Sport-Based Interventions as Non-Formal Education: Enabling the Education to Employment Transition for Young People

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

• The summary is correct and well-structured.
• Remove the keyword "education to work transitions." Consider using "Academic and career counseling" or "Career Counseling": https://eric.ed.gov/?qt=career+counseling&ts=on&ti=Career+Counseling

INTRODUCTION

• The introduction is complete and relevant. Ideas could be synthesized further.

 

METHOD

Sample

• The sample is well-selected and explained, but more sociodemographic or qualitative data about the study context should be included. While anonymizing data is necessary, crucial information such as the ages of participants and their academic-professional context is omitted.

Core Interests

• The core interests need to be clearly defined and their impact on the categorization and definitions should be explained.

Data Analysis

• The data analysis process, including the instruments used, should be detailed.
• An analysis of inter-category relationships should be included, and it would be beneficial to incorporate a table summarizing the categories.

Study Objective

• Clearly state the aim of the study, which is to investigate the employment challenges created or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the contribution of the sport for development sector in enhancing employability and employment opportunities among young people.

Qualitative Focus

• Emphasize and include that the article presents data from the qualitative aspect of the study, framed by interpretivist paradigmatic assumptions and corresponding bibliography.

Participants and Sampling

• Detail the purposeful sampling of 19 semi-structured interviews with 21 participants from organizations involved in designing, delivering, commissioning, or funding sport-based interventions focused on enhancing employability.

Interview Guide

• Describe the semi-structured interview guide, which included open-ended questions exploring thematic blocks.

Data Collection and Analysis

• Explain the process of audio-recording and transcribing interviews, supplemented by field notes and analytical memos. Outline the four stages of data analysis involving open, axial, and selective coding to identify broader patterns and formal generic themes (including instrument and strategies).

Results

Include definitions of categories and categorical relationships, especially.

Discussion

• Separate the results from the discussion to present the results from the participants' referential framework, including the definition of categories and inter-category relationships.
• The discussion should incorporate comparisons with other studies, as presented, but should be structured around both the categories and the emerging objectives and core interests.

Conclusion

• The conclusion should be rewritten to exclude references and clearly state the practical implications of the study based on the results obtained.

Author Response

Comment 1: Summary

• The summary is correct and well-structured.
• Remove the keyword "education to work transitions." Consider using "Academic and career counseling" or "Career Counseling": ://eric.ed.gov/?qt=career+counseling&ts=on&ti=Career+Counseling

Response 1: The keywords have been revised to include 'career counselling'.

Comment 2: INTRODUCTION

• The introduction is complete and relevant. Ideas could be synthesized further.

Response 2: Thank you - no amendment made.

Comment 3: Sample

• The sample is well-selected and explained, but more sociodemographic and qualitative data about the study context should be included. While anonymizing data is necessary, crucial information such as the ages of participants and their academic-professional context is omitted.

Response 3: We have already provided a participant table outlining a pseudonym, role in the organisation, and an anonymised description of the organisations involved. To comply with the terms of ethical approval, we are not able to present personal data regarding sociodemographic information and age.

Comment 4: Core Interests

• The core interests need to be clearly defined and their impact on the categorization and definitions should be explained.

Response 4: We are not entirely sure what was required here, but we have tried to clarify the distinction between the original (parent) study from which the paper is drawn and the intentions/aims of this paper (i.e. a secondary, re-analysis of qualitative data from a previous (parent) study) - see Page 2. 

Comment 5: Data Analysis

• The data analysis process, including the instruments used, should be detailed.
• An analysis of inter-category relationships should be included, and it would be beneficial to incorporate a table summarizing the categories.

Response 5: A table has been added (page 7/8) which summarises the relationship between categories and themes. 

Comment 6: Study Objective

• Clearly state the aim of the study, which is to investigate the employment challenges created or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the contribution of the sport for development sector in enhancing employability and employment opportunities among young people.

Response 6: As per Response 4 (above), we have tried to distinguish the aims/objectives of the current study from the aims/objectives of the wider project (Page 2).

Comment 7: Qualitative Focus

Emphasize and include that the article presents data from the qualitative aspect of the study, framed by interpretivist paradigmatic assumptions and corresponding bibliography.

Response 7: As noted above we have amended the Introduction to address this point, and also amended the first paragraph of the Methods section to re-clarify/re-affirm this. 

 Comment 8: Participants and Sampling

Detail the purposeful sampling of 19 semi-structured interviews with 21 participants from organizations involved in designing, delivering, commissioning, or funding sport-based interventions focused on enhancing employability.

Response 8: We have added some minor detail on Page 5.

Comment 9: Interview Guide

Describe the semi-structured interview guide, which included open-ended questions exploring thematic blocks.

Response 9: On Page 5/6 we have tried to make clear the distinction between the 'parent' study and how the data presented in this article arose from unanticipated discussion within our semi-structured interviews - consistent with qualitative secondary analysis. 

Comment 10: Data Collection and Analysis

Explain the process of audio-recording and transcribing interviews, supplemented by field notes and analytical memos. Outline the four stages of data analysis involving open, axial, and selective coding to identify broader patterns and formal generic themes (including instrument and strategies).

Response 10: We have added further detail and clarified our data analysis method as used within the qualitative secondary analysis (Page 6).

Comment 11: Results

Include definitions of categories and categorical relationships, especially.

Response 11: As above, we have added a table (page 7/8) which outlines these relationships. 

Comment 12: Discussion

Separate the results from the discussion to present the results from the participants' referential framework, including the definition of categories and inter-category relationships.

The discussion should incorporate comparisons with other studies, as presented, but should be structured around both the categories and the emerging objectives and core interests.

Response 12: Consistent with our disciplinary background (and respectfully), to enable our analysis/discussion of the findings to both flow and make comparison with previous studies, we do not want to take the data excerpts out of the context in which they are presented. Therefore, quite legitimately, we have decided not to separate the Results from the Discussion. 

Comment 13: Conclusion

The conclusion should be rewritten to exclude references and clearly state the practical implications of the study based on the results obtained.

Response 13: We are unsure as to why references should be excluded (we have never seen this before), and retaining them helps us to position the theoretical contribution to knowledge that we are attempting to make. Also, there is no intention within the paper to make an applied contribution - simply our aim is to make a theoretical contribution in relation to the possibilities of SBIs being utilised within education to employment transitions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article addresses the topic of Sports-Based Interventions (SBI) as non-formal education to facilitate the transition of young people from education to employment. It explores the potential benefits of these interventions, especially for marginalized youth. The paper presents data from interviews with organizations involved in employability-focused sports projects. In my view, the work addresses a relevant topic, but the way it is approached is too superficial, not delving deeply enough into the potential of SBIs as facilitators of the transition to employment for young people. Additionally, it lacks sufficient originality since many of the results and conclusions are presented in Morgan, Bowles & Bush (2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2023.2292137) and Morgan (2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/youth4030083).

Below are review suggestions for the manuscript, primarily intended to improve the quality and rigor of the work, which I believe deserve consideration:

1. The research evidence is scarce in the work, which makes the discourse not rigorous or robust enough. In many cases, there is a significant lack of references to support many of the claims made (for example, in lines 38-39 "...that a reliance on formal education systems as the sole facilitator of this transition is insufficient..."; lines 55-56 "...while there is evidence to indicate that SBIs can contribute to efforts to support the transition to employment..."). The authors often insist on the abundance of evidence supporting something but fail to mention any references for it. The citation for Morgan et al. (2023) in line 129 should be replaced by a numbered reference.
2. There are significant limitations in the methodological protocol followed, and a lack of transparency in the description of the methodology used. The script for the semi-structured interviews (for example, guiding questions), the software for coding the transcripts, and the categories that emerge (or are established ad hoc) for this transcript analysis should be provided.
3. To understand the results and discussion proposed, the SBI interventions analyzed should be described in detail. Who are the target participants? What type of sports and employability approaches do they offer? What are the pedagogical principles underlying each of them? If these data are unknown, it is not feasible to infer what could work and what might not in SBIs to promote the transition of young people to employment. In fact, there seem to be different approaches in the analyzed SBIs. Some use sport as a means to develop skills necessary for transitioning to the labor market (in various fields), while others offer the opportunity to access the labor market associated with jobs related to the sports field. This is very different pedagogically.
4. There is not a clear research question for this study addressed by the data retrieved. In fact, the objective defined in lines 201 to 205 of this paper is the same as that stated in Morgan et al. (2023).
5. The discussion and conclusions are not coherent with the data collected and the results shown. The results show the perception of the SBI organizations themselves regarding the transition to employment for young people, but there is no evidence of whether these SBIs have been successful for the young participants themselves and to what extent they have been successful, as the impact directly on participants is not explored, and there is no follow-up of the youth from any perspective.
6. The authors do not deeply discuss the key relevance of mentoring and role models as a pillar for SBIs to be successful, nor do they recognize the importance of offering mentor training to act as such, as has been described previously in the literature (Stelter et al., 2021; Stoeger et al., 2023). Mentoring and role models have been proven to be effective in different kinds of educational interventions to improve attitudes, interest, and self-efficacy in that sector (not only for SBIs, but also concerning, for instance, the STEM sector), and that should be highlighted, especially for underrepresented groups (De Gioannis et al., 2023). Finally, the authors do not highlight the limitations of non-formal education settings, as some of them require extra funding or intrinsic motivation to join and are less accessible to some marginalized or underrepresented groups. The authors should clarify whether they are addressing charitable SBIs as non-formal education or SBIs in general terms as non-formal education.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

1. The research evidence is scarce in the work, which makes the discourse not rigorous or robust enough. In many cases, there is a significant lack of references to support many of the claims made (for example, in lines 38-39 "...that a reliance on formal education systems as the sole facilitator of this transition is insufficient..."; lines 55-56 "...while there is evidence to indicate that SBIs can contribute to efforts to support the transition to employment..."). The authors often insist on the abundance of evidence supporting something but fail to mention any references for it. The citation for Morgan et al. (2023) in line 129 should be replaced by a numbered reference.

Response 1: The paper has been thoroughly reviewed (not least the 'literature review' sections) for such instances, and the Conclusion re-worked to add further rigour.

Comment 2: There are significant limitations in the methodological protocol followed, and a lack of transparency in the description of the methodology used. The script for the semi-structured interviews (for example, guiding questions), the software for coding the transcripts, and the categories that emerge (or are established ad hoc) for this transcript analysis should be provided.

Response 2: We have thoroughly revised the Methods section to make clear the distinction between the qualitative secondary analysis that we undertook to construct this paper and the 'parent' study from which the data is drawn. We have made clear that data presented in the paper came from unintended discussions that arose regarding the potential for SBIs to contribute to employment transitions (and how), which is consistent with qualitative secondary analysis, and data analysis was undertaken manually (rather than with any form of software). 

Comment 3: To understand the results and discussion proposed, the SBI interventions analysed should be described in detail. Who are the target participants? What type of sports and employability approaches do they offer? What are the pedagogical principles underlying each of them? If these data are unknown, it is not feasible to infer what could work and what might not in SBIs to promote the transition of young people to employment. In fact, there seem to be different approaches in the analyzed SBIs. Some use sport as a means to develop skills necessary for transitioning to the labor market (in various fields), while others offer the opportunity to access the labor market associated with jobs related to the sports field. This is very different pedagogically.

Response 3: It was not within the remit of the original study to interrogate, on a case by case basis, the pedagogical principles underlining each SBI. As such our study (and specifically, this paper) is not a positivist evaluation of specifics SBI - instead our QSA offers a grounded and collective perspective from those working within the sector of the broad potential of SBIs to support employment transitions. Furthermore, to outline, in detail, the SBIs delivered by the 19 organisations involved in the study (bearing in mind that some organisations in the study deliver multiple employment focussed SBIs) would not be feasible given the limitations of word count. 

Comment 4: There is not a clear research question for this study addressed by the data retrieved. In fact, the objective defined in lines 201 to 205 of this paper is the same as that stated in Morgan et al. (2023).

Response 4: As above, we have addressed this in the Introduction and Methods to make explicit the aims of this specific paper as distinct from the parent study.

Comment 5: The discussion and conclusions are not coherent with the data collected and the results shown. The results show the perception of the SBI organizations themselves regarding the transition to employment for young people, but there is no evidence of whether these SBIs have been successful for the young participants themselves and to what extent they have been successful, as the impact directly on participants is not explored, and there is no follow-up of the youth from any perspective.

Response 5: As per our previous responses, this is not intended to be a positivist evaluation of particular SBIs (and their success/impact on participants of these programmes) but rather provides a grounded perspective on their broader potential within education to employment transitions.

Comment 6: The authors do not deeply discuss the key relevance of mentoring and role models as a pillar for SBIs to be successful, nor do they recognize the importance of offering mentor training to act as such, as has been described previously in the literature (Stelter et al., 2021; Stoeger et al., 2023). Mentoring and role models have been proven to be effective in different kinds of educational interventions to improve attitudes, interest, and self-efficacy in that sector (not only for SBIs, but also concerning, for instance, the STEM sector), and that should be highlighted, especially for underrepresented groups (De Gioannis et al., 2023). Finally, the authors do not highlight the limitations of non-formal education settings, as some of them require extra funding or intrinsic motivation to join and are less accessible to some marginalized or underrepresented groups. The authors should clarify whether they are addressing charitable SBIs as non-formal education or SBIs in general terms as non-formal education.

Response 6: This is a very good and helpful observation. We have revisited the relevant parts of the Discussion and Conclusion accordingly, and amendments/additions have been made. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has incorporated the suggested changes and has significantly improved in several aspects. The abstract is correct and well-structured. The introduction is complete and relevant, although some ideas could be synthesized for greater clarity. The sample is well-selected and explained, and more sociodemographic and qualitative data about the study context have been added, enriching the analysis.

The core interests are now better defined, and it is explained how they affect the structuring of categories and their definitions. Additionally, a detailed explanation of how the data is analyzed, including the instruments used, has been included. A table summarizing the categories has also been incorporated, which facilitates the understanding of the analysis.

However, this logic should extend to the presentation of the results, as the discussion has not been separated from the results, making it difficult to present them clearly from the participants' referential framework. The comparison with other studies is well integrated and structured, but it should be distinguished from the categories and, subsequently, the discussion.

The conclusion should be reformulated to exclude references and clearly specify the practical implications of the study based on the results obtained

Author Response

Comment 1: The article has incorporated the suggested changes and has significantly improved in several aspects. The abstract is correct and well-structured. The introduction is complete and relevant, although some ideas could be synthesized for greater clarity. The sample is well-selected and explained, and more sociodemographic and qualitative data about the study context have been added, enriching the analysis.

Response 1: Thank you

Comment 2: The core interests are now better defined, and it is explained how they affect the structuring of categories and their definitions. Additionally, a detailed explanation of how the data is analyzed, including the instruments used, has been included. A table summarizing the categories has also been incorporated, which facilitates the understanding of the analysis.

Response 2: Thank you

Comment 3: However, this logic should extend to the presentation of the results, as the discussion has not been separated from the results, making it difficult to present them clearly from the participants' referential framework. The comparison with other studies is well integrated and structured, but it should be distinguished from the categories and, subsequently, the discussion.

Response 3: As noted in our response to the original review, we do not see the logic in separating the results from the discussion. An integrated results/discussion section is widespread practice for representing qualitative findings. We are of the view that our representation of the data in this manner is consistent with the analytical process we employed (inductive and deductive).  

Comment 4: The conclusion should be reformulated to exclude references and clearly specify the practical implications of the study based on the results obtained

Response 4: We have added a paragraph (in blue text) to explicate the practical implications of the study. As previously, we have retained reference to previous studies in the Conclusion, as per accepted convention for academic journal articles, and to situate our findings and contribution to (theoretical) knowledge. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript, which is highly appreciated and has resulted in a clearer product. However, there is still a lack of rigor in the way the research questions are formulated within the Methods section (lines 247 to 250), where the authors state the following questions:

(i) How do SBIs offer an effective alternative form of education-to-employment provision?
(ii) What aspects of SBIs enable young people to navigate the education-to-employment transition?

However, these questions are not aligned with the methodology used, as the research does not approach the questions from the perspective of the beneficiaries of SBI interventions. Instead, conclusions are drawn based on the perspectives of respondents to interviews (SBI institutions, educators, or professionals), rather than the beneficiaries themselves. To maintain rigor, the research questions should focus on the views and perceptions of SBI workers regarding the effective aspects of SBIs. The current research design does not allow for conclusions based on the beneficiaries' experiences. Therefore, the research questions should be revised to improve the congruence of the study, along with addressing all comments that could lead to misinterpretations of the study’s focus throughout the entire text. In fact, the authors correctly acknowledge in the conclusions section that: "To be explicit, the findings presented in this paper are intended to offer a grounded and collective perspective, from those working within the sport for development sector, of the broad potential of SBIs to support the employment journeys of (marginalized) young people, which may provide an embarkation point for future inquiry in this area."

Regarding the data analysis, it should be indicated how many people analyzed the transcripts from the interviews in order to consider the results robust and validated.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors have addressed all comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript, which is highly appreciated and has resulted in a clearer product.

Response1: Thank you.

Comment 2: However, there is still a lack of rigor in the way the research questions are formulated within the Methods section (lines 247 to 250), where the authors state the following questions:

(i) How do SBIs offer an effective alternative form of education-to-employment provision?
(ii) What aspects of SBIs enable young people to navigate the education-to-employment transition?

However, these questions are not aligned with the methodology used, as the research does not approach the questions from the perspective of the beneficiaries of SBI interventions. Instead, conclusions are drawn based on the perspectives of respondents to interviews (SBI institutions, educators, or professionals), rather than the beneficiaries themselves. To maintain rigor, the research questions should focus on the views and perceptions of SBI workers regarding the effective aspects of SBIs. The current research design does not allow for conclusions based on the beneficiaries' experiences. Therefore, the research questions should be revised to improve the congruence of the study, along with addressing all comments that could lead to misinterpretations of the study’s focus throughout the entire text. In fact, the authors correctly acknowledge in the conclusions section that: "To be explicit, the findings presented in this paper are intended to offer a grounded and collective perspective, from those working within the sport for development sector, of the broad potential of SBIs to support the employment journeys of (marginalized) young people, which may provide an embarkation point for future inquiry in this area."

Response 2: Many thanks for the very astute observation. We realised that we had frame the research questions in this way in the Introduction, but did not do this in the Methods, so thank for spotting. 

Comment 3: Regarding the data analysis, it should be indicated how many people analyzed the transcripts from the interviews in order to consider the results robust and validated.

Response 3: Thank you and Methods section amended appropriately. 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer considers that the authors have satisfactorily addressed the suggestions and improvements proposed in the previous round of review. The revisions have strengthened the manuscript, resulting in a clearer and more compelling paper. The changes have been implemented thoughtfully, and the overall quality of the work has improved significantly.