Digital Ethnography? Our Experiences in the Use of SenseMaker for Understanding Gendered Climate Vulnerabilities amongst Marginalized Agrarian Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled “Digital ethnography? Our experiences in the use of Sense Maker for understanding gendered climate vulnerabilities amongst marginalized agrarian communities” is interesting and according to the scope of journal. The authors applied a digital tool SenseMaker, to understand deeprooted and multidimensional inequalities and vulnerabilities. This “digital ethnography” tool is designed to capture individual, embodied experiences, biases, and perceptions through processes which require a systematic co-analysis of the data by the researchers and the researched. Our research in Gaya District in Bihar shows that the tool allows the mapping and capturing of the complexities of intersectionality in relation to climate change vulnerability. However, the efficiency of the tool in collecting and analyzing large volumes of data in a relatively short time is affected by factors such as the need for translation into local languages. We also noted that the application of the tool can be influenced by the participants prior exposure to technology. Most importantly, perceptions, positionalities, and biases of researchers can significantly impact the design of the tool’s signification framework, reiterating the fact that researcher bias persist regardless of technological innovations.

The article is publishable in the journal after addressing following comments. 

1. The introduction should start with problem identification at global level. 

2. Please don’t provide any citation in the abstract. 

3. The article is lack of literature from South Asia especially in the first paragraph of introduction following studies can be referred. 

[1] Impact of climate change on crop productivity in Western Ghats, coastal and northeastern regions of India

[2] Climate change perception: an analysis of climate change and risk perceptions among farmer types of Indian Western Himalayas

[3] Impact of meteorological drought on agriculture production at different scales in Punjab, Pakistan

[4] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan

4. Moreover, authors must have to write the research questions at the end of introduction section.

5. Please avoid using personal nouns such as I, we, us etc. 

6. Several limitations have been mentioned in the last section of paper. What solutions you can propose to overcome those specific limitation? It would be better if you can write some solutions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment + the supporting matrix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Digital ethnography? Our experiences in the use of SenseMaker for understanding gendered climate vulnerabilities amongst marginalized agrarian communities” describes and highlights the importance of digital ethnography. Digital research tools and methods are increasingly popular enabling efficient collection and analysis of real time, large-scale data. These methods can also minimize subjective biases in traditional qualitative research. Overall, I appreciate the authors for such valuable efforts and good quality of manuscript. I will only suggest some minor changes in different sections of the manuscript, which may aid in improving quality.

Title: The title of the manuscript is appropriate.

Abstract:

The abstract is well written, a little refining needed for the following lines.

- Line 15: Is it ok to cite a reference in abstract? Check with the journal formatting!

Introduction

The introduction is written very well, good literature and citation has been used. I would only suggest the following minor changes.

- Line 53: close analyzing or close analysis?

- Line 60: mediums or media?

- Line 91 and 92: Why bold? And also check the numbers, is the percentage 53.6% correct?

- Line 115: Can you provide a weblink or source for the SenseMaker?  

Material and methods

Good use of scientific language, I have the following suggestions

The first 3 paragraphs have more like introduction touch, can you maybe focus more on the methods, and move anything which is close to introduction to the Introduction section?

- Line 323: Young ….date?

Line 363 and 364: can you actually provide the methods used for this data collection, maybe provide the actual questionnaire used as appendix?

Results

Good language use and good commentary provided for qualitative results.

However, line 391 to 414 describes the way data was collected etc. can this be moved to the methodology part?

Same questions about the part line 449 to 468. Can this be adjusted in the Methods section?

Line  511: prompting participants could create biased data? How did you address this problem?

Discussion

- Line 597-640: Can these paragraphs be moved to the discussion section, as here the future application and limitations are discussed.

Conclusion

This part seems too long. Could there be a shorter version of the conclusion?

Institutional Review Board statement: How is this not applicable? The study is collecting information from human subjects.

References:

Most of the references used are older than 5 years. I am sure that will affect the literature review part and introduction of the study. Also, how could these old papers allow the authors to compare their results with recent advances in the field of digital ethnography?

I will leave this to the editor to decide on it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment + the supporting matrix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper's investigation of gender climate vulnerability in marginal agricultural communities has major implications. We are all aware that it might be challenging to gather and compile data in this area. The usage of the SenseMaker tool to support this study is discussed in this paper. It does not appear to be a research article, though, as the entire work primarily explains the process of using the tool and the challenges faced and lacks significant proof like data, figures, and statistical analysis of the findings generated and sorted by the process of using the tool.

The sole figure 1 in the article is a direct description rather than a figure at all.

The essential data, analysis, and other reinputs should be revised and supplemented even if this article is a description of the SenseMaker tool methodology.

Author Response

Please see attachment + the supporting matrix. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved. The manuscript is ready for publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

According to the previous comments, the authors edited and enhanced the manuscript and added some fair justifications and supplements. Although there is a discussion of research methodologies here, and the methods are sufficiently described, in my opinion, technical materials should be included in the appendix so that the reader can better comprehend and assess the viability of the procedures investigated.

Several minor issues point to improvement.

(1) The figures for the current appendix is unclear. It is suggested that the authors upgrade.

(2) The formatting of lines 256-258 is incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I don't have any more comments to say.

Congratulations to the Authors.