From Social Sciences to Urban Praxis: A Critical Synthesis of Historical–Contextual Inquiry and Analysis in Urban Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This methodological paper puts forward a systematic and convincing method/argument for why and how contextual and historical analyses are imperative in contemporary urban studies, outlining in detail the conceptual and foundational origin and intersection between (critical) social studies and urban studies (and later mentioned in lines 307-308, “architecture, urban planning, and urban design”). It is especially the argument in lines 48-53 that underscores the necessity for the innovative Contextual Critical Historical Inquiry and Analysis (CCHIA) framework, and alludes to the critical theoretical underpinnings of this endeavor:

“Analyses of cities and communities that flatten complexity—skimming overpower imbalances, ignoring whose voices are left out, or treating theories as if they exist in a vacuum, detached from the real-world politics and struggles that shaped them. But here’s the problem we often miss: every urban theory, no matter how abstract, is born from specific historical and social conditions. If we fail to address these roots, our work risks irrelevance—or worse, complicity in the inequities it seeks to analyze”.

The authors detail the systematic development of this Framework, including the seven foundational elements inferred from an in-depth analysis of literature: “four history-focused concepts—interpretive history, historical perspective, historical context, and historical contextualization—and three critical approaches—critical discourse analysis, comparative historical analysis, and critical urban theory” (lines 288-291).

The whole methodology in developing this framework seems to consist of three phases, the final phase culminating in a “Consecutive (linear?) Five-stage and 26-Guidance Step Framework” (Figure 2, p. 8).

However, the methodological explanation for the development of this framework, while presenting the steps and findings from literature in detail, also seems cumbersome at too many points in the paper, rendering the reader wondering of its relevance before the third and final stage of this framework is revealed. For example, under point 2, the authors outline the first objective to “establish a theoretical foundation…[that] revealed four key history-focused concepts and three critical approaches that inform rigorous context-text interplay in urban research” (lines 150, 152-153). What is the relevance, then of presenting a timeline of the development of the concepts? (Figure 1).

This article could benefit from the following suggestions (summarized from, and in addition to comments posted in the PDF version):

• Discern clearly from the outset what the research question and aim are for this paper, as well as its objectives, methodology, findings and discussion, and structure the paper accordingly. (The theoretical framework is alluded to as critical theory, but can be expanded.
• When gauging the ‘Types of articles’ on MDPI’s website https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types, it seems this paper falls under the Protocol-type: detailing the steps of a method (though the description on the website alludes to quantitative types of studies). Otherwise, if this conceptual paper wants to demonstrate a rigorous method toward the development of a methodological framework, then the headings “Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions” must be considered.
• Keeping to these subheadings will avoid an overemphasis on the developmental description of the framework and render the final stage of this paper as the Results and Discussion part in more synthesized and digestible versions.
• Align all writing under the Methodology section with what is depicted in Figure 2. This Figure should be introduced early to orientate the reader on the whole process of the development of this methodological framework.
• Be consistent in the application of terms such as 'stage', 'strategy', 'phase', 'parts', and 'steps' and use them from the broad to the narrow of the process followed.
• The first part of the research was establishing a theoretical foundation (line 150). Then you state you also developed rigorous criteria for selecting articles:

1. What were these criteria?
2. And why did you choose the method you did and not e.g. a systematic literature review?

• The second part of the study was to do a directed qualitative content analysis (line 154). While the results of this analysis are depicted in detail, the ‘how’ of that process is not clear.
• Section 4 - Establishing the Theoretical Foundation, if following the outline of a research article, can be synthesized and shortened to be less descriptive. Also, it seems this section is inclusive of your qualitative concept analysis? Use subheadings accurately to depict the methodological process of the development of the Contextual Critical Historical Inquiry and Analysis framework.
• What part of your methodology is Section “5 - Building the CCHIA Framework Process?” This part seemed not to be mentioned under the methodology section. This section can also be shortened and synthesized so one can reach the crux of the framework: Section 6 - CCHIA as an Analytical Framework for Critical Synthesis in Urban Studies: Integrating Historical Contextual Analysis.
• Section 6, for me, would be the Findings of your method followed to develop the Framework.
• Using examples in the Discussion of the Stages and Steps of this Framework would buttress its possible utility and application value.
• However, it also needs to argue its possible limitations. For example, the framework seems to suggest a qualitative type of research method. Are you convinced then that all the steps should be followed consecutively? And, what kinds of rigor did the authors employ in the methodological development of this framework?
• Conclusion of the article is well-argued.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

This methodological paper puts forward a systematic and convincing method/argument for why and how contextual and historical analyses are imperative in contemporary urban studies, outlining in detail the conceptual and foundational origin and intersection between (critical) social studies and urban studies (and later mentioned in lines 307-308, “architecture, urban planning, and urban design”). It is especially the argument in lines 48-53 that underscores the necessity for the innovative Contextual Critical Historical Inquiry and Analysis (CCHIA) framework, and alludes to the critical theoretical underpinnings of this endeavor:

“Analyses of cities and communities that flatten complexity—skimming overpower imbalances, ignoring whose voices are left out, or treating theories as if they exist in a vacuum, detached from the real-world politics and struggles that shaped them. But here’s the problem we often miss: every urban theory, no matter how abstract, is born from specific historical and social conditions. If we fail to address these roots, our work risks irrelevance—or worse, complicity in the inequities it seeks to analyze”.

Response 1: Thank you for your deep reading of the manuscript and provide helpful feedback.

Comment 2: The authors detail the systematic development of this Framework, including the seven foundational elements inferred from an in-depth analysis of literature: “four history-focused concepts—interpretive history, historical perspective, historical context, and historical contextualization—and three critical approaches—critical discourse analysis, comparative historical analysis, and critical urban theory” (lines 288-291).

The whole methodology in developing this framework seems to consist of three phases, the final phase culminating in a “Consecutive (linear?) Five-stage and 26-Guidance Step Framework” (Figure 2, p. 8).

However, the methodological explanation for the development of this framework, while presenting the steps and findings from literature in detail, also seems cumbersome at too many points in the paper, rendering the reader wondering of its relevance before the third and final stage of this framework is revealed. For example, under point 2, the authors outline the first objective to “establish a theoretical foundation…[that] revealed four key history-focused concepts and three critical approaches that inform rigorous context-text interplay in urban research” (lines 150, 152-153). What is the relevance, then of presenting a timeline of the development of the concepts? (Figure 1).

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have revised the methodology section for better clarity and readability.  Our methodology underwent two stages: the first phase of initial screening of scholars’ works (30 monographs) in social science and the second phase of content analysis for 59 manuscript in social science and urban studies.   

Comments 3: This article could benefit from the following suggestions (summarized from, and in addition to comments posted in the PDF version):

• Discern clearly from the outset what the research question and aim are for this paper, as well as its objectives, methodology, findings and discussion, and structure the paper accordingly. (The theoretical framework is alluded to as critical theory, but can be expanded.

Response 3: We have revised the introduction to clearly reflect the research aim, a brief overview of the method, and the study’s contribution. Additionally, we have restructured the manuscript and adjusted the heading and subheading titles to ensure clarity and accuracy.

Comment 4: When gauging the ‘Types of articles’ on MDPI’s website https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types, it seems this paper falls under the Protocol-type: detailing the steps of a method (though the description on the website alludes to quantitative types of studies). Otherwise, if this conceptual paper wants to demonstrate a rigorous method toward the development of a methodological framework, then the headings “Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions” must be considered.

Keeping to these subheadings will avoid an overemphasis on the developmental description of the framework and render the final stage of this paper as the Results and Discussion part in more synthesized and digestible versions.

Response 4: We have revised the type of articles that you thankfully provided. We have restricted our manuscript to follow the paper  with “Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions”  

Comment 5: Align all writing under the Methodology section with what is depicted in Figure 2. This Figure should be introduced early to orientate the reader on the whole process of the development of this methodological framework.

Response 5: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have rewriting the methods section to clarify what is utilised as methods and what was received from the content analysis.  

Comment 6: Be consistent in the application of terms such as 'stage', 'strategy', 'phase', 'parts', and 'steps' and use them from the broad to the narrow of the process followed.

Response 6: We have checked the hierarchy of 'stage', 'strategy', 'phase', 'parts', and 'steps'

 

Comment 7: The first part of the research was establishing a theoretical foundation (line 150). Then you state you also developed rigorous criteria for selecting articles:

1. What were these criteria?
2. And why did you choose the method you did and not e.g. a systematic literature review?

• The second part of the study was to do a directed qualitative content analysis (line 154). While the results of this analysis are depicted in detail, the ‘how’ of that process is not clear.

Response 7: Thank you for bringing this out. We have revised the method section to clarify the criteria on inclusion and exclusion. Kindly check the blue text in the methodology section.

 

Comment 8: Section 4 - Establishing the Theoretical Foundation, if following the outline of a research article, can be synthesized and shortened to be less descriptive. Also, it seems this section is inclusive of your qualitative concept analysis? Use subheadings accurately to depict the methodological process of the development of the Contextual Critical Historical Inquiry and Analysis framework.

 

Response 8: We have revised section 4 based on your valuable recommendation.

 

Comment 9: What part of your methodology is Section “5 - Building the CCHIA Framework Process?” This part seemed not to be mentioned under the methodology section. This section can also be shortened and synthesized so one can reach the crux of the framework: Section 6 - CCHIA as an Analytical Framework for Critical Synthesis in Urban Studies: Integrating Historical Contextual Analysis.

Responses 9: We have revised the method section to clarify its role in our study.

 

Comment 10: Section 6, for me, would be the Findings of your method followed to develop the Framework.

Responses 10: We have revised the method section to clarify its role in our study.

 

Comment 11: Using examples in the Discussion of the Stages and Steps of this Framework would buttress its possible utility and application value.

Response 11: Indeed, this study did not provide any examples of the application of the suggested framework. This issue was one of the research limitations. Kindly check the sentence in the conclusion that starts with: 'Moreover, this study does not provide examples of applications for any part or step of the proposed…'

 

Comment 12: However, it also needs to argue its possible limitations. For example, the framework seems to suggest a qualitative type of research method. Are you convinced then that all the steps should be followed consecutively? And, what kinds of rigor did the authors employ in the methodological development of this framework?

Response 12: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added a paragraph in the conclusion to discuss the research limitations.

 

Comment 13: Conclusion of the article is well-argued.

Response 13: Thank you for your valuable feedback and comment which helped us to provide a better version of this study.

We also would like to confirm that all comment in the PDF file were also resolved.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors on this work. It is rare for me not to find anything to ask for revisions. Keep up the good work.

My only comment is that you should outline the study's limitations and potential shortcomings at the end. It would also be good to discuss how future studies might improve upon this model.

Author Response

Comment 1: I would like to congratulate the authors on this work. It is rare for me not to find anything to ask for revisions. Keep up the good work.

Response 1: Thank you for your potive feedback.  

Comment 2: My only comment is that you should outline the study's limitations and potential shortcomings at the end. It would also be good to discuss how future studies might improve upon this model.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing up this point. We have added a couple of sentences in the conclusion to discuss the research limitations. Besides, we have included suggestions for future research based on these limitations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines the Contextual Critical Historical Inquiry and Analysis (CCHIA) framework—a critical synthesis tool designed to advance historical contextual inquiry in urban studies. The article offers an interesting theoretical contribution by combining historical and critical approaches to analyze urban phenomena. It successfully attempts to address a significant gap in the literature by emphasizing the importance of historical analysis in urban studies.

On the other hand, although the theoretical foundation is strong, the framework lacks sufficient empirical validation. Additionally, the methodological description requires greater clarity, particularly regarding the selection criteria of the 59 studies analyzed. More specifically, I suggest the following revisions:

• The introduction is extensive but could be clearer regarding the primary purpose of the CCHIA framework and how it differs from existing approaches.
• The methodology is complex and involves multiple stages without a sufficiently concise overview. Consider adding a diagram or table summarizing the CCHIA stages for better clarity.
• The results of the CCHIA framework are not presented in a way that allows the reader to easily understand its practical application.
• The article is highly theoretical, and some sections are difficult to follow due to complex phrasing. I suggest using clearer and more direct academic language and rephrasing long sentences to improve readability.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript examines the Contextual Critical Historical Inquiry and Analysis (CCHIA) framework—a critical synthesis tool designed to advance historical contextual inquiry in urban studies. The article offers an interesting theoretical contribution by combining historical and critical approaches to analyze urban phenomena. It successfully attempts to address a significant gap in the literature by emphasizing the importance of historical analysis in urban studies.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback.

 

Comment 2: On the other hand, although the theoretical foundation is strong, the framework lacks sufficient empirical validation. Additionally, the methodological description requires greater clarity, particularly regarding the selection criteria of the 59 studies analyzed. More specifically, I suggest the following revisions:

Response 2: We have revised the methods section for better readability and to better reflect the research design. We have also provided the criteria for selecting the materials investigated in the bibliometric study. Kindly check the blue text in Section 2: Methodology.

 

Comment 3: The introduction is extensive but could be clearer regarding the primary purpose of the CCHIA framework and how it differs from existing approaches.

Response 3: The introduction has been updated to address the identified gap in literature and highlight the contribution of this study. Please review the blue text in the introduction section.

 

Comment 4: The methodology is complex and involves multiple stages without a sufficiently concise overview. Consider adding a diagram or table summarizing the CCHIA stages for better clarity.

Response 4: We have revised the methodology section to insure the clarity.

 

Comment 5: The results of the CCHIA framework are not presented in a way that allows the reader to easily understand its practical application.

Response 5: Thank you for this comment. We have added a sentence in section 6.1 to describe how our conceptual framework can apply. Also, we have added a limitation for not going in depth to provide a practical application which require future research. Kindly check the blue text in the discussion and conclusion sections  

 

Comment 6: The article is highly theoretical, and some sections are difficult to follow due to complex phrasing. I suggest using clearer and more direct academic language and rephrasing long sentences to improve readability.

Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We have doubled check the entire text.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From Social Sciences to Urban Praxis: A Critical Synthesis for Historical-Contextual Inquiry and Analysis in Urban Studies

 

The article presents a rare approach to the concept of influencing urban practices (studies).

However, it is important to ask what the results of such a study lead to - what specific things can be achieved from it in the field of urban studies? What specific advantages does this approach have for urban studies. One gets the impression that urban studies and urban practice are treated rather marginally. This can be partly found in the Introduction - line 117-124.

 

In different parts of the text there are different numbers (for example, lines 298-300), which are difficult to attribute to the overall main idea. It is worth keeping them under control and arranging a diagram on which all numerical approaches will be placed, so that the reader does not feel chaos.

 

Notes

For the abstract - which is the purpose of the article - it should be precisely formulated

In the introduction, too, the precise purpose should be stated - line 134

 

To point 4:

What is the reason for the selection of four history-based concepts and three critical approaches? - line 293-295

Why were the years 2008-2023 studied ?- line 295.

In further lines, numbers appear - 36 historical concepts, 14 critical approaches, 22 overarching themes, of which 4 from the social sciences and 6 from urban studies - lines 298-300. This is very difficult for the reader - I suggest making a diagram, based on which further parts of the article will appear.

In line 322 it is stated that 36 articles participated in the study of historical concepts, and in further content - line 324 and 325 it is stated that 18 and 17, that is, a total of 35. Such information is also in Figure 3

 

To point 5

Point 5.3 - the calculation should be presented in the form of a diagram - lines 745-820, perhaps it would be more readable

 

To point 6

I appreciate the discussion of the individual steps in relation to Figure 5, but the calculation from 857-930 is heavily tedious to read. There should be a separate diagram for each element of Figure 5, perhaps this would make it easier to know the results of the authors' research.

 

After lines 936 there should be a Discussion section - who presented similar research, perhaps in part, and what conclusions did they reach? In what are the presented results similar and in what are they different from existing ones?

 

From line 1018 onward, write about the limitations of the ongoing research and indicate possibilities for its continuation.

Author Response

Comment 1: The article presents a rare approach to the concept of influencing urban practices (studies).

However, it is important to ask what the results of such a study lead to - what specific things can be achieved from it in the field of urban studies? What specific advantages does this approach have for urban studies. One gets the impression that urban studies and urban practice are treated rather marginally. This can be partly found in the Introduction - line 117-124.

 Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have expanded the discussion in the Introduction to better highlight the specific contributions of our study to urban studies and urban practice. Additionally, we have clarified the advantages of our approach and how it advances research in this field. Kindly check the revised sentences in blue in the Introduction section.

Comment 2: In different parts of the text there are different numbers (for example, lines 298-300), which are difficult to attribute to the overall main idea. It is worth keeping them under control and arranging a diagram on which all numerical approaches will be placed, so that the reader does not feel chaos.

Response 2: The mentioned paragraph between 298-300 has been removed as it will be described in detail in the following section. Kindly check the paragraph that start with “ The CCHIA framework integrates methodology and philosophical...”  

 

Notes

Comment 3: For the abstract - which is the purpose of the article - it should be precisely formulated

Response 3: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added a sentence in the abstract that reflect the research aim. Kindly check the sentence that start with “. The study aims to develop a structured…”  

Comment 4: In the introduction, too, the precise purpose should be stated - line 134

 Response 4: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added the research aim in the introduction. Kindly check the sentences that start with: This research aims to address the challenges of integrating context into architecture, urban planning, and urban design. It introduces…”  

Comment 5: To point 4:

is the reason for the selection of four history-based concepts and three critical approaches? - line 293-295

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful question. We have now clarified the rationale behind selecting these four history-based concepts and three critical approaches in the revised manuscript. The selection was based on a systematic review of existing methodologies in urban studies, ensuring that the framework integrates key historical perspectives while incorporating critical analytical tools that enhance contextual understanding. This rationale has been explicitly detailed in the method section and section 4 and 5. Kindly review the revised the blue text in the updated manuscript.

Comment 6: Why were the years 2008-2023 studied ?- line 295.

Response 6: This timeframe has been revised as it should be 2000-2023. Besides we have added reason in the method section for having this time frame. Kindly check the sentences that  start with “After identifying over a hundred articles, we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to refine the results to a manageable scope…”

Comment 7: further lines, numbers appear - 36 historical concepts, 14 critical approaches, 22 overarching themes, of which 4 from the social sciences and 6 from urban studies - lines 298-300. This is very difficult for the reader - I suggest making a diagram, based on which further parts of the article will appear.

Response 7: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added a diagrame that reflect the outcomes of this study.

Comment 8: In line 322 it is stated that 36 articles participated in the study of historical concepts, and in further content - line 324 and 325 it is stated that 18 and 17, that is, a total of 35. Such information is also in Figure 3

Response 8: Thank you for this remark. We have revised the text to reflect the total number of 58 manuscript total and 35 manuscripts on historical concepts.

Comment 9: To point 5

Point 5.3 - the calculation should be presented in the form of a diagram - lines 745-820, perhaps it would be more readable

Response 9: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added a diagram that reflect the outcomes of this study.

Comment 10: To point 6: I appreciate the discussion of the individual steps in relation to Figure 5, but the calculation from 857-930 is heavily tedious to read. There should be a separate diagram for each element of Figure 5, perhaps this would make it easier to know the results of the authors' research.

Response 10: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added a diagram that reflect the outcomes of this study.

 

Comment 11: After lines 936 there should be a Discussion section - who presented similar research, perhaps in part, and what conclusions did they reach? In what are the presented results similar and in what are they different from existing ones?

Response 11: We have added a discussion section to discuss the main findings, novelty and areas where our framework can be implemented.

Comment 12: From line 1018 onward, write about the limitations of the ongoing research and indicate possibilities for its continuation.

Response 12: We have added a paraph that reflect the present research limitation.  Thank you for this comment. We have added a sentence in section 6.1 to describe how our conceptual framework can apply. Also, we have added a limitation for not going in depth to provide a practical application which require future research. Kindly check the blue text in the discussion and conclusion sections.   

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for responding to the suggestions. 

See minor suggestions for further clarity.

I am stating the following for both the editorial and author teams:

While this methodological approach is quite innovative, it is unorthodox within the field of qualitative enquiry, and within purist methodological streams may be viewed as questionable. I therefore sincerely hope that more than one reviewer's feedback has been taken into account.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for responding to the suggestions. 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment and feedback. 

Comment 2: See minor suggestions for further clarity.

I am stating the following for both the editorial and author teams:

While this methodological approach is quite innovative, it is unorthodox within the field of qualitative enquiry, and within purist methodological streams may be viewed as questionable. I therefore sincerely hope that more than one reviewer's feedback has been taken into account.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and have accordingly added a few sentences in the research limitations to reflect this. Kindly check the blue text in the conclusion that starts with "While this manuscript employs  ..."

Comment 3: Comments in the pdf file

Response 3: All the comments highlighted in the PDF file have been addressed. Kindly review them and let us know if any further issues need to be resolved, and we will take care of them accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for incorporating my comments into the revised version of the manuscript. I believe the manuscript has now been significantly improved and is ready for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for incorporating my comments into the revised version of the manuscript. I believe the manuscript has now been significantly improved and is ready for publication in its current form.

Response: Thank you for your valuable effort in revieweing our manuscript.