“Then They Will Move on in Life”: How Governance and Institutional Logic Shapes Norwegian Aftercare—An Interview Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI miss the comparison, at least with other municipalities in Norway, but it would certainly be desirable to compare with other good practices, e.g. in Denmark, Finland, or even in non-Scandinavian countries.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article makes a really important finding that a common definition of aftercare has not yet been established. This point could be developed more, particularly in the Norwegian context where aftercare is split across two different services and therefore a common definition would appear to be important. That said, what would a common definition look like based on your findings?
The Introduction states that the article will consider whether the governance regimes and institutional logics create an environment conducive to improving life for young people receiving aftercare. The article never really address this point, nor is it clear how you would measure improvement to life.
On page 3 you will need to explain why Thornton's taxonomy is being used. The results section would benefit from being organised in the same way as Table 1. Also, on page 7 there is a heading for Organizational logic which is not included in table 1. Corporation in Table 1 is not discussed n the discussions section.
The Methods section would benefit from some discussion about why children were not included in the study - ie where is the voice of the child?
On page 5 I was uncomfortable with the gendered nature of the discussion of the role of the mother.
On page 6, lines 483-485 - I found these difficult to follow and unclear. It is not clear how you arrived at such authoritative conclusions.
Overall a good paper with a good contribution to make, but would benefit from tightening up in places.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations on your research. Although the study is not extensive, it raises important questions and allows us to reflect on how the social services that support young people compete with each other through a logic of management and how the familiar logic of the professional is maintained in their daily work. It seems clear to me that future studies should explore whether the young people cared for by these institutions actually participate in the development and improvement of these services.
Here are a few brief notes:
- I suggest that tou consider an improved version of the abstract. The sentences are telegraphic and seem to struggle to create a coherence within the text.
- I think authors should consider whether the last paragraph of the introduction is necessary.
- I think there are points that could lead to some possible misunderstandings. For example, in lines 12/13, the sentence is very confusing, we don't know if family logic is accepted by professional logic or not, or what is actually accepted.
- I believe you could consider using the expression ‘In the here and now’ lines 19 and 72 and look for one that is more suited to this type of work.
- I suggest that if you use capital letters once, you should always do so (e.g. Social services Act (2009) - line 81).
- I think there are moments throughout the article where the writing gets lost between past and present, for example in line 140 and 141 ‘Data is collected at macro, meso and micro levels.... Documents were collected’; on line 149 and 150 “The manager is interviewed in 2022”; or for example in line 562, “The project is new and under development in 2022?”. I suggest a more detailed revision in terms of language and sentence construction throughout the whole text.
Thank you.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
