Transforming Local Knowledge(s) into European Recommendations: A Methodological Approach to Co-Creating Policy Briefs for Educational Inclusion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A. GENERAL

1. The article tackles an interesting and very important issue - how to get grassroots educational practice to impact on good policy. 
2. It is soundly written except for the clarity of the methodological approach. See Section C below. 

B. EDITORIAL: Minor edits that need attention, of which these are examples only. Needs proper checking all through:

1. p. 2: "...Policy Briefs (PB) emerges as valuable “knowledge 51
transfer tools” designed to link ..." - emerges should be emerge

2. p. 3 - ..."they acknowledge, as said, that traditional approaches," - 'as said' doesn't make sense

C. METHODOLOGY

1. I am not happy with the way the research methodology is referenced. There are sections embedded in the relevant sections that provide references, but there is single section after the literature section that simply states the type and tools for the methodology and the timeframe for data collection etc., well referenced. Then the blend of content would be sign-posted for the reader. I, for one, am very interested in replicating the methodology of this study (with the authors' permission), but I couldn't do this by reading the article.
2. I also think this study has wider applications under the more generalised question of how to get grassroots educational practice to impact on good policy. The discussion and conclusions (and in the Some Final Thoughts section) would benefit from a clear inclusion at the end on implications of the study for wider application, as the methodology is an interesting and do-able way to impact policy.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading and constructive feedback. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. All the changes in the manuscript have been highlighted using track changes as requested. We highly appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript and believe that the paper is now significantly strengthened, particularly in its methodological clarity and structure.

1. GENERAL

Comment 2: It is soundly written except for the clarity of the methodological approach. See Section C below. 

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. In response, we have revised and clarified the reflection on the methodology and analysis, especially in Section 2. To enhance clarity, we decided to divide the info throughout two parts: a first part offering a brief but structured overview of the project and its methodological phases (subsection 1.2.), and a more detailed Section 2 that focuses specifically on the methodological process behind the elaboration of the Policy Briefs, which is the core aim of the paper. We also included clearer explanations of the analytical approach, notably that the study is based on a secondary analysis of project outputs and that we conducted a thematic content analysis to inform the development of the policy recommendations.

1. EDITORIAL

Comment 1: Minor edits that need attention, of which these are examples only. Needs proper checking all through.

Response 1: Thank you for noting this. All minor editorial edits have been carefully revised and addressed throughout the manuscript, and the changes have been tracked and highlighted in the resubmitted version as requested.

1. METHODOLOGY

Comments 1: I am not happy with the way the research methodology is referenced. There are sections embedded in the relevant sections that provide references, but there is single section after the literature section that simply states the type and tools for the methodology and the timeframe for data collection etc., well referenced. Then the blend of content would be sign-posted for the reader. I, for one, am very interested in replicating the methodology of this study (with the authors' permission), but I couldn't do this by reading the article. 

Response 1: Thank you for this relevant comment. The importance of providing more detailed explanation of the methodological processes has been made clearer throughout the paper. To further support the reader’s understanding of the methodological scope, we added a new figure (Figure 2, p. 6) that illustrates the broader implementation of the project, including all its phases and steps, in order to contextualise the more detailed section on the elaboration of the Policy Briefs – the paper’s focus. We also clarified that the article is based on a secondary analysis of project outputs, which are referenced accordingly. Moreover, we included a brief explanation of the analytical process, stating that a thematic content analysis was conducted on these materials to systematise insights and develop the policy recommendations. While the article does not aim to describe the full methodological implementation of the COSI.ed project, we now provide clearer signposting for those interested in its tools and phases, including references added in the analytical sections. 

Comments 2: in Part 2, the authors discuss the methodology, but this is somewhat superficial and list-like. Table 1 summarizes the methods and analyses used, but neither the time frame nor the timeline of the research is revealed, nor exactly how many people were interviewed in each phase, nor how these people and groups represented the local, national, and regional levels.

Response 2: We appreciate this insightful comment. In response, Table 1 (p. 8) has been revised and expanded to offer more substance, providing clearer detail on the types of stakeholders involved in each dataset and how their voices were integrated into the policy analysis. This revision aims to address the concern about superficiality and to better illustrate the richness of the data used. Additionally, the project phases and corresponding timeframes have been made explicit in both the narrative and in the newly included Figure 2 (p. 6), which helps clarify the chronology and scope of the methodological process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ELET is a prominent topic in European education. The project that forms the basis of this article has produced significant results.

The theoretical part of the article presents in detail the policy background of ELET, the EU objectives, and the educational aspects of the countries participating in the project.

In Part 2, the authors discuss the methodology, but this is somewhat superficial and list-like. Table 1 summarizes the methods and analyses used, but neither the time frame nor the timeline of the research is revealed, nor exactly how many people were interviewed in each phase, nor how these people and groups represented the local, national, and regional levels. The analyses were document and content analyses. However, the article does not reveal anything about their process.

The results highlight the most meaningful recommendations in four points: democratic and citizenship practices, building safe spaces, positive teacher-student relationships, and quality educational policies. These are indeed appropriate recommendations for ELET.

However, the end of the article is very short. It contains no discussion, conclusion, or implication. It does not address either the conditions or the limitations. Although the introductory section deals with system-level inequalities and the policy brief is a possible way, a tool to reduce them, the authors do not provide insight at the end of the article into how their results will work (or do work) in practice. What conditions are needed for this, or what are the limitations of their implementation?

I recommend making additions in two areas: the methods section and the conclusion section.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading and constructive feedback. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. All the changes in the manuscript have been highlighted using track changes as requested. We highly appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript and believe that the paper is now significantly strengthened, particularly in its methodological and conclusion sections.

Comment 1: In Part 2, the authors discuss the methodology, but this is somewhat superficial and list-like. Table 1 summarizes the methods and analyses used, but neither the time frame nor the timeline of the research is revealed, nor exactly how many people were interviewed in each phase, nor how these people and groups represented the local, national, and regional levels. The analyses were document and content analyses. However, the article does not reveal anything about their process. 

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. We appreciate this observation and have revised Part 2 to provide greater clarity and depth. The research timeline has been explicitly detailed and visually represented in a new Figure 2, outlining the project’s main phases and corresponding timeframes. Table 1 was revised to clarify the types of participants involved in each data source, including how their voices were incorporated at local, national, and European levels. Additionally, we now explicitly state that the paper is based on secondary analysis of public project materials, and we have included a clearer explanation of the thematic content analysis used to systematise these sources and generate the policy recommendations. These changes aim to strengthen the methodological grounding of the paper.

Comments 2: The results highlight the most meaningful recommendations in four points: democratic and citizenship practices, building safe spaces, positive teacher-student relationships, and quality educational policies. These are indeed appropriate recommendations for ELET. However, the end of the article is very short. It contains no discussion, conclusion, or implication. It does not address either the conditions or the limitations. Although the introductory section deals with system-level inequalities and the policy brief is a possible way, a tool to reduce them, the authors do not provide insight at the end of the article into how their results will work (or do work) in practice. What conditions are needed for this, or what are the limitations of their implementation?

 

Response 2: Thank you for this relevant insight. We have significantly revised, improved, and extended the final section of the paper, now titled Final Reflections, to provide a more thoughtful discussion and conclusion. In this revised section, we reflect on the scope, implications, and limitations of our approach, with particular attention to the challenges of translating policy recommendations into national contexts and the structural conditions required for successful implementation. However, we also clarify that this article does not aim to evaluate the impact of the recommendations or the PBs themselves, as that was not within the scope of the project or this paper. Instead, our focus is on the methodological process of developing PBs based on local educational practices. The value of the work lies in demonstrating how participatory methodologies and co-created policy briefs can serve as tools for systemic change, particularly in addressing ELET. The PBs analysed and discussed in this article are publicly available outputs of the COSI.ed project and aim to support knowledge transfer and inform future education policy decisions at various levels.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting overview of the way in which policy briefs (PB) may be informed by the often marginalised voices of young people and educational stakeholders. It is well conceived and constructed with sound arguments, though it falls slightly short in terms of the final concluding step: the article describes how recommendations for PBs were informed, (specifically in relation to early leaving from education and training (ELET)) but does not go on to say how effective this was, either in terms of policy change, or in terms of ultimate impact on ELET. The authors may consider that these steps are beyond the bounds of their study and consequently this piece, in which case it would be worth mentioning this, not least as a potential piece of future research.

The article explains how the three methods used are able to bring about more inclusive policy briefs, but it does really explore the assertion (line 55) that the effectiveness of recommendations is increased. This statement merits some discussion; I would suggest in the final thoughts section. It may be that effectiveness has not been quantified - in which case this should be made clear.

Of the 3 methodological processes discussed, the indirect approach would benefit from a little more explanation for readers that are not familiar with it. From the information outlined here it is not clear that the indirect approach is an attempt to include happenstance opportunities in a systemic approach - perhaps more references to the small body of literature on this might help (for example some of Bunting's work).

Overall these are suggestions that might help a new reader, rather than essentials, but I hope the authors will consider whether they might help to make a good paper better.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading and constructive feedback. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. All the changes in the manuscript have been highlighted using track changes as requested. We highly appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript and believe that the paper is now significantly strengthened.

Comment 1: This is an interesting overview of the way in which policy briefs (PB) may be informed by the often marginalised voices of young people and educational stakeholders. It is well conceived and constructed with sound arguments, though it falls slightly short in terms of the final concluding step: the article describes how recommendations for PBs were informed, (specifically in relation to early leaving from education and training (ELET)) but does not go on to say how effective this was, either in terms of policy change, or in terms of ultimate impact on ELET. The authors may consider that these steps are beyond the bounds of their study and consequently this piece, in which case it would be worth mentioning this, not least as a potential piece of future research. 

Response 1: Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive comment. We have taken this opportunity to clarify in the revised final section (Final Reflections) that the article does not evaluate the effectiveness or policy impact of the PBs, as this was beyond the original scope of the COSI.ed project and of this particular study. The project did not include a longitudinal assessment of the implementation of the PBs or their influence on actual ELET outcomes. Instead, our contribution lies in analysing and documenting the methodological process through which the PBs were co-developed, based on secondary analysis of project materials and the systematisation of local practices. These PBs, which are publicly available, are intended to serve as knowledge transfer tools that amplify diverse voices. This diversity was also detailed in a revised Table 1.

Comments 2: The article explains how the three methods used are able to bring about more inclusive policy briefs, but it does really explore the assertion (line 55) that the effectiveness of recommendations is increased. This statement merits some discussion; I would suggest in the final thoughts section. It may be that effectiveness has not been quantified - in which case this should be made clear.

Response 2: Thank you for this insight. We acknowledge that the statement regarding the increased effectiveness of recommendations (line 55) could have been misleading without further clarification. This assertion was not intended to reflect measured outcomes from the COSI.ed project itself, but rather draws from broader theoretical perspectives on the potential of policy recommendations. The final section was revised to clearly distinguish between theoretical claims about the role of PB, and the absence of empirical evidence of policy impact within the scope of this paper. As you correctly suggest, effectiveness and impacts have not been quantified in this study, and this is now explicitly stated. The final section also acknowledges this limitation and suggests important area for future research.

Comments 3: Of the 3 methodological processes discussed, the indirect approach would benefit from a little more explanation for readers that are not familiar with it. From the information outlined here it is not clear that the indirect approach is an attempt to include happenstance opportunities in a systemic approach - perhaps more references to the small body of literature on this might help (for example some of Bunting's work).

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. In response, we expanded the description of the Indirect Approach to provide greater clarity for readers unfamiliar with the concept, highlighting its conversational and trust-building dimensions, and its intentional openness to emergent, unstructured dialogue. We also integrated additional references, including work by Bunting, to better situate the approach within existing literature and support readers in understanding its methodological foundations and application. These revisions can be found in Section 1,2,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors for their revisions. The methodological section has also received valuable additions, making the entire research and development process more transparent and even replicable. In addition, the conclusion has become more meaningful, pointing out the usability and conditions of the results.