Next Article in Journal
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Policies: Addressing Unintended Effects on Inequalities
Previous Article in Journal
Service Quality Barriers Encountered in Urban Public Transport by People with Disability in South Africa
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Exploring the Impact of Lived Experience Contributions to Social Work and Healthcare Programmes: A Scoping Review

Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(6), 367; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14060367
by Rathna Bharathi Seetharaman 1,*, Joanna Fox 2 and Gavin Millar 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(6), 367; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14060367
Submission received: 2 April 2025 / Revised: 2 June 2025 / Accepted: 5 June 2025 / Published: 11 June 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There was just one area on page 2 where I thought the writing could be clearer and I highlighted it. However, it was not enough to warrant a delay in publication.

I enjoyed the research, and it made me reflect on my own teaching and what I can do differently.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments, I really appreciate it. I have rephrased it for more clarity and attached the document for your reference.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

This scoping review, aimed at exploring the nature of lived experience involvement in social work and healthcare education, is a very thorough article that was reasonably easy to read.

The strength and key contribution is a) the use of Arnstein’s Framework and b) the thoroughness of the scoping review undertaken.

Lived experience involvement is a key issue for social work and health professional education.  It’s a very worthwhile topic.

Well-written clear abstract that invites the reader to read the article. Thorough and clear method and description of method.  Accurate use of PICO, Prisma etc.   Excellent sources used for introduction and arising from Prisma. Good themes and issues discussed.

Thorough reference list – covering a wide range of references from different countries and fields.  Good references used in the Introduction as well as arising from the scoping review.

Great contribution to use the Arnstein framework in this way.  That is an excellent contribution. The use of Arnstein’s diagram is recommended.

However the framework needs to be referenced and described and discussed more thoroughly. It also needs to be mentioned in the Conclusions.

Some suggestions for improving the table and the discussion are given for consideration.

Overall a very thorough article.

 

Key issues to address:

Arnstein Framework

The framework needs to be referenced. It is a 1969 framework with a later article in 2019. The latter article may not be that helpful apart from acknowledgement of limitations.  

Willness et al. (2023) also used the framework  very well in relation to teaching and learning.  It would be useful to look at how they described and used the framework. Willness based most of their work on the 1969 article with some reference to 2019.

The aspects of the framework relevant to this study need more explanation and that aspect of the discussion section needs more detail. 

Inclusion of the diagram of Arnstein’s Framework would be helpful.  For example, with the diagram the sentence in section 4.1 3rd para  “not all studies ……….are top level’ would be more meaningful.

 

 

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35:216–224.

Arnstein, S. R. 2019. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85:24–34.

Willness, C. R., Boakye-Danquah, J., & Nichols, D. R. (2023). How Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation can enhance community-engaged teaching and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education22(1), 112-131.

 

Conclusion:

With Arnstein’s Framework being such a key contribution of this article,  a comment about the application in the conclusions would be helpful.  It is mentioned in the abstract as a key contribution, so something in the conclusions would be good.

Other issues to consider:

Presentation of the table:

This table is extremely large.  When prepared for publication, the presentation will be improved by the journal which will make it easier to read (closer line spacing etc.).

However, it’s not clear how the articles have been ordered in the table.  Would you consider re-ordering so that different levels of Arnstein’s Framework are grouped together?

Could you also consider splitting the table so that some explanation of the different levels can be inserted in between each table? (Improved presentation by the journal may make this unnecessary).

Section 4.2.4 Barriers and challenges :

I think it would be helpful to have more explanation of what is meant by "inadequate preparation" in the first paragraph.

These barriers seem to me to be encountered(and documented) by many educators – as a function of the systems of educational institutions.

Are there any barriers specific to Lived Experience Educators?

In the next section (4.3) you’ve commented about tokenism and hinted at prejudice.  Did any of the articles find comments from Lived Experience Educators themselves about tokenism and prejudice?

Section 4.4.4 Feedback

Similarly, some of the comments about feedback could relate to feedback in general.   Is there anything that indicates issues specific to Lived Experience Educators?  Or are they just experiencing the same issues that occur with feedback generally?

Discussion:

I think it would be helpful to place more emphasis on the Recommendations section 4.2.5.  I think it would be worth having more discussion in this section and give some more specific examples of these recommendations. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally well-written – although a few areas that need some proofing.  Some examples are:

First sentence of 4.3.3; 

First sentence of 4.4.2;

4.4.3  second sentence   ‘staffs’; 

4.4.4 second sentence second para – “according to them” is not clear;   

reference no 2 has journal in italics – no other sources do.

Overall well written and clearly explained. There are a few examples here and there that need proofing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the informative comments. I have worked on all the areas as mentioned and attached the summary document here. Please refer. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper represents an important contribution to social work and allied health education. A sound methodological approach to the scoping review is evident and the outcomes of the research are well presented and offer inspiration for educators to engage the literature to learn more. The paper would be enhanced with the inclusion of a reference to support the introduction and definition of Arnstein's Ladder of Participation. Additionally, the table demonstrating the rating of participation of LEEs in each article is unwieldy and should be reformatted to include only the authors of each article, the rating, the discipline, and a brief bullet point rational for the rating. I suggest dropping the title of each article and the full sentence rationales to increase readability of the this table. Finally, the paper notes that there is significant attention to LEE involvement in education globally. Adding some examples of other places in which this is occurring would strengthen this statement. For example, are these other sites in Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia, the Americas etc. Overall, this is an important read and I look forward to its publication and the dialogue it will surely spur.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally the paper is well written with strong English; however there are spots where words are missing or not necessary and where incomplete sentences require attention. For example, section 4.2.4, 4.3.3., and 4.4. This list is not exhaustive and so I advise a careful re-read for any errors. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments. We really appreciate it. I have attached the summary document and the revised manuscript. Please refer, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop