A Qualitative Study on Dubai’s Inclusive Education Policy from School Leaders’ Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I believe this manuscript reports meaningful findings that advance our understanding of inclusive education policy implementation. After minor edits to improve clarity, this paper would make a worthwhile contribution to the journal. To strengthen the rigor of this manuscript, the authors could expand the literature review to synthesize the most up-to-date research and clearly articulate how their study builds on and advances current knowledge. More details should be provided on the qualitative methodology and analysis to demonstrate credibility and trustworthiness. The results section can be enhanced by including more robust evidence for each theme using detailed interview excerpts and summary tables. The discussion should interpret the findings to prior literature, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence, while also discussing implications for theory, policy, and practice. Elaborating on limitations and directions for future research is advised. Overall, revising the background, methods, results, and discussion sections to be more comprehensive and detailed would serve to enhance the scholarly rigor and significance of this worthwhile study on an important topic.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written in clear and concise academic English. The language used is formal, objective, and appropriate for a research paper.

Author Response

• Comment: “Literature review: To strengthen the rigor of this manuscript, the authors could expand the literature review to synthesize the most up-to-date research and clearly articulate how their study builds on and advances current knowledge.”

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have made substantial additions to the literature review section of our revised manuscript. Specifically, in lines #159 to #209, we have incorporated new research studies that provide up-to-date insights into the topic. Furthermore, we have introduced a recent study in lines #229 to #236, which further contributes to the existing literature. The revised text in the manuscript has been highlighted in yellow.

• Comment: “Method: More details should be provided on the qualitative methodology and analysis to demonstrate credibility and trustworthiness.”

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have made significant improvements to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative methodology and analysis in the lines#261-365. We have also included a detailed Table 1 presenting the demographic characteristics of the participants in the Method section (lines #319-320), providing a clearer picture of the study's participants. Moreover, we have refined the analysis section, adopting a more formal tone throughout to ensure clarity and precision. To aid in the visualization of the reflexive thematic analysis process, we have introduced a figure (lines #333-334). In addition, we have added Table 2 that present example of the analytic process (lines #361-365).

• Comment: “Results: The results section can be enhanced by including more robust evidence for each theme using detailed interview excerpts and summary tables.”

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have taken several measures to enhance the results section. Firstly, we have included a summary of the results at the end of the section to provide a concise overview. To offer a comprehensive understanding, we have incorporated a detailed table presenting the demographic characteristics of the participants. This addition aims to provide more context and background for the study's results. Furthermore, we have integrated direct quotations and excerpts from the interviews throughout the results section (lines #385, 391, 421, 441, etc.). These excerpts serve to substantiate and illustrate the themes and sub-themes, providing robust evidence for each identified theme. To enhance clarity and visualization, we have included figures for each theme, depicting the overarching themes and their sub-themes. These visual representations contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the results.

• Comment: “Discussion: The discussion should interpret the findings to prior literature, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence, while also discussing implications for theory, policy, and practice. Elaborating on limitations and directions for future research is advised.”

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have diligently worked on enhancing the discussion section based on your suggestions. The revised discussion now provides a more comprehensive interpretation of the findings in relation to prior literature. We have specifically highlighted areas of convergence and divergence between our study and existing research, offering a nuanced perspective on the contributions and novel aspects of our findings. Furthermore, we have incorporated a dedicated section on limitations within the discussion (lines #623-644). This addition provides a more integrated and comprehensive discussion of the study's constraints, contributing to a more transparent and nuanced interpretation of the results. To address the implications of our study, we have expanded the discussion to encompass theoretical, policy, and practical implications (lines #645-676). This broader analysis aims to provide readers with insights into the broader relevance and applications of our findings. We have included a sub-heading on future research within the conclusions section (lines #695-708). This sub-heading outlines potential directions for future studies, ensuring that readers are guided toward areas that merit further exploration.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article: “Exploring School Leaders' Perspectives: A Qualitative Study on Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy” describes an implementation of the inclusive education policy aimed to promote equity and inclusivity in schools. This study is aimed to investigate school leaders' understanding, implementation, and perspectives on the Dubai Inclusive Education Policy Framework (DIEPF). This followed a qualitative approach and aimed to explore school leaders' perceptions of the DIEPF, including their understanding, utilization, and perspectives.

Author(s) have elaborated limitations of the study that should be considered when applying the findings on a national or international level.

In the present form this article is suitable for publication after minor changes.

General remarks:

- provide an real example of semi-structured interview from the article. Introduce separate section or put into the Appendix,

- can methods (Sec. 3. Methods) and discussion (3. Results) be automatized with software tools?,

- change title to: A Qualitative Study on Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy from School Leaders' Perspectives: Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy Case Study,

Here are minor changes that should receive author(s) feedback:

- line #35: “… various aspects of education”, avoid word “various” and list all relevant aspects used in this article,

- all acronyms should be explained: line #79 KHDA is not explained (although it is clear from the reference 13),

- lines #60-125: introduce new Section starting with “The education system in the UAE expects …” (line #60). Title can be “Research contest”. Describe preliminary considerations before detailed elaboration in the next sections.

- at the end of “Introduction” new paragraph should be added: “This paper is organize as follows…”,

- lines #126-167: Section “2. Literature Review” should be split into two separate sections: “Literate review” and “Scope and motivation”. After preliminaries and literature review sections, and before methods sections “Scope and Motivation” will clean and smoothly introduce interested reader to the main part of the article,

- line #168: change Section title from “Methods” to “Methods for ... (finish with own words that clearly clarify the purpose of the method),

- #line 169: give working definition with explanation (also new reference will help) what is “qualitative research methodology”,

- lines #175-191: add Table (or Figure) to visualize the content of the section,

- check Section numerations: “3. Methods” and “3. Results” have the same number”,

- line #215: give working definition with explanation (also new reference will help) for “Reflexive thematic analysis”,

- lines #215-235: this text should be rewritten in more formal way, for example line #225: “...was a recursive process, involving iterative movements between the steps to ensure that all coded data …”. Process and iterations should be explain through algorithms or visualized through figures,

- note that lines #225-228 are based on reference [36]: Clearly state what is author’s scientific increment in this analysis,

- after line #383 at the end of the section “Results” add mini-conclusion of the section,

- rewrite lines #385-399 with headings: “- insight into the..”, “- qualitative approach..” etc. Headings should in short present the most important moments that are elaborated in subsections (4.1-4.2),

- line #385: substitute the word “valuable” with “deeper”,

- lines #417-497, Section “Conclusion”: add headings that summarize the most important results from the article,

- lines #498-516, Section “Conclusion”: add headings that summarize the most important recommendations for further research,

- Reference section should be improved, some references should have more data (doi, web links) so interested reader can easily consult desired references. “https” references should have “last time visited” with date and time tag.

Author Response

• Comment: “Title: - change title to: A Qualitative Study on Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy from School Leaders' Perspectives: Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy Case Study,”

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the title of the paper based on your suggestion. The new title is "A Qualitative Study on Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy from School Leaders' Perspectives" As you can see in the line#1.

• Comment: “Introduction: - line #35: “… various aspects of education”, avoid word “various” and list all relevant aspects used in this article,”

Response: Thank you.  We have removed the word "various" and listed all the relevant aspects of education in lines# 33 to 36.

• Comment: “Research Context: - all acronyms should be explained: line #79 KHDA is not explained (although it is clear from the reference 13),”

Response: thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have addressed this issue in the revised manuscript, specifically in line #100, where we now provide an explanation for "KHDA" as the Knowledge and Human Development Authority.

• Comment: “- lines #60-125: introduce new Section starting with “The education system in the UAE expects …” (line #60). Title can be “Research contest”. Describe preliminary considerations before detailed elaboration in the next sections.”

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have already section titled "Research Context". We have certainly incorporated this change and initiate the section with the suggested heading, "The education system in the UAE expects…" in the line#83.

• Comment: “- at the end of “Introduction” new paragraph should be added: “This paper is organized as follows…”,”

Response: Thank you for pointing out that the requested paragraph has been included in the revised manuscript. It has been added at lines 150-157.

• Comment: “Literature Review - lines #126-167: Section “2. Literature Review” should be split into two separate sections: “Literate review” and “Scope and motivation”. After preliminaries and literature review sections, and before methods sections “Scope and Motivation” will clean and smoothly introduce interested reader to the main part of the article,”

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate the feedback and agree that splitting the current Section "2. Literature Review" into two separate sections, namely "Literature Review" and "Scope and Motivation," would provide a more organized structure for the manuscript as you can see in the revised manuscript in the lines#158-258

• Comment: “ - can methods (Sec. 3. Methods) and discussion (3. Results) be automatized with software tools?,”

Response: Thank you for your inquiry. In response to your question regarding the automation of the methods (Sec. 3. Methods) and discussion (Sec. 3. Results) sections, we would like to clarify that these sections cannot be fully automated with software tools.

• Comment: “Method: - line #168: change Section title from “Methods” to “Methods for ... (finish with own words that clearly clarify the purpose of the method),”

Response: We have replaced the section title from "Methods" to "Methods for Investigating School Leaders' Perceptions of the Dubai Inclusive Education Policy." line#259

• Comment: “Method: - #line 169: give working definition with explanation (also new reference will help) what is “qualitative research methodology”,

Response: In the revised manuscript for lines# 261-275, we have provided a clear working definition and explanation of "qualitative research methodology" in our Method section by incorporating a concise definition along with an explanation, and we have included references to support this clarification.

• Comment: “Method: - lines #175-191: add Table (or Figure) to visualize the content of the section,”

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have made significant improvements to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative methodology and analysis in the lines#261-365. We have also included a detailed Table 1 presenting the demographic characteristics of the participants in the Method section (lines #319-320), providing a clearer picture of the study's participants. Moreover, we have refined the analysis section, adopting a more formal tone throughout to ensure clarity and precision. To aid in the visualization of the reflexive thematic analysis process, we have introduced a figure (lines #333-334). In addition, we have added Table 2 that present example of the analytic process (lines #361-365).

• Comment: “Method: - provide an real example of semi-structured interview from the article. Introduce separate section or put into the Appendix,”

Response: Thank you for your suggestion to include an example of a semi-structured interview from our research. We understand the importance of transparency in our methodology. However, due to confidentiality, we are unable to share the full interview transcripts publicly. Instead, we have included the semi-structured interview guide in the appendix A to provide insight into our data collection process. We hope this information is sufficient, but please let us know if you have any further questions.

• Comment: “Method: - check Section numerations: “3. Methods” and “3. Results” have the same number”,”

Response: We have modified the numerations across the whole revised manuscript.

• Comment: “Method: - line #215: give working definition with explanation (also new reference will help) for “Reflexive thematic analysis”,”

Response: We have provided this definition and more details and explanations through the revised manuscript for the section of interview analysis (lines#321-365).

• Comment: “Method: - lines #215-235: this text should be rewritten in more formal way, for example line #225: “...was a recursive process, involving iterative movements between the steps to ensure that all coded data …”. Process and iterations should be explain through algorithms or visualized through figures,”

Response: The analysis section has been thoroughly revised to adopt a more formal tone. Additionally, a visual aid in the form of a figure has been inserted to provide a clearer illustration of the reflexive thematic analysis process. The figure serves to enhance the reader's understanding by visually representing the intricate steps involved in the analysis, aligning with the recommendation to explain the process through visualization. In the revised manuscript (lines#321-365), you can see the text and the figure.

• Comment: “Method: - note that lines #225-228 are based on reference [36]: Clearly state what is author’s scientific increment in this analysis,”

Response: Certainly, in the revised manuscript (line #323), the content previously found in lines #225-228 of the original manuscript is now appropriately referenced to [51]. The scientific contribution of Braun and Clarke's framework in our analysis lies in its well-established methodological approach to reflexive thematic analysis (RTA).

• Comment: “Results: - after line #383 at the end of the section “Results” add mini-conclusion of the section,”

Response: We have incorporated a mini-conclusion at the end of the "Results" section. The added content can be found in lines #513-518 of the revised manuscript. This conclusion succinctly summarizes the key findings, providing readers with a clear and concise overview of the central organizing themes that emerged from our study.

• Comment: “Discussion: - rewrite lines #385-399 with headings: “- insight into the..”, “- qualitative approach..” etc. Headings should in short present the most important moments that are elaborated in subsections (4.1-4.2),”

Response: In response to the comment, we have implemented clear sub-headings in the "Discussion" section from lines #519-676 of the revised manuscript. These headings succinctly encapsulate the most important moments elaborated in the subsequent sub-subsections (6.1-6.2).

• Comment: “Discussion: - line #385: substitute the word “valuable” with “deeper”,”

Response: We have substituted the word “valuable” with “deeper” in the line#521.

• Comment: “Conclusion: - lines #417-497, Section “Conclusion”: add headings that summarize the most important results from the article,”

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have reorganized the "Conclusion" section (lines #677-709) to succinctly highlight the most crucial results obtained from the study. The key findings are now presented under clear headings, providing a focused summary of the essential outcomes.

• Comment: “Conclusion: - lines #498-516, Section “Conclusion”: add headings that summarize the most important recommendations for further research,”

Response: In the revised manuscript, the "Conclusion" section (lines #697-711) has been carefully crafted to encapsulate the paramount findings and is accompanied by distinct subheadings that outline the most crucial recommendations for further research.

• Comment: “Reference: - Reference section should be improved, some references should have more data (doi, web links) so interested reader can easily consult desired references. “https” references should have “last time visited” with date and time tag.

Response: We have improved all references list.”

Reviewer 3 Report

- Literature Review: comprehensive but not balanced

- Structure of the Paper: could be better

- Theoretical Framework: 

Add more information about what inclusion means

- Data Analysis: good

- Quality of the Discussion: could be better

- Language Quality: appropriate

- Writing Style: the text is clear but not flowing; check punctuation and improve syntax and some grammar mistakes

- Literature Review: comprehensive but not balanced

- Structure of the Paper: could be better

- Theoretical Framework: 

Add more information about what inclusion means

- Data Analysis: good

- Quality of the Discussion: could be better

- Language Quality: appropriate

- Writing Style: the text is clear but not flowing; check punctuation and improve syntax and some grammar mistakes

Author Response

• Comment: “Literature Review: - Literature Review: comprehensive but not balanced”

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have made substantial additions to the literature review section of our manuscript. Specifically, in lines #158 to #209, we have incorporated new research studies that provide up-to-date insights into the topic.

• Comment: “Structure of the Paper - Structure of the Paper: could be better”

Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the structure of the paper. We appreciate your suggestion for improvement. Upon careful consideration, we have revised the structure of the paper to enhance its organization and coherence.

• Comment: “- Theoretical Framework: Add more information about what inclusion means

Response: Thank you. We have addressed this comment by incorporating a more detailed explanation of the meaning of inclusion in the context of the policy (lines #116-119) and providing a definition of inclusive education (lines #121-123) in the revised manuscript.”

• Comment: “- Quality of the Discussion: could be better”

Response: We have taken your feedback on the discussion section to heart and made significant improvements. As you'll see in lines #520-676, we've improved the whole section. Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed and revised the writing in the discussion to ensure clarity and coherence.

• Comment: Writing: - “Writing Style: the text is clear but not flowing; check punctuation and improve syntax and some grammar mistakes”

Response: We appreciate the feedback regarding the writing style, and we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve punctuation, syntax, and address any grammar mistakes. The revised manuscript now aims to present a clearer and more fluid text.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article deals with a current issue of great academic relevance. The study explains Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy through current references, adopting a qualitative research methodology, through individual interviews and doing a reflexive thematic analysis to investigate the perceptions and experiences of school headmasters in relation to understanding, implementing and utilising Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy.I suggest that future research based on this study be included in the final considerations.

Author Response

Comment: “The article deals with a current issue of great academic relevance. The study explains Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy through current references, adopting a qualitative research methodology, through individual interviews and doing a reflexive thematic analysis to investigate the perceptions and experiences of school headmasters in relation to understanding, implementing and utilising Dubai's Inclusive Education Policy. I suggest that future research based on this study be included in the final considerations.”

Response: Thank you for valuable feedback. The revised manuscript now includes a dedicated section on "Future Research" (lines #695-708) within the final considerations.