How the Popularity of Short Videos Promotes Regional Endogeneity in Northwest China: A Qualitative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article explores one of the current popular rural life content through qualitative research methods, mainly addressing the impact of short videos on rural endogeneity. This article attempts to explain the factors that promote the return of labor by constructing a theoretical framework, and demonstrates the impact of short videos on rural endogeneity through case analysis. But there are still some issues that need to be resolved in order to be able to publish smoothly.

1. I think qualitative research methods require a logically sound frame of mind around the problem to be solved. The logic of this paper is not strong in putting forward the problems to be solved, especially to clarify the relationship between rural endogeneity and labor return migration, otherwise the research content and the theme are not very relevant, just simply solve the relationship between short videos and labor return migration.
2. In Section 4.2, the author argues that local funding technology can promote the popularization of short videos, but does not focus on the topic to further clarify how short videos have a positive impact on rural endogeneity. Is there a logical irrational problem here?
3. What is the relationship between labor return migration and rural endogeneity? Are the two equal? If it is equal status, why the author thinks so and has not clearly stated in the front.
4. Section 4.3 finds that emotional strategies and local knowledge are key factors for the popularity of short videos , which has a causal reversal problem with the title. According to the title, the author should demonstrate that the short video promotes the problem of rural endogeneity and how it promotes.
5. There are also writing expressions in the paper that are not quite appropriate, and it is recommended that the author needs the help of a native English speaker or language editor.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find our itemized responses in below and our revisions in the re-submitted files.

• I think qualitative research methods require a logically sound frame of mind around the problem to be solved. The logic of this paper is not strong in putting forward the problems to be solved, especially to clarify the relationship between rural endogeneity and labor return migration, otherwise the research content and the theme are not very relevant, just simply solve the relationship between short videos and labor return migration.

We are agree with your opinions. In the part 4, we rewrite and rearrange the materiales of interviews. We put more detailes of the information of 17 interviewees. In particular, we have made many complementary explanations about short videos and returning labor and especially, the positive effect on the endogeneity, e.g. we could see 4.8 economic benefits and endogeneity drive.

• In Section 4.2, the author argues that local funding technology can promote the popularization of short videos, but does not focus on the topic to further clarify how short videos have a positive impact on rural endogeneity. Is there a logical irrational problem here?

Yes, in this section, it explains factors such as local technical support and the popularity of short videos, but does not explain much about the relationship with endogeneity. In fact putting so many factors in one section 4.2could be really confusing for the reader. This comment is really important and we have rewritten section 4 to put the different factors into a more detailed structure and explain the relationship between each factor and endogeneity, as shown in 4.1-4.8.

• What is the relationship between labor return migration and rural endogeneity? Are the two equal? If it is equal status, why the author thinks so and has not clearly stated in the front.

Yes, the labor return migration is the important factor for the rural endogeneity. In order to prove this, in the first part we state a statistics of TikTok: [22 June 2021, Tiktok released its first data report about the rural issues: over the past year, Tiktok rural videos received a total of 12.9 billion likes, and the income of rural video creators increased 15 times year-on-year. Among these video creators, 54% were young people returning to their hometowns to start their own businesses, with the highest proportion of urban white-collar workers returning to their hometowns, followed by migrant workers.] About our case of Qingyang City, we also add details in the part of interviews with officials to make clear about the relationship between labor return migration and rural endogeneity.

• Section 4.3 finds that emotional strategies and local knowledge are key factors for the popularity of short videos , which has a causal reversal problem with the title. According to the title, the author should demonstrate that the short video promotes the problem of rural endogeneity and how it promotes.

Ok, in the 4.6 we focus on the emotional factors, as the important drive to the return migration. We also emphasize rural endogeneity in each of these subsections and how the short video promotes it.

5.There are also writing expressions in the paper that are not quite appropriate, and it is recommended that the author needs the help of a native English speaker or language editor.

Thank you for your advice. We have invited a native speaker to proofread our articles for grammar mistakes and expressions.

We would like to thank you again for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. And we hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication soon.

Sincerely,

Jingting Zhang & Chao Jia

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is addressing a phenomena that results from the use of new media and its influence in new contexts as rural settings. The study focus on the role of short videos from social media celebrities on rural culture and traditions at the same time that contribute for community development. Additionally, the study highlights how the pandemic created new opportunities to promote traditional lifestyles connected to the nature, agriculture and cultural traditions, pointing to some benefits that may come from these new types of advertising and from returned migration. returned migration is a relevant topic in many regions of the globe, in particular for low density population regions, as the author will point.

The article focus is clear and the introduction outline the main standpoint and rationality, identifying the gap that this study aims to fill. Still, it could be relevant to bring from the start a critical view on these new trends and the possible levels of precarity that may be with it. Will this trend be solid and fruitful in a near future? Is this the beginning of a new rural culture produced half way between tradition and new media? and who are the owners and the beneficiaries of it, beyond the celebrities?

The Theory section covers two main topics: one related to return migration and development and the other on the influence of social. The title of this section is Literature Review, but my perspective is that lacks diversity of perspectives and of contributions to be considered as such. Therefore, I would suggest tu cover more contributions on those two topics. There are already a body of literature on the role of social media and the pandemic, inclusively on rural and regional settings. Additionally, it might be useful to contextualize these trends into youth cultures and to discuss later the changes hat the pandemic add to it. 

Method: the method includes a specific theoretical approach to better understand how methodological options have coherence. However, this section needs to include more information about the selected participants. the inclusion of a table with socio demographic it would be importante to better understand who are the interviewees and from which place are they speaking. Information about the type of interview and its topics is also important to understand the final categories. What were the main topics or questions? The author mention first 17 interviews but later in this section mention 12 interviews that were uploaded into NVivo.

The analysis procedure is not completely clear and semantic similarities are not completely convincing when doing content analysis. Moreover it is important to understand if different types of data brings with the same intensity information to the same categories. When referring to "original materials (page 6, line 297) do author means the videos? If so, what were the selection criteria? This is unclear. 

A better connection between table 1 and figure 1 is needed. 

Results: the three themes seem relevant. However, it sounds as a cause effect determination and I fear that with the type of data supporting the article is a bit difficult to make those solid affirmations. I was expecting less determination and more comprehension regarding the complex set of factors that explain why some migrants return and (question) if they are willing to stay. 

This section needs to be reorganized: author needs present more empirical data to support the affirmations and findings. It is hard to understand what are the words of the interviewees and who they are. Parts that are presented as being from Interviewees - from A to L - are presented in sequence along the 3 su sections of findings. Why is that? How many of the interviewees that are returnees are referring to each categories? What are the regularities and the specificities of them and of the 5 stakeholders? Are there any gender specific perspectives or is educational level a relevant aspect to interpret their perspectives?

In the findings/results sections and in the conclusions there are almost no relationship with theoretical contributions and this links could be done in several parts of it. 

I really enjoyed the topic and I hope my comments may be helpful. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. Many of the details you mentioned were very helpful and you have provided very detailed suggestions for the revision. Thank you for your dedication. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find our itemized responses in below and our revisions in the re-submitted files.

• Still, it could be relevant to bring from the start a critical view on these new trends and the possible levels of precarity that may be with it. Will this trend be solid and fruitful in a near future? Is this the beginning of a new rural culture produced half way between tradition and new media? and who are the owners and the beneficiaries of it, beyond the celebrities?

All these questions are very well useful and deserve our deep thoughts. Yes, we have no idea about these new trends could be solid and fruitful in a near fear future. Because the impact of the COVID-19 on China has not yet abated, and we do not yet know whether these returning laborers will be willing to stay in their localities and contribute to the economic development of their hometowns if the epidemic factor is excluded in the future. But we add these limitations at the last of the article and put some suggestions in order to have a lasting attraction for returning laborers. Yes it’s a new beginning and a new way for the rural culture to be transmitted by the short videos and the live streaming. We have made more explications about the owners and the beneficiaries we put more explanations in the part 2.3 Rural Media practice and Youth Culture and the part 4.8 Economic benefits and endogeneity drive as well as the conclusions. In fact, it’s a question of endogeneity. Beyond the celebrities, their families, villages, local government, and society will be positively affected. It also provides a new sample for the study of rural issues in the world.

• The Theory section covers two main topics: one related to return migration and development and the other on the influence of social. The title of this section is Literature Review, but my perspective is that lacks diversity of perspectives and of contributions to be considered as such. Therefore, I would suggest tu cover more contributions on those two topics. There are already a body of literature on the role of social media and the pandemic, inclusively on rural and regional settings. Additionally, it might be useful to contextualize these trends into youth cultures and to discuss later the changes hat the pandemic add to it. 

Yes, we agree with your suggestions. We add the part 2.3. Rural Media practice and Youth Culture in order to state the new trends of social media and pandemic in the youth cultures. We also focus on the changes after the pandemic.

• Method: the method includes a specific theoretical approach to better understand how methodological options have coherence. However, this section needs to include more information about the selected participants. the inclusion of a table with socio demographic it would be importante to better understand who are the interviewees and from which place are they speaking. Information about the type of interview and its topics is also important to understand the final categories. What were the main topics or questions? The author mention first 17 interviews but later in this section mention 12 interviews that were uploaded into NVivo.

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the part of method and the interview. We really appreciate your opinions. In the part 4, we rewrite and rearrange the materials of interviews. We put more details of the information of 17 interviewees. We made a table for the information of each interviewee and add more details. We conclude the 10 questions of interview at the start of the part 4 to make better understanding. About 17 or 12 interviews we also make a clearer statement.

[We randomly selected 3/4 of the original materials and imported them into NVivo12 software, including 13 interviews with returning laborers and their related stakeholders and 4 official data on returning laborers, making a total of 17 materials.]

[To ensure the reliability of the study's findings, we imported the remaining five materials (17 interviews of influencers and five of officials for a total of 22 materials, 17 of which were previously used for testing) and data into NVivo12 for category condensation, and found no new concepts or categories emerging, indicating that the theoretical model had reached saturation.]

• A better connection between table 1 and figure 1 is needed. 

Yes, we have changed the position of figure 1 as the conclusion of part 4 and made more connections and explanations.

• Results: the three themes seem relevant. However, it sounds as a cause effect determination and I fear that with the type of data supporting the article is a bit difficult to make those solid affirmations. I was expecting less determination and more comprehension regarding the complex set of factors that explain why some migrants return and (question) if they are willing to stay. 

Yes, you are right. We rewrite the part 4, so now we have 8 themes and more contents so that we think we have provided more affirmations. It’s much easier to understand each interviewee about their situation.

• This section needs to be reorganized: author needs present more empirical data to support the affirmations and findings. It is hard to understand what are the words of the interviewees and who they are. Parts that are presented as being from Interviewees - from A to L - are presented in sequence along the 3 su sections of findings. Why is that? How many of the interviewees that are returnees are referring to each categories? What are the regularities and the specificities of them and of the 5 stakeholders? Are there any gender specific perspectives or is educational level a relevant aspect to interpret their perspectives?

It does not make sense to arrange the interviewers from A to L. This is something we did not consider well at the beginning. We should have listed each interviewer's profile, age, gender, education status, etc. So we have changed it to the interviewer's last name to make it easier for the reader to understand. We have female interviewees too. Five officials have also been explained in more detail, and interviews have been included, as detailed in Part 4.

• In the findings/results sections and in the conclusions there are almost no relationship with theoretical contributions and this links could be done in several parts of it. 

We also modified the conclusion section by adding theoretical contributions to different parts of the exposition, and the conclusion also removed some absolute expressions and replaced them with suggested conclusions as well as trend predictions, which more correspond to the requirements of qualitative research.

Thank you again for your suggestions. It was your suggestion that allowed us to reorganize the structure and logic of the interview section, making the article richer and more complete. We would like to thank you again for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. And we hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication soon.

We would like to thank you again for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. And we hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication soon.

Sincerely,

Jingting Zhang & Chao Jia

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, your approach is interesting. Please find my comments below.

Please start with new paragraphs from line L66, L71 and L77: „ 1) The problems of rural development have been…” , „ 2) The explanatory framework of 71 modernization…”, „ 3) The view of modernity lags behind the…”

Please replace following text from L299 „31 initial…” with „thirty one…”.

I recommend a quantitative analysis of the data on the rural population and the evolution of the popularity of short videos.

There is a space on line L344 between "were" and "expensive".

I recommend a more detailed presentation of the results obtained through the software / instruments used (output tables).

I recommend for currency units, next to the national currency, in parentheses its transformation into a common currency (eg EUR). (L353)

There is a space on line L360.

Please add, either at the end of the conclusions section or at the end of the article, the limits of the research, for example the small sample size.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. Many of the details you mentioned were very helpful and you have provided very detailed suggestions for the revision. Thank you for your dedication. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find our itemized responses in below and our revisions in the re-submitted files.

We have start with new paragraphs from line L66, L71 and L77: „ 1) The problems of rural development have been…” , „ 2) The explanatory framework of 71 modernization…”, „ 3) The view of modernity lags behind the…”

We have replaced following text from L299 „31 initial…” with „thirty one…”.

We have made improvement on the quantitative analysis of the data on the rural population and the evolution of the popularity of short videos.

We have correct the space on line L344 between "were" and "expensive" and L 360.

I recommend a more detailed presentation of the results obtained through the software / instruments used (output tables).

We have refined the graphs of the analysis results.

We have unified the monetary unit.

We have added limitations of this study in terms of persistence in the "conclusion" section.

We would like to thank you again for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. And we hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication soon.

Sincerely,

Jingting Zhang & Chao Jia

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: How the Popularity of Short Videos Promotes Regional Endogeneity in Northwest China: A Qualitative Study

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1610811

The author has supplemented and improved the survey materials, emphasized the relationship between short videos, labor returning and rural endogeneity, and made careful writing and revisions, which basically solved the problems raised.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your efforts and patience. Your valuable comments have made this article worthwhile. We are very grateful.

Best wishes！

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this contribution again. The article went though major changes with impact in clarity, soundness and articulation between data and assertions. 

All the suggestions I made were addressed and/or explained. New sections on theory were introduced or improved by integrating more diversified contributions. Methodological procedures were clarified and new information was introduced. Results section were rewritten in some parts and the connection between interpretation and empirical data was improved. I just found some small typos that will be easy to correct after a last revision. 

This is an interesting contribution and that can resonate for different rural context around the globe.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please cite the bibliographic sources in the text in square brackets.

Please replace the citations of the names in the text with the bibliographic indicator in square brackets.

Please remove the additional numbering of the newly entered references in front of the authors' names. lines L830 - L849

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your efforts and patience. Your comments have been revised and corrected. Your valuable comments have made this article worthwhile. We are very grateful for this.

Best wishes！