Use of Space and Safety Perceptions from a Gender Perspective: University Campus, Student Lodging, and Leisure Spots in Concepción (Chile)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see my comments attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok but i would urge to have a native speaking editor go through your paper.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and suggestions. In the following section, we provide detailed responses to each of your points and outline the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript. We hope that the changes meet your expectations and improve the quality of the work.

 

The abstract needs to be consistent in time, present tense or past tense. Also the first sentence says ‘’This paper explores the different safety perceptions ’’ make the different, differing.

In the abstract again, the ‘’ The results allow us to identify the that female students adopt avoidance and behavioral strategies when they are on the university campus or in leisure places. This limits their use of space and contrasts with the behavior of male students, recognizing a loss of the sense of safety as spaces become more communal and less private’’ is a confusing statement. Female students adopt avoidance,do you mean avoidance strategies? If so use the word strategies there as well. Also what is behavioural strategies? Is this a term? If not, it looks very general.

Also the abstract does not reflect the findings.... I couldnt see avoidance strategies at all in the text. There needs to be a more slow building up of the introduction and the context in the beginning. You suggest there is little research in Latin America. But further than that we dont know what is the academic and societal relevance of this paper. You have to make the case that this is an important subject that deserves academic inquiry.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the abstract. We have made the suggested revisions to improve the clarity, coherence, and relevance of the text. The verb tense has been unified, consistently using the present tense throughout the abstract. The phrase “different safety perceptions” has been replaced with “differing safety perceptions” for greater precision. Additionally, the grammatical error in “the that” has been corrected, and the terms “avoidance and behavioral strategies” have been replaced with “avoidance and precautionary strategies,” offering more specific and accurate terminology. The summary of results has been rephrased to avoid confusion, better reflect the actual findings, and eliminate any unsupported claims. Finally, a sentence has been added to highlight the academic relevance of the study, in response to your suggestion to strengthen the justification of the topic. These revisions ensure that the abstract is now more accurate and better aligned with the manuscript’s content.

 

Also, a bit of more general context as to how many alike universities there are and the reasoning behind your choice of university must be explained. You talk about it in

 methods but still we dont know why this university was chosen in the first place.

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. A paragraph has been added to the methodology section providing various reasons to justify the selection of the University of Concepción as a case study. Beyond being the authors' institution, the University of Concepción is recognized as a reference point in Latin America for its campus infrastructure, its dynamic and growing student community with dedicated leisure spaces, and because it has been the subject of previous research in the field of student geographies—a relatively rare focus in Latin American contexts.

 

Conclusion is very short, and it is almost just a section for study limitations and not

conclusion, what can be further studied? what does your research add to the literature? How are you conclusions are different from other works that are conducted elsewhere? Any overlaps? Particularities related to context? These are all missing unfortunately.

Following your useful suggestion, we have expanded the conclusion section to include research projections. We emphasize the need to: 1) broaden studies on studentification by incorporating gender identities beyond the binary; and 2) further explore the intersection between gender and socioeconomic factors in Latin American university contexts.

We sincerely appreciate your observations and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic relevance of the manuscript. We have incorporated the proposed changes as accurately and faithfully as possible, including revisions to the abstract, the justification of the case study, and the expansion of the conclusion section. We remain at your full disposal for any specific clarification or additional revisions you may consider necessary

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "Use of Space and Safety Perceptions from a Gender Perspective: University Campus, Student Lodging and Leisure Spots in Concepción (Chile)" submitted to Social Sciences. I have reviewed your paper and believe it addresses an important topic with potential to make a valuable contribution to understanding gendered experiences of university spaces in a previously understudied geographical context.

This article examines the gendered construction of space and safety perceptions among university students in Concepción, Chile, focusing on three key environments: student housing, university campus, and leisure spaces. The research employs a qualitative methodology based on 20 in-depth interviews with male and female students. The findings reveal that female students adopt specific avoidance and behavioural strategies in university and leisure spaces that limit their use of these areas compared to male students, with safety perceptions decreasing as spaces become more communal and less private.

Your paper has a number of strengths, such as:

1. Your research addresses an acknowledged gap in studentification literature by examining the Latin American context, which has been underrepresented in the field dominated by Anglo-Saxon perspectives.
2. The comprehensive approach integrating three key spaces in student life (housing, campus, leisure) provides a holistic understanding of how gender affects space perception and use across different settings.
3. Your theoretical framework thoroughly establishes connections between studentification, gender studies, and fear of crime, creating a solid conceptual foundation for the research.
4. The inclusion of direct quotes from participants effectively illustrates the gendered differences in safety perceptions and strategies.

That being said, there are many areas which require major revisions. As such, I am recommending major revisions to the article, with the specific areas needing revision outlined below.

1. There is a fundamental inconsistency in your analytical approach and methodological approach. You state on page 6 that you used grounded theory as outlined by Charmaz and Belgrave (2015), specifically noting that your analytical process "consisted of encoding the data, developing, testing, and integrating theoretical categories, and writing analytical narratives through research…" However, the paper does not demonstrate the implementation of grounded theory methodology as described by Charmaz and Belgrave. True grounded theory involves an inductive process where theory emerges from data through systematic coding procedures (initial coding, focused coding, theoretical coding), constant comparative analysis, memo-writing, and theoretical sampling. These methodological elements are not evident in your paper. Instead, your analysis appears to be primarily deductive in nature, with findings organised around predetermined theoretical categories that closely mirror your literature review. While it is perfectly valid to use a deductive approach to extend existing theory to a new context (in this case, applying studentification and gender theories to a Latin American setting), this needs to be explicitly framed as such rather than claiming to use grounded theory. This methodological inconsistency significantly impacts the transparency and validity of your analysis and requires comprehensive revision to accurately represent your actual analytical process.
2. The paper shows substantial repetition between the literature review and findings sections, suggesting that your analysis may have been guided by predetermined categories rather than being constructed from the data. For example, several concepts discussed in your literature review (such as avoidance strategies, confronting strategies, and empowerment strategies identified by García-Carpintero et al. (2022) and Starkweather (2007)) reappear almost verbatim in your findings section. This pattern indicates more of a deductive analytical approach where you are applying existing theoretical frameworks to interpret your data, rather than allowing themes to be constructed inductively from the data as would be expected in grounded theory. While deductive analysis is a valid methodological approach, particularly when extending established theories to new contexts, it contradicts your stated use of grounded theory methodology. If your intention was to apply existing theoretical frameworks to the Latin American context, this approach should be explicitly acknowledged and justified. You would need to:
   1. Clearly state that you employed a deductive thematic analysis using predetermined categories derived from the literature.
   2. Explain why this approach was appropriate for your research aims.
   3. Discuss how you systematically applied these theoretical frameworks to your data analysis.
   4. Distinguish between confirmatory findings (those that align with existing theories) and novel insights specific to your research context.

Alternatively, if you did intend to use grounded theory but your reporting of findings has inadvertently emphasised connections to existing literature, you need to substantially revise your findings section to demonstrate:

1. 1. How your coding process led to the construction of these themes from the data?
   2. What novel conceptual insights were constructed that weren't predetermined by existing theory?
   3. How your analytical process followed grounded theory principles of constant comparison and theoretical development?

This methodological clarification is essential for establishing the credibility and originality of your research contribution.

3. While your study included 20 participants from different majors, there is limited discussion of other relevant demographic factors (socioeconomic status, ethnicity, etc.) that might intersect with gender to influence safety perceptions. This limitation requires substantive consideration.
4. Despite mentioning "the specific situation of Latin American non-binary students" (lines 47-48) in the conclusion as a potential future research direction, the paper primarily maintains a binary gender framework throughout the analysis without sufficient justification or acknowledgment of this limitation. This approach requires more substantive consideration. The methodology section briefly states, "Regarding gender categories, we have asked participants about, and we have used the participants' own identifications. In all cases, gender identification coincided with biological sex" (lines 212-214). However, this statement raises several important methodological questions:
   1. Did your recruitment strategy specifically seek to include gender-diverse participants? The snowball sampling method beginning with female architecture students may have unintentionally limited access to non-binary, transgender, or gender non-conforming students. How might this have shaped your participant pool?
   2. Contemporary gender scholarship, particularly in the areas of urban geographies and experiences of safety, increasingly recognises gender as a spectrum rather than a binary. Your literature review does not engage with this more nuanced theoretical understanding of gender. For example, Starkweather (2007), whom you cite, specifically discusses "strategies to mitigate feelings of insecurity beyond gender binaries" (line 84), yet this perspective is not incorporated into your theoretical framework.
   3. Latin America has diverse and complex gender identities and expressions, including indigenous gender systems that may not align with Western binary conceptions. How might these cultural specificities inform a more nuanced approach to gender in your research context?
   4. By maintaining a strictly binary analysis, your study may miss important insights about how gender-diverse students navigate and experience university spaces. Research suggests that non-binary, transgender, and gender non-conforming individuals often face unique safety concerns in public and institutional spaces.

Your current approach to gender requires a more explicit justification or acknowledgment of its limitations. If the binary framework was maintained due to the composition of your sample, this should be clearly stated as a limitation. If it was a methodological choice, the rationale should be provided within the context of contemporary gender theory. Additionally, the conclusion's mention of non-binary students feels disconnected from the rest of the paper without some preliminary discussion in either the theoretical framework or methods section. This limitation significantly affects how readers interpret your findings about gendered experiences of space and requires substantive consideration in your revisions.

For clarity, I have provided suggestions to attend to the above areas for revision:

1. Revise the methodology section to accurately represent the analytical approach used in the study. Either fully implement grounded theory methods or explicitly acknowledge and justify using a deductive approach. Explicitly state whether the approach was primarily inductive or deductive. If using a deductive approach, clearly acknowledge how predetermined theoretical categories shaped the analysis.
2. Clearly articulate the actual analytical framework employed and provide rationale for its appropriateness. Provide a detailed account of the specific coding procedures and analytical techniques used.
3. Restructure the relationship between the literature review and findings to address the current repetition. Distinguish between confirmatory findings and novel insights specific to the research context.
4. Provide justification for the binary gender framework employed in the analysis.
5. Address the limitations of not including non-binary, transgender, or gender non-conforming perspectives. Discuss how the recruitment strategy may have limited access to gender-diverse participants. Acknowledge sampling limitations more explicitly.
6. Engage with contemporary gender scholarship that recognises gender as a spectrum.
7. Consider the cultural specificities of Latin American gender identities in the theoretical framework.
8. Incorporate discussion of how socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and other demographic factors intersect with gender. Address how these intersections might influence safety perceptions and strategies.
9. Clarify the original contribution of the research beyond applying existing frameworks to a new context.
10. Strengthen the discussion section by connecting findings to broader debates in gender and urban studies. Develop more specific implications for policy, urban planning, and university administration. Ensure consistency between the conclusion's future research directions and the main body of the paper.

Your research topic on the gender-based construction of space within student settings is valuable and important. However, the issues identified above need substantial revision before the paper can make a meaningful contribution to the field. I believe that with these major revisions addressing these concerns, your manuscript has the potential to become a significant addition to the literature.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments and suggestions. In the following section, we provide detailed responses to each of your points and outline the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript. We hope that the changes meet your expectations and improve the quality of the work.

 

REVIEWER 2

For clarity, I have provided suggestions to attend to the above areas for revision:

1. Revise the methodology section to accurately represent the analytical approach used in the study. Either fully implement grounded theory methods or explicitly acknowledge and justify using a deductive approach. Explicitly state whether the approach was primarily inductive or deductive. If using a deductive approach, clearly acknowledge how predetermined theoretical categories shaped the analysis.

Thank you for your comment. As a team, we revisited the description of the research methodology, particularly restructuring the analysis and data treatment. We improved the explanation of our approach by specifying the use of content analysis, including open coding and the development of emerging analytical categories.

1. Clearly articulate the actual analytical framework employed and provide rationale for its appropriateness. Provide a detailed account of the specific coding procedures and analytical techniques used.

We appreciate your request for this important clarification. In response, we have added a paragraph explaining the coding strategy used on the interview data and the deductive thematic analysis applied. This approach is grounded in theoretical frameworks developed mainly in Anglo-Saxon academic traditions, which we found to be analytically valuable and relevant for interpreting empirical material in the Latin American context—an underexplored setting in this line of inquiry.

 

1. Restructure the relationship between the literature review and findings to address the current repetition. Distinguish between confirmatory findings and novel insights specific to the research context.

We have removed or relocated some references to other sections. Given the deductive nature of our study, it was essential to create a dialogue between empirical findings and the theoretical literature to contextualize the results. Each thematic section now begins with empirical evidence from the interviews, followed by a discussion linking these findings to relevant academic work. Additionally, a concluding paragraph has been added to each section to summarize the main results. The novel or distinctive contributions of the study have been reserved for the final conclusions.

 

1. Provide justification for the binary gender framework employed in the analysis.

Thank you for pointing this out. As a research team, we discussed the limitations of the binary gender framework, though this was not initially included in the article. We believe it is essential to expand gender studies beyond binary conceptions, and this revision provides an opportunity to address that issue while acknowledging the limitations imposed by our sampling method. We now state that future research should incorporate sex-gender diversities as a study variable. We have incorporated these aspects into the manuscript.

 

1. Address the limitations of not including non-binary, transgender, or gender non-conforming perspectives. Discuss how the recruitment strategy may have limited access to gender-diverse participants. Acknowledge sampling limitations more explicitly.

Thank you for this observation. We have added an explanation to clarify that the binary gender focus reflects the students' self-identification and not a conceptual limitation on our part. This limitation has been acknowledged in the manuscript, and we have included a key reference for readers interested in further exploring this topic.

 

1. Engage with contemporary gender scholarship that recognises gender as a spectrum.

We have incorporated references to fundamental Latin American authors such as Lugones (2008) and Segato (2016), who address the coloniality of gender in this region. These contributions explain how specific configurations shape women's spatial experiences, not only by gender but also by race, ethnicity, and social class. These intersections are particularly relevant in Latin American university environments, where access to higher education has historically been marked by class and race privileges.

 

1. Consider the cultural specificities of Latin American gender identities in the theoretical framework.

Thank you for this observation. We have added a justification of the academic and social relevance of the study at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction. This addition complements the discussion of the article’s specific contributions to the existing literature, which appears later in the text. In this way, the revised introduction emphasizes both the thematic relevance of the research and its significance within the Latin American context.

1. Incorporate discussion of how socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and other demographic factors intersect with gender. Address how these intersections might influence safety perceptions and strategies.

We appreciate this suggestion, and as a research team, we fully agree. However, this study did not focus on this as one of its objectives, and therefore, insufficient data were collected to support findings based on socioeconomic profiles. Nevertheless, we believe this is an important direction for future research, and we have included it as a research projection in the conclusions of this article.

 

1. Clarify the original contribution of the research beyond applying existing frameworks to a new context.

We appreciate and accept the suggestion. We have added comparisons at both the theoretical and analytical levels to highlight the specificity of our context. This comment is fundamental, as it enhances the contribution of this study by expanding the geographical and conceptual scope of research on studentification, which until now has focused primarily on Anglo-Saxon experiences.

 

1. Strengthen the discussion section by connecting findings to broader debates in gender and urban studies. Develop more specific implications for policy, urban planning, and university administration. Ensure consistency between the conclusion's future research directions and the main body of the paper.

Following this suggestion, we have included a proposal for projections in the conclusions of the article. We emphasize the need to: 1) broaden studies on studentification by incorporating gender identities beyond the binary; and 2) further explore the intersection between gender and socioeconomic factors in Latin American university contexts.

Your research topic on the gender-based construction of space within student settings is valuable and important. However, the issues identified above need substantial revision before the paper can make a meaningful contribution to the field. I believe that with these major revisions addressing these concerns, your manuscript has the potential to become a significant addition to the literature.

We are truly grateful for your valuable comments, which have helped strengthen both the methodological structure and the theoretical positioning of the manuscript. We have carefully worked to integrate your suggestions in a rigorous manner, including a clearer justification of the analytical approach, the incorporation of updated conceptual frameworks, and a thorough discussion of the study’s limitations. We are fully available for any further clarification or specific revisions you may require.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the research team for taking onboard my suggestions. The additions to the paper greatly enhance the paper and I am happy to confirm it would be suitable for publication.