“Even the Small Work That I Do, It Has Impact, It Has Meaning”: Collective Meaning-Making in Youth Climate Groups

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript entitled, “‘Even the small work that I do, it has impact, it has meaning’: Meaning Making in Youth Climate Groups.”  Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted yellow within the article document.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? 

Must be improved

We have taken your suggestions throughout and adjusted accordingly. More elaboration can be found below. We have changed multiple references to reflect the research more accurately. 

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated? 

Yes

Thank you. 

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling? 

Can be improved

We have changed our discussion to fit with your comments. More below. Thank you. 

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? 

Yes

Thank you. 

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

We have taken all of your suggested references into account and added them to our manuscript. Thank you. 

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

We have added references accordingly. Thank you. 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: This manuscript analyses the interview accounts of thirty young people (13-18 years old) involved in youth-led climate-oriented groups in the USA and Canada: Extinction Rebellion Youth, Sustainabiliteens, Sunrise Movement, or school-affiliated clubs. The methodology is clearly explained and internally coherent, and the findings are presented in alignment with the psychological frame of adolescent ‘identity development’ (see below), and in relation to Frankl’s (2006) ‘avenues of meaning-making’ – ‘attitude, encounter, and action’. There is rich data in this manuscript – wonderful insights from young people about their experiences of climate advocacy/ activism.

Response 1: Thank you for this positive feedback. 

Comments 2: There are a number of issues with this manuscript in its present form: its depoliticization of participants’ meaning-making, lack of engagement with related literature (beyond psychological concepts, and literature relating to ‘everyday’ activisms) and lack of an author positionality statement.

Response 2: We appreciate your point and agree that bringing in the literature on the political perspective to be relevant and to strengthen our paper. We have, accordingly, revised the manuscript to develop this point. In particular, we have revised the literature review removing some of the points that detailed out the psychological aspect of climate work, and replaced these with literature that identified the political aspect of everyday climate work. We appreciated the references that were suggested and drew on them in both the literature review and the discussion to develop this point. Accordingly, the discussion is the other section that we also revised substantially. We have removed or changed many references in the literature review as well as in the discussion.

Comments 3: The main theme of the paper across participant is ‘meaning-making’ - though this theme is not directly connected to the main political demands of young people involved in this study (i.e. how young people are making meaning of climate change, its root causes, intersecting injustices that climate change amplifies and compounds, and the political solutions that they are demanding for climate justice) – see further points below on this below. Instead, the main focus of analysis is on ‘belonging’ to the group, ‘processing emotions’ and ‘doing small actions.’ These findings are depoliticised of the political ‘meaning[s]’ that likely drive young people involved in these groups; this reader wondered if the participants might find these findings, and the focus on ‘adolescents’ identity formation’ quite patronising and belittling of the scale of the climate crisis that they are inheriting, and their expressions of political agency and climate citizenship (Firinci Orman, 2022).

Response 3: As identified, we agree with the relevance of situating our findings in terms of it reflecting the political agency and engagement of young people. Thus, we have revised both  the framing and the discussion accordingly.

Comments 4: The manuscript is firmly situated in a psychological paradigm, using the language of ‘adolescents’ (rather than ‘young people’), and conceptualising ‘adolescence’ as a ‘crucial period of identity development’ when they work through ‘their identity puzzles’. This interpretive framing risks potentially belittling/ diminishing the significant existential challenges facing the current generation. This framing (and the literature cited in reviewing) excludes a vast body of recent work on young people and climate activism that critically examines the culturally and historically contingent ways in which the emotions, actions and politics of ‘young people’/ ‘youth’/ ‘adolescents’ are interpreted by adults, and that takes the political work of young people deeply seriously (e.g. see the work of Benjamin Bowman, 2019; Judith Bessant, 2021; Parsons et al, 2024; Firinci Orman, 2022; Pickard, 2020). The manuscript does not cite nor engage with recent research from North American scholars of climate activism and young people – e.g. Carrie Karsgaard, Carlie Trott and Sally Neas.

Response 4: Thank you. We have switched almost all “adolescent” words to “young people,” or “youth.” We have also changed our framing to be less about adolescent development and more about ecocitizenship and civic participation. We have included several of the references suggested. 

Comments 5: A statement of the author/ authors’ positionality in relation to young people and climate activism is needed earlier in the article – i.e. age, gender, racialisation, prior/ present involvement (or not) in climate advocacy/ activism.

Response 5: Agree. We have added a paragraph on positionality at the end of the methods section.

Comments 6: The manuscript’s focus on the ‘small actions’ of these young people in their climate groups has the potential to make a strong contribution, especially in relation to the ‘behind-the-scenes work of adolescents in climate mobilization’. An important point made, towards the end of the findings section, is about the ‘normalization of activism as part of everyday life’. There have been substantial research conversations in recent years, in the field of children’s geographies, about young people’s ‘everyday activisms’ (see Walker, 2017, and a Special Issue of Children’s Geographies edited by Skovdal & Benwell, 2021), and other literature about the behind-the-scenes work ‘learning to lead’ (e.g. Tattersall, Hinchcliff & Yajman, 2022). Engaging more directly with this literature would enable a stronger statement of contribution about the everyday participation in youth-led climate groups.  

Response 6: Agree. We have, accordingly, situated our study in the context of the literature that identifies the significance and role of everyday climate activism. We appreciate this point as it helps strengthen our paper, and is much in line with our findings.

Comments 7: As two minor points in the conclusion, the use of Bryan’s (2022) quote ‘flag of convenience’ is unclear (on p. 11, Discussion and Conclusions). The phrase ‘dark emotions’ is also unclear, and counter to much of the research literature that has flagged the value of (perceived) negative emotions for climate action.

Response 7: Agree. We have removed both of these phrases and references in our revised manuscript. 

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript entitled, “‘Even the small work that I do, it has impact, it has meaning’: Meaning Making in Youth Climate Groups”.  Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted yellow within the document.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? 

Yes

Thank you.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated? 

Yes

Thank you. 

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling? 

Yes

Thank you.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? 

Yes

Thank you. 

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thank you. 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and well written manuscript. This work can significantly contribute to the advancement of knowledge in an emerging field where much is still to be uncovered. I think that this paper will fill a void in developmental perspectives of climate youth activism and will stimulate more research on this important topic, especially around the role of engagement with climate action in the broader context of youth development.

Response 1: Thank you for this positive comment. We greatly appreciate it. 

Comments 2: I only have one recommendation for the author: to add more background about their epistemologies/ontologies and positionalities to better contextualize the process of interpretation of their thematic analysis. They can refer to Braun & Clarke Thematic Analysis: a Practical Guide (2022) for suggestions of how to integrate these dimensions of subjectivity into the manuscript.  

Response 2: Thank you. We have included this in section 2 utilizing a recent article from Braun & Clarke. 

Comments 2: Finally a comment about parental consent (no action required). It is unfortunate that some universities review ethics board still require parental consent for young people's participation in this type of research, where we know that it may be in the best interest of the young person to acknowledge their competence and agency and that they should be allowed to make these kinds of decision on their own. Furthermore, this practise marginalizes young people who do not have supportive and trusting relationships with their parents. 

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We agree. We have added an acknowledgement of this in our materials and methods section.