Coast and City, It Matters Where You Live: How Geography Shapes Progression to Higher Education in England

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"Coast and City, it matters where you live: How geography shapes progression to higher education in England".

In general terms, the work maintains an adequate scientific level and I consider its object of study to be appropriate, in line with the subject matter and title of the publication.

Likewise, I value as a strong point of this proposal its originality, both in terms of the topic addressed and the hypotheses studied.

The measured use of bibliographical citations is appreciated, focusing, in general, on sufficiently contrasted and relevant works. The work is suitably written and syntactically correct, respecting the rules of grammatical correctness.

 

Questions of method and content:

This is a study that addresses a topical issue because This study investigates the net regional effects on higher education (HE) aspirations, and on subsequent HE transitions, using the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England and applies to a significant case study, with over 15,770 observations of young people aged 13 in 2004 in UK.

 

The rationale for the case study is very appropriate.

The results are consistent with the analysis undertaken and it is concluded that the policy implications, especially as it is clear from reviewing the literature that there are different barriers for rural/coastal for those wishing to increase educational opportunities and progression in the UK.

Author Response

We wish to thank the reviewer for their consideration of our study and for their comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the manuscript submitted by the author, which gives me the opportunity to review an excellent paper. The paper is very well written and also studies an important issue. I have a few small suggestions for improvement.

1. The abstract of the paper can be refined and improved. For example, the first two sentences should explain the importance of the research and why the topic was chosen. Of course, it also includes important implications that can be applied or verified in other countries and regions.

2. The literature review of the paper is too fragmented, please merge multiple paragraphs, it seems messy at present, and it is difficult for readers to concentrate their attention.

3. Can the author provide a study area map or country map?

4. The fifth part, the discussion part, is insufficient. In this part, the author has not fully expounded the views of the past research, i.e. the consistency and inconsistency between the results and this paper. Moreover, the paper does not give limitations.

5. As far as the conclusion is concerned, it's too long. Please be brief.

Author Response

We wish to thank the reviewer for considering the manuscript and for their helpful comments and suggestions. We have described our response and revisions to these comments and suggestions below.

1. The abstract of the paper can be refined and improved. For example, the first two sentences should explain the importance of the research and why the topic was chosen. Of course, it also includes important implications that can be applied or verified in other countries and regions.

We have rewritten the abstract as suggested (see page 1).

 

2. The literature review of the paper is too fragmented, please merge multiple paragraphs, it seems messy at present, and it is difficult for readers to concentrate their attention.

We have revised the literature review to reduce the number of paragraphs and improve coherence around the three main strands in the literature (see pages 2-5).

 

3. Can the author provide a study area map or country map?

We have included a map of regions of England in the literature review (see figure 1, page 3).

 

4. The fifth part, the discussion part, is insufficient. In this part, the author has not fully expounded the views of the past research, i.e. the consistency and inconsistency between the results and this paper. Moreover, the paper does not give limitations.

We have explored consistency and inconsistency with previous research in the discussion section on page 18 and added a section on limitations and future research, as suggested.

 

5. As far as the conclusion is concerned, it's too long. Please be brief.

We have reduced the length of the conclusion (see page 19).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very good paper - well written, well referenced. It is an interesting read and reports on some new aspects of an ongoing issue in education and regional development.

The tension is between the education data sources and the need to thoroughly contextualise the geographies and demography if one is to get at underlying causalities - in this case the author(s) have covered off most of the questions that might arise, but still could have considered the demography of the populations a little more nuanced manner. Occupation(-al class) data is available but perhaps industry data would have been more useful  when considering this topic - aspirations, parental ambitions and outcomes depend on the available or dominant local industries, in terms of educational trajectories, for those with ambitions to stay, whereas these same things might be seen as drivers for those with ambitions to move from the area. Occasionally there was a sense of over-reliance on what came out of statistical analysis, with the consequence that causality was being attributed without being shown as supported by the geography.

The litrev however does hint at many of the constraints - lines 63-68: the effect of scale and granularity in the data has a direct effect on how/what is being interpreted; line 75 'social mobility' is a topic that could have been expanded upon but also a close look at geographic mobility (internal migration) would be useful also since accessibility to HE and rampant credentialism, not unrelated of course to social mobility, are intimately connected with place.  The quote from Manley and Johnston (lines 84-85) is very important in this context - but the question that screams out is "why?" - the following paras do partially look at this with some valuable points.

The limitations in the data and the study are well recognised. 

Most of the limitations can be attributed to the nature of the data being used-for example, the appallingly clunky ethnicity data.  The conclusion does recognise this (e.g. lines 510-512) - but having recognised that, it might have been useful to explore the demography of the study area in more depth alongside the very good litreview since the study area is relatively diverse.

One aspect which might be worth considering: the dichotomy of 'coast' and 'city' is a good one but is it possible to consider issues such as peri-urban effects, especially on a relatively small island with wide diversity in terms of regional deprivation, if commuting rather than a need to move may have an effect on choices available? This may show that there is a significant issue specific to the SW which may differ from the NE for example in terms of what institutions are available/desirable since the focus here is on HE.

It would be interesting to consider whether subject/type of HE is a factor in aspirations. Does the data contain any information on whether the aspirations are in sciences, humanities, vocational HE? Does this then influence options?

Author Response

We wish to thank the reviewer for considering the manuscript and for their helpful comments and suggestions. We have described our response and revisions to these comments and suggestions below.

***

The tension is between the education data sources and the need to thoroughly contextualise the geographies and demography if one is to get at underlying causalities - in this case the author(s) have covered off most of the questions that might arise, but still could have considered the demography of the populations a little more nuanced manner. Occupation(-al class) data is available but perhaps industry data would have been more useful  when considering this topic - aspirations, parental ambitions and outcomes depend on the available or dominant local industries, in terms of educational trajectories, for those with ambitions to stay, whereas these same things might be seen as drivers for those with ambitions to move from the area. Occasionally there was a sense of over-reliance on what came out of statistical analysis, with the consequence that causality was being attributed without being shown as supported by the geography.

The literature review however does hint at many of the constraints - lines 63-68: the effect of scale and granularity in the data has a direct effect on how/what is being interpreted; line 75 'social mobility' is a topic that could have been expanded upon but also a close look at geographic mobility (internal migration) would be useful also since accessibility to HE and rampant credentialism, not unrelated of course to social mobility, are intimately connected with place.  The quote from Manley and Johnston (lines 84-85) is very important in this context - but the question that screams out is "why?" - the following paras do partially look at this with some valuable points.

We have revised the literature review (see page 2) to contextualise the South West of England, with particular reference to the distribution of employment across the region. We also acknowledge variation in educational and employment opportunities as a topic for future research in a section on limitations (see pages 18-19). This section on limitations and future research also includes a statement advising against causal interpretation of the findings observed. We also suggest future research into geographic mobility.

***

The limitations in the data and the study are well recognised. 

Most of the limitations can be attributed to the nature of the data being used-for example, the appallingly clunky ethnicity data.  The conclusion does recognise this (e.g. lines 510-512) - but having recognised that, it might have been useful to explore the demography of the study area in more depth alongside the very good lit review since the study area is relatively diverse.

We have added a clarification on the measurement of ethnicity in the LSYPE (see page 7). We have revised the literature review (see page 2) to contextualise the South West of England, with particular reference to the distribution of employment across the region.

***

One aspect which might be worth considering: the dichotomy of 'coast' and 'city' is a good one but is it possible to consider issues such as peri-urban effects, especially on a relatively small island with wide diversity in terms of regional deprivation, if commuting rather than a need to move may have an effect on choices available? This may show that there is a significant issue specific to the SW which may differ from the NE for example in terms of what institutions are available/desirable since the focus here is on HE.

These are interesting potential topics for future study but cannot be supported our current dataset. We acknowledge this in a statement in the new limitations and future research section (see pages 18-19).  

***

It would be interesting to consider whether subject/type of HE is a factor in aspirations. Does the data contain any information on whether the aspirations are in sciences, humanities, vocational HE? Does this then influence options?

No – unfortunately, the LSYPE does not contain this information, but this might a topic of future research. We have included a statement in the new limitations and future research section which suggests this (see pages 18-19).