Education and Black Creative-Class Identity Among Black Homeowners: Exploring Library Engagement in Ward 8, Washington, D.C.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is close to being publishable. My main reservation about this article is the author's use and modification of the "creative class" concept developed by Richard Florida. The author modifies Florida's idea to include anyone who may be thought of (by the author) as identifying with creativity or who possesses cultural capital, i.e., "as a subjective self-concept shaped by symbolic capital." This approach expands but weakens Florida's construct of the "creative class," which is intended to measure objective occupational roles in certain segments of the creative economy. However, it doesn't provide a clear, positive definition of the "creative class"—other than to highlight some limitations observed in Florida's model. And the only measures of the subjective relationship to creative class identity appear to be homeownership, educational attainment (without clear connections other than a creative class affiliation), and library patronage.
The author notes that one limitation on Florida's study is that it excludes certain types of working-class creative occupations or (activities and practices by some creative workers who aren't symbolically identified with the "middle class," or are not explicitly "occupations" but do involve creative production). But this latter exclusion is not incorporated into a more carefully defined concept. This begs the questions: What does the author mean by "working class"? Are some of the participants studied here thought of as "working class"? The survey data also doesn't seem to reveal how participants make those explicit subjective identifications with the "creative class."
Perhaps the author would be better to use a theoretical framework that aims to measure cultural capital attainment as a feature of Black middle-class identity development rather than an overt identification with creativity. The author may consider reviewing additional scholarship on this latter topic to reconsider that framework (or to discuss why they may favor the creativity concept). For example, The New Black Middle Class in the Twenty-First Century, by Bart Landry; A New Look at the Black Middle Class: Research Trends and Challenges, by Courtney S. Thomas; Cultural Socialization in Black Middle-Class Families, by Patricia Ann Banks; Black spaces, black places: Strategic assimilation and identity construction in middle-class suburbia, by Karyn R. Lacy.
I believe that a clear, revised definition of what the author means by creative class as distinct from cultural capital accumulation in identity development is a necessary basis for proceeding.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate having the opportunity to review the manuscript “Education and Black Creative-Class Identity Among Black Homeowners: Exploring Library Engagement in Ward 8, Washington, D.C.”. Overall, I found the topic to be timely and relevant. The authors thoughtfully and effectively disrupt monolithic representations of the community (Black residents in Ward 8) in service of making an argument that can lead to systemic and institutional change (e.g. changes in library practices).
I have organized more specific comments in accordance with the sections of the manuscript.
Introduction
In the introduction, the authors make a strong case for the relevance of public libraries as a social and cultural institution while also critiquing the ways in which they have been exclusionary spaces for Black people and communities. This is an important framing that supports their research pursuits.
Be sure to use the full phrase when introducing an acronym for the first time (e.g. Library Information Science, LIS).
When introducing the theoretical frameworks upon which the study draws, the authors clearly identify Chatman’s small world theory, Florida’s creative class theory, and Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality. However, they proceed to discuss they ways they have reconceptualized and extended these theories before they clearly explain the theories themselves. This assumes that the reader is familiar with the theories in their original form. I would recommend that the authors first briefly describe the theories as originally conceptualized, and then explain how (and why) they are expanding each theory to be able to answer their research question. I also believe it would strengthen their argument if they clearly articulate why all three theories are needed. For example, what does intersectionality offer that the others do not? How does drawing on these theories in combination with one another rather than any of them in isolation enrich the theoretical grounding of their research?
Literature Review
In general, this section read more like a Theoretical Framework section than a review of the literature on the topic of interest. In fact, many of my comments and suggestions offered previously as ways to enrich the theoretical framework, were addressed here. I also believe a more robust review of the literature as it relates to the topic of interest (e.g. what we already know from research about Black individual’s or community’s library engagement, is warranted. I would recommend that the authors significantly revise this section. First, I would recommend that they synthesize the existing “theoretical framework” sub-section with this section and rename it “2. Theoretical Framework”. Then, the authors should consider rewriting a new section, “3. Literature Review” that offers a review of the research on the topic of study (e.g. Black individual and/or community library usage).
Materials and Methods
To support readability and coherence, I would recommend the authors include a brief introductory paragraph separating the Level 3 heading 3. Methods and Materials and the Level 2 sub-heading Research Design. This brief paragraph could provide a statement of the methodological approach (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, etc.) and theoretical perspectives employed.
The authors clearly but succinctly describe their research methods and materials. I am curious about the authors’ choice to recode the variable for Library use as a binary variable. It would be helpful if the authors could explain this choice in more depth. Would the study have yielded different results if the data had remained an ordinal variable (e.g. more or less frequently).
I would strongly recommend that the authors include positionality statements describing how their identities and positionalities shaped the research design, implementation, and analysis process.
Results
The authors clearly present their quantitative findings. In presenting the results, it would be helpful to clearly connect each back to the research question of interest and/or relevant hypothesis to explain why each specific relationship was tested.
Because the authors were specifically interested in library engagement, it was unclear to me why only one relationship (creative-class identification with library engagement) was tested. For example, why did the authors not also test income or education with library engagement? Or, for that matter, other demographic factors such as age?
Discussion
The authors offer a thoughtful discussion of the study findings, with relevant implications for research and practice.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has developed a stronger, clearer theoretical framework and has provided substantially improved definitions. This research could prove to be a significant advance.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate having the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript “Education and Black Creative-Class Identity Among Black Homeowners: Exploring Library Engagement in Ward 8, Washington, D.C.”. Overall, I found the authors thoughtfully attended to the feedback provided, deepening the theoretical grounding of the study and offering importance nuances and insights that enrich the significance of the findings.
I have organized more specific comments in accordance with the sections of the manuscript.
Introduction
The authors thoughtfully and thoroughly introduce the problem space for their line of inquiry and support it with relevant theories. The authors sufficiently addressed the feedback regarding introducing each of the three theoretical frameworks in their original form before describing how they are modifying them to fit this specific research context. They also sufficiently address how the theories build on one another to add layers of complexity and nuance. This section of the manuscript is much stronger!
Literature Review
The authors successfully engaged with the feedback regarding reviewing the literature on Black communities’ engagement with public libraries. I found this section to be informative and a strong support for why this research study is warranted. This review of the literature further strengthens the case the authors are trying to make—this work matters!
Materials and Methods
The authors thoughtfully attending to the recommendation to include a positionality statement. Knowing that the lead author is an “insider” to the community being studied, for me, lends credibility and authenticity to the study.
Results and Discussion
The authors attended to the feedback. They have clearly presented their results and thoughtfully addressed the relevance of their in
