Work-Family Balance in the Active Age Ethnic Hungarian Population in Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The line of arguments is clearer in this version. The context is also well introduced. It is a pleasant reading that can lead to some new learnings

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

I am most grateful for the useful comments throughout the whole revision process. Looking back now, it was a huge experience and a good lesson.

I am working a bit more on the Methods section with some more remarks on it, as I see this part can be improved.

Best wishes,

the author

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with the variables associated with work-family balance within the population 

of ethnic Hungarians in Romania. The research design is correct and the analysis is methodologically sound and well-performed, even though it has some data related limitations. However, its scientific relevance and contribution are not very clear, other than to the extent it sheds light on work-family balance within an understudied minority population. The article would improve considerably if the authors could justify more clearly why it is scientifically relevant to study work-family balance within this particular group. Is it because of their comparatively harder socioeconomic and working conditions as compared to the Romanian majority? What could this imply in terms of findings that is interesting from a scientific and social point of view?

It might be advisable to include a theory section separate from the introduction (perhaps the subsection now dealing with the determinants of work-family balance could serve as such, as it deals in practice with earlier theoretical explanations of work-family balance and previous research).

The article would also benefit from a discussion on how those variables that have proven important for work-family balance in other countries might or might not be present/important within the context of the specific population under study. The exact theoretical mechanisms whereby work-related factors and, specially, demographic variables could be important should be spelled out a bit more too (e.g. through which mechanisms could work hours/gender/education etc matter, especially within this particular population?). I would also recommend including more theoretical discussions all along the whole article, to frame and enhance more clearly its contribution.

Methodologically speaking, the sample is actually fairly small, which calls for caution when drawing conclusions. Even though the sample is claimed to be representative for the actual population of interest, this limitation should be pointed out. Does the analysis draw on the whole sample? Are there any missing values?

Are there any additional items in the questionnaire measuring individuals' own subjective perception on how well they are meeting work and family demands (the items used refer chiefly to others' perceptions)?. If such a measure exists, it would be interesting to include it. If it does not, it could be worth explaining it.

The study has certain limitations (such as not including measures of the sharing of domestic responsibilities), yet these are due to the data used and therefore apparently impossible to overcome. Nevertheless, a discussion on what the exclusion of these variables  might entail and how they have proven relevant in other contexts would be pertinent.

It is claimed on p.8 (line 253): "Financial status and character of work were omitted, as they largely depend  on educational attainment and their presence would have reduced the explanatory power of the model" - a possibility would be to also run a model that includes them and explain the results.

More theoretical discussions should be included in the concluding sections. Why could it be, for instance, that work-related variables are not so important as compared to others in this very specific population? What could be the reason why gender is not statistically significantly related with work-family balance in this case? It might also be advisable to put together the discussion and conclusions within a single section, as the conclusions section is very brief.

Finally, I would recommend English language editing/proofreading, as there are some spelling and grammar mistakes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Your comments have been most useful, I am grateful for them. Now, after reviewing the article, its overall aim seems much more clearly formulated and more understandable.

I have tried to empasize the scientific relevance of studying this specific population group, and that the findings are or can be useful for other populations, too.

The section on the variable selection was easlily transformed into a theoretical part.

I have added some paragraphs to the methods section to highlight that the measure used (judgement of others) was the only measure we had and that other measures do exist, but this one has a more social taste - meeting the expectations of others, and that it is a legitimate construct used in other studies, too. Also, I stated in the methods part that the linear regression table is in fact model 2 that I have chosen to use because previously the variables financial status and character of work have diminished the explanatory power of the model due to their overlapping with educational attainment. (So I admitted that using them "WOULD" NOT HAVE reduced the explanatory power of the model, but it actually DID so in fact.)

I am proud of the two paragraphs added to the Conclusions where I made an attempt - hopefully, the reviewers will also find it successful, to clarify the unexpected behaviour of GENDER, which is not significant. Thanks for suggesting to reflect on it.

The article was read and corrected by a native English teacher.

I hope I met all the expectations that were formulated towards me, I did the best I could in such a short time. Also, I think I would not be able to do a better job than I did.

This was a unique work experience for me.

Thanks and best wishes,

the author