso level of swAge-model", one has the feeling that it was easy to reach these conclusions beforehand beyond the work done.

I am sorry for the final assessment and I leave the decision in the hands of the editor. Best regards and good luck in the process.

Author Response

1. One of the most necessary recommendations was, in my opinion, to introduce a more in-depth literature review of the aspects studied. Unfortunately, this has not been done and only one new bibliographic reference has been introduced in the new work, number 37 in line 212.

RESPONSE: Revisions were made to provide clarity. Please see the section of 2. Literature Reviews. We added four more references explaining social capital and three more references about swAge model than the first manuscript.     

2. In the same sense, the only contribution made outside the "Discussion" section refers to the swAge model (lines 210-216) and refers to a mere description, so I believe that the shortcomings pointed out in the previous review are maintained. That is why it was indicated that a thorough academic review was necessary to provide concrete results and applications beyond purely descriptive aspects. The same shortcoming is still observed in the methodological section. I still think it is necessary to include a previous point referring to the suitability of the methodology used and to explain why this methodology is adequate for the proposed study. This is the main point that should be required of an academic article, whose main objective should be its academic contributions.

RESPONSE: In the section of 5. Discussion, we revised the implication of this study from the aspect of swAge model. In the section of 3.2.4. Data analysis, we also added the information of suitability of methodology and sample size.

3. The "Discussion" section (lines 501-540) has been improved but, in my opinion, the results are still very generic and do not contribute much. For example, when the authors point out as a final comment "It is necessary to develop a program and curriculum that allows older generations to look at the younger generations from a new perspective in a changing society. It is also necessary to reflect the characteristics and positions of various generations to increase social capital for all ages in the work environment. When future researchers design the intergenerational program, the older participants can demonstrate their strengths and achieve self-fulfillment based on the meso level of swAge-model", one has the feeling that it was easy to reach these conclusions beforehand beyond the work done.

RESPONSE: Following your comments, we revised the discussion and conclusions in overall from the aspect of swAge model within the given time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

#1 The author did not answer the reviewer's doubts. Why can only the samples of these two groups of ages be analyzed to represent the sample of the research topic?

#2 The author used the content of the previous papers as the basis to unscrupulously highlight the objectivity of the research, especially the representativeness of these samples is open to question.

#3 The content of the research to be discussed is not that the reviewer needs to understand that your research is not objective, but that the author needs to exclude non-objective basis.

#4 Same as #3, the content of the author's research cannot be modified into more rigorous content. It is not that the reviewer should ignore the author and understand the author, which will cause problems in the quality of journal publication.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out a valuable comments. Revisions were made to provide clarity. In the section of Discussion, we added separate subsection of 5.2. Limitations and tried to discuss more in-depth reflections on your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the authors for the improvements introduced in the work. Especially in the points referred to the literature review that helps to understand the contextual situation.

I still think that the results obtained, as well as the conclusions, are not powerful enough to provide any novelty in the scientific field, something I consider fundamental for any research article to be published.
However, I leave this point in the hands of the editor to assess the possibility of publication.

Best regards and encouragement in the work.

Author Response

As following the academic editor’s comments, we added a separate subsection of 5.2. Limitations and tried to discuss more in-depth reflections on study limitations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf