Children’s Participatory Capability in Organized Leisure: The Mediation of Transactional Horizons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It's a very interesting article.

In my opinion, it would be necessary to reduce it, the introduction is very extensive, and the explanation of the sections as well On the other hand, the methodology has to be described in such a way that it can be replicated, and this is not the case. Finally, it is very difficult to draw conclusions without a measurement scale. It is not possible to replicate the study, since there are no specific measurement variables. I recommend that the authors do the same study, using different measurement scales.

Thanks a lot.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your comments and recommendations. We have responded to all your requests, in particular by reducing the introduction (some redundant elements have been deleted) and developing the part dedicated to methodology. In particular, we have introduced figure 2 (actor’s system) to make readers more aware of its transformation into the child-friendly device used (Mind Mapping Tree) (see p. 6, lines 217-224). We underline that this contributes to the replicability of the study (see p. 6, lines 225-238). We consider that the respondents’ accounts are supported by “sensitizing concepts” or “directions to look at” (Blumer, 1969) and that this reduces the risk of constrained answers associated to more classical interview techniques. We have inserted this argument explicitly in the text. This argument is appropriate for a qualitative research like the present one, conducive to identify ideal-types of participatory capability, which was the goal of our study. We have added some considerations about this ideal-typical focus (see p. 14, lines 582-587). It is clear that your proposed introduction of a measurement scale would be very interesting to compare the statistical distribution of respondents along the 3 ideal-types of participatory capability in leisure facilities. Yet, this goes beyond our intention that was to identify these ideal-types. We hope you can accept that this quantitative aspect would require new research protocols and studies, and that the present one stands on itself and can be considered as a qualitative premise for such extensive quantitative studies.

We hope that these changes respond appropriately to your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very well executed piece of research which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. However, I have a serious issue with unclear information on ethical approval process followed. I would suggest the author(s) to clarify if the research was conducted after obtaining proper ethical approval from the related agencies. Since the study involves children, I would not feel comfortable to recommend publication without the assurance that the research followed all ethical processes/principles and due ethical approval was obtained before collecting data. 

My second point is related to literature review. I would suggest the author(s) to consult the literature on political agency of children to provide proper context for the study. The question of how much freewill do children have in their leisure choices needs to be discussed within the context of their political agency.    

Finally, the presentation of data (in the form of direct quotes from the study participants) is very limited.  There is a good synthesis of the findings, but I would suggest the author(s) to see if they can support them through more interview data from their participants.   

   

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your detailed comments and suggestions. We have responded to all of them.

 

First, we have stressed our ethical concern on page 7, by adding the following lines (289-300):

“Ethical principles have been fully respected. At the time of the study, the responsible researcher was working in the very small academic Unit of Teaching and Research in Children’s Rights at the University Institute Kurt Bösch (in the canton of Valais in Switzerland) before it was integrated with Geneva University. As it was a unit dedicated to children’s rights, ethical issues [20] have been discussed at length regarding research and they were also taught in classes, although not formalized in an ethics commission. Hence, for this research, ethical aspects were duly taken into consideration. Consent forms have been signed by the Directors of the leisure facilities, the children who participated in the study and their parents. Confidentiality and privacy were strictly respected. Respondents are referred to with just one capital letter in this text to guarantee anonymity. Theywere asked about their expectations before the study, and they have also been informed of the results of the research afterwards”.

 

Second, we have put more context by including more literature on children’s political agency on page 16. We have added the following lines (695-708): “This study on the participatory capability of children in organized leisure has important repercussions for theories around children’s political agency “conceived in terms of subjectivity related to subject positions offered in the flux of everyday life” [24]. It confirms that the development of children's capacities and the promotion of democracy [3] [4] [5] is bound to reflexive practices and it allows to stress that they should be present from the very start of the research process, like is the case here with the methodology of the “Mind Mapping Tree”.

In particular, we see that children are not dependent on adult interventions [11] but negotiate these interventions and that their participatory capability retroacts on their institutional environments, hence questioning the homogenized category of “childhood” [12]. This contributes to the “ontological turn” [25] [26] in the sociology of childhood as the materiality of children’s environment is reintroduced, hence contributing to pass from an oppositional approach (« agency versus structure ») to a co-muting approach in terms of assemblages (« agency within structure ») [27] [28] [29]”.

 

Third, we have added considerations on the ideal-typical approach on page 14, so as to justify why we have not included more interview data (lines 582-587): “The three cases exemplify three ideal-types (Weber) of participatory capability (adaptive, innovative and cooperative). Numerous other quotes could be used from other cases as they are approaching one of these 3 ideal-types. We have chosen not to add these quotes as they are only confirming these ideal-types and do not illustrate other forms of participatory capability. Their inclusion would have only lengthened the text without adding anything to the discussion ».

 

We hope that these changes respond appropriately to your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

A few minor issues have been annotated.

Yellow highlights reflect my own engagement only; nothing needs to be changed there.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your appreciation of our article. The changes we have now made in our article respond to the comments and suggestions made by other reviewers. We hope that these changes are agreeable to you.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for responding to my queries. I am happy with the corrections, though parental consent would have also been taken simultenously.