Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I congratulate the authors on this work. It is an interesting effort to integrate diverse theories to explain a complex social phenomenon. Empirical research contributes to the development of the field of research.

Below I share my assessment with the authors.

Title. It is adequate. It clearly indicates the content of the article. I have no comments.

Abstract. It includes all the required components of an abstract: 1) it presents the problem and formulates the research objectives; 2) it describes the methodology; 3) it summarizes the main results; and 4) it reflects on the contribution of the work. Additionally, it reports on the theories on which the research is based. I have no comments.

Keywords. The selected words correspond to the content of the document and facilitate searching for the article in databases. The authors are advised not to include acronyms among the keywords.

Introduction. The background of the topic and the rationale for its importance are well developed in the introduction. It clearly explains the theoretical and practical gap that the research, the results of which are included in the document, seeks to address. In particular, the authors highlight the contributions or novelties of the work. This section also provides brief information on the theories underlying the research. The research questions are clearly stated.

Despite all these positive elements, it should be noted that the introduction lacks a concise description of the methodology used. The authors are encouraged to include a brief descriptive paragraph on the methodology.

Theoretical Framework.

The description of the theories underlying this research (subsection 2.1) is well done. The analysis through which the authors integrate these theories is also well done. It is a solid analysis, well supported by the literature on these topics. The literature referenced in the document is adequate and up-to-date.

It is noted that the source of either of the two figures (1 and 2) included in this subsection is not indicated. The authors should indicate the source of these two figures.

In section 2.2, the authors provide an interesting and well-founded analysis of five models of financial literacy, which they consider insufficient because they ignore social and gender dimensions.

In section 2.3, the authors present the conceptual framework they consider most appropriate for studying the topic of this paper ("conceptual framework of gender-sensitive financial literacy within the context of digital marketing adoption"). In this subsection, I have the following observations:

• The authors do not describe how this conceptual framework integrates the four theories.
• The diagram representing the conceptual framework is also not clearly described.
• The figure number should be 3.

Materials and Methods

The authors clearly describe the stages they chose to follow in their research. They provide a good rationale for the sample they chose to work with. This sample seems adequate for the research objectives. In section 3.3 (focus of study), they correctly describe what they seek to discover through the study of this sample and the thematic areas addressed in the research.

The authors then correctly describe the process of analyzing the collected data. This section is preceded by the title: 3.3. Focus of Study. This title was already included above. This part is unclear and should be corrected.

This section lacks a description of the qualitative techniques used in the research: interviews with women (45), stakeholder interviews (30), focus groups, and visual materials. The authors should provide basic information about these techniques. For example, in the case of the focus groups: who participated (women, stakeholders?), number of participants, participant profiles, some element of the guidelines used by the coordinator, etc.

Results

The analysis of the data is well organized, aimed at answering the research questions. The analysis converges toward an interpretation of the results in light of the conceptual framework proposed by the authors (section 4.5). All of this is well done.

However, there is a problem in this section. Here, the information obtained from the interviews with the women and the interviews with the staff members is analyzed, but the information obtained through the focus groups is not clearly presented. Consequently, there is no integrated analysis of the information collected through the different qualitative techniques used. This should be corrected.

Discussion

The discussion of the results was already presented in the previous section. Only subsection 5.1 corresponds to a section titled Discussion. The content of the rest of this section (theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and future lines of research) corresponds to a conclusions section.

It should be noted that the content of these subsections (theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and future lines of research) is well-crafted. Their content allows for a visualization of the contribution of this work.

It is suggested that the content of the discussion and conclusions sections be integrated, avoiding possible redundancies.

Author Response

Comment 1: I congratulate the authors on this work. It is an interesting effort to integrate diverse theories to explain a complex social phenomenon. Empirical research contributes to the development of the field of research.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this encouraging and generous feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of our effort to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives to address a complex social phenomenon. Your positive assessment affirms the relevance of our conceptual approach and the contribution of the empirical findings to advancing scholarly understanding in this field. Your comments motivate us to refine the manuscript even further, and we are grateful for the thoughtful insights provided throughout your review.

Comment 2: Title. It is adequate. It clearly indicates the content of the article. I have no comments.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging that the title is appropriate and clearly reflects the content of the manuscript. We appreciate your positive assessment and are pleased that no revisions are required for this section.

Comment 3: Abstract. It includes all the required components of an abstract: 1) it presents the problem and formulates the research objectives; 2) it describes the methodology; 3) it summarizes the main results; and 4) it reflects on the contribution of the work. Additionally, it reports on the theories on which the research is based. I have no comments.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the abstract. We appreciate your acknowledgment that the abstract fully meets all required components—problem formulation, methodological description, key findings, theoretical grounding, and contribution. We are pleased that no revisions are needed for this section.

Comment 4: Keywords. The selected words correspond to the content of the document and facilitate searching for the article in databases. The authors are advised not to include acronyms among the keywords.

Response 4: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the keywords by removing all acronyms and replacing them with their full descriptive forms to ensure clarity and improve database searchability. All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate checking by the reviewers.

Comment 5: Introduction. The background of the topic and the rationale for its importance are well developed in the introduction. It clearly explains the theoretical and practical gap that the research, the results of which are included in the document, seeks to address. In particular, the authors highlight the contributions or novelties of the work. This section also provides brief information on the theories underlying the research. The research questions are clearly stated. Despite all these positive elements, it should be noted that the introduction lacks a concise description of the methodology used. The authors are encouraged to include a brief descriptive paragraph on the methodology.

Response 5: Thank you very much for this constructive observation. We fully agree that a concise methodological description enhances the structure and clarity of the introduction. In response, we have now added a bridging methodological paragraph at the end of the introduction, summarizing the research design, data collection techniques, number and types of informants, and analytical approach used in this study. This addition strengthens the logical flow from the identified research gaps and theoretical framework to the empirical strategy adopted. All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate checking by the reviewers.

Comment 6: Theoretical Framework. The description of the theories underlying this research (subsection 2.1) is well done. The analysis through which the authors integrate these theories is also well done. It is a solid analysis, well supported by the literature on these topics. The literature referenced in the document is adequate and up-to-date. It is noted that the source of either of the two figures (1 and 2) included in this subsection is not indicated. The authors should indicate the source of these two figures. In section 2.2, the authors provide an interesting and well-founded analysis of five models of financial literacy, which they consider insufficient because they ignore social and gender dimensions. In section 2.3, the authors present the conceptual framework they consider most appropriate for studying the topic of this paper ("conceptual framework of gender-sensitive financial literacy within the context of digital marketing adoption"). In this subsection, I have the following observations:

• The authors do not describe how this conceptual framework integrates the four theories.
• The diagram representing the conceptual framework is also not clearly described.
• The figure number should be 3.

Response 6: 

Thank you very much for these constructive comments. We fully agree that clarifying the theoretical integration and providing a clearer narrative description of the conceptual diagram would strengthen Section 2.3. In response, we have made several substantial improvements:

1. Explicit Explanation of Theory Integration:
   We added a new paragraph that clearly explains how KBV, Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory, TRA, and TAM are integrated within the conceptual model, with each theory assigned a distinct functional role in the capability-development process. This paragraph makes the theoretical synthesis explicit and sequential.
   This addition has been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

2. Narrative Description of the Conceptual Diagram:
   To improve clarity, we added a detailed paragraph immediately following Figure 3 that narratively explains the diagram’s structure. This includes descriptions of the cognitive foundation (financial knowledge), the behavioral mechanisms (digital trust and behavioral intention), the contextual moderators (social constraints), and the resulting outcomes (digital entrepreneurship practices, sustainable business performance, and community empowerment).
   This paragraph has also been highlighted in yellow.

3. Correction of Figure Number:
   The conceptual framework diagram has been renumbered as Figure 3, and all in-text references have been updated accordingly.
   This correction is marked in yellow.

4. Figure Source Statements:
   Source information has been added to Figures 1 and 2 to clearly indicate whether they are author-developed or adapted from prior literature.
   These updates are highlighted in yellow as well.

We believe these revisions greatly enhance the clarity, rigor, and transparency of the conceptual framework section. We thank the reviewer for pointing out these important improvements.

Comment 7: Materials and Methods. The authors clearly describe the stages they chose to follow in their research. They provide a good rationale for the sample they chose to work with. This sample seems adequate for the research objectives. In section 3.3 (focus of study), they correctly describe what they seek to discover through the study of this sample and the thematic areas addressed in the research. The authors then correctly describe the process of analyzing the collected data. This section is preceded by the title 3.3. Focus of Study. This title was already included above. This part is unclear and should be corrected. This section lacks a description of the qualitative techniques used in the research: interviews with women (45), stakeholder interviews (30), focus groups, and visual materials. The authors should provide basic information about these techniques. For example, in the case of the focus groups: who participated (women, stakeholders?), number of participants, participant profiles, some element of the guidelines used by the coordinator, etc.

Response 7: Thank you very much for these constructive comments on the Materials and Methods section. We carefully revised this part of the manuscript to address all concerns raised. First, we corrected the structural issue regarding the duplicated heading “3.3 Focus of Study” by renaming the second occurrence to “3.4 Data Analysis Procedures,” ensuring clarity and consistency. This revision has been highlighted in yellow in the updated manuscript. Second, in response to the reviewer’s request for a more detailed explanation of the qualitative techniques used, we have substantially expanded Section 3.2 Informants, Data Collection, and Ethical Approval. We added several paragraphs that now provide a comprehensive description of all data collection methods. Specifically, we clarified the procedures for the in-depth interviews with 45 women entrepreneurs, explaining the semi-structured interview format, duration (45–90 minutes), interview settings, and the five thematic domains included in the interview guide. We also elaborated on the 30 stakeholder interviews, specifying the categories of stakeholders involved—government agencies, microfinance institutions, digital service providers, SME mentors, and consumer groups—and their role in providing institutional and ecosystem-level perspectives that strengthened methodological triangulation. Furthermore, we added a full description of the four Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), detailing the number of participants (6–8 per session), grouping strategy (two FGDs with women entrepreneurs segmented by business maturity and two involving mixed stakeholder groups), duration (60–90 minutes), and the key themes explored during the sessions (shared constraints, digital trust formation, financial decision-making, and gendered expectations). Finally, we explained the role of visual materials (photographs, screenshots, transaction logs, and digital storefronts) as contextual artifacts that complemented narrative data and enhanced multimodal triangulation. All additions and corrections have been highlighted in yellow to facilitate reviewer verification. These revisions significantly strengthen the methodological rigor and transparency of the study, fully addressing the reviewer’s concerns.

Comment 8: Results. The analysis of the data is well organized, aimed at answering the research questions. The analysis converges toward an interpretation of the results in light of the conceptual framework proposed by the authors (section 4.5). All of this is well done. However, there is a problem in this section. Here, the information obtained from the interviews with the women and the interviews with the staff members is analyzed, but the information obtained through the focus groups is not clearly presented. Consequently, there is no integrated analysis of the information collected through the different qualitative techniques used. This should be corrected.

Response 8: Thank you very much for this insightful comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the overall organization and clarity of our analysis. In response to the reviewer’s concern regarding the limited visibility of data derived from the focus group discussions (FGDs), we have made substantial revisions to ensure a fully integrated multi-method analysis throughout the Results section. Specifically, we incorporated FGD insights within each relevant subsection (Sections 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 4.3.4), allowing the perspectives of women entrepreneurs and stakeholders to be triangulated with the collective reflections emerging from the FGDs. These additions clarify how group-based interpretations, shared learning processes, and collective decision-making reinforce and contextualize individual interview findings. By embedding FGD-derived insights directly within thematic analyses—rather than treating the FGD as a separate dataset—we now present a more coherent and integrated interpretation of the phenomenon studied. All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the updated manuscript. We believe these enhancements substantially strengthen the methodological rigor and interpretive depth of the Results section, fully addressing the reviewer’s concerns.

Comment 9: Discussion. The discussion of the results was already presented in the previous section. Only subsection 5.1 corresponds to a section titled Discussion. The content of the rest of this section (theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and future lines of research) corresponds to a conclusions section. It should be noted that the content of these subsections (theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, and future lines of research) is well-crafted. Their content allows for a visualization of the contribution of this work. It is suggested that the content of the discussion and conclusions sections be integrated, avoiding possible redundancies.

Response 9: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback regarding the structure of the Discussion and Conclusion sections. In response to your valuable suggestion, we have substantially revised this part of the manuscript to ensure a more coherent and integrated presentation of our interpretive insights and concluding implications. Following your recommendation, the previous standalone Section 6 (Conclusions) has now been fully merged into Section 5 (Discussion and Conclusion). The revised structure consists of: (5.1) Integrated Discussion of Findings, (5.2) Theoretical Contributions, (5.3) Practical Contributions, and (5.4) Limitations and Future Research. This reorganization eliminates the prior structural separation, prevents potential redundancies, and enhances the conceptual continuity of the manuscript. Additionally, we have added a synthesizing concluding paragraph at the end of Section 5 to unify the study’s principal insights, theoretical positioning, and implications for future research. This final paragraph has been carefully crafted to provide a cohesive closure without repeating earlier content. All revisions in this section have been clearly marked with yellow highlighting to facilitate your review. We greatly appreciate your insightful guidance, which has significantly strengthened the clarity and scholarly rigor of this section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic at the intersection of gender, financial literacy and digital entrepreneurship in emerging economies. It attempts an ambitious theoretical integration. However, its overall contribution is significantly weakened by substantial conceptual, methodological and analytical shortcomings.

The five major issues identified that collectively undermine the manuscript’s rigor and coherence.

I hereby present them

1. The manuscript simultaneously integrates frameworks such as TRA, TAM, KBV, RBV and Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory, asserting full theoretical cohesion. However, no empirical justification is provided for selecting the combination of the specific frameworks and theories. The conceptual overlaps are not disentangled. For example, TRA and TAM already share constructs related to intention, while KBV and RBV overlap in positioning knowledge as a strategic resource. This creates construct redundancy and reduces theoretical clarity. High-impact literature stresses the importance of parsimony when integrating behavioral and strategic theories. The manuscript instead moves toward theoretical overload, weakening explanatory precision.
2. The study claims to reach theoretical saturation with 75 participants, including 45 entrepreneurs and 30 stakeholders, but provides no evidence of how saturation was achieved or assessed. The sample is large for phenomenological inquiry, where depth is prioritized instead of sample size. Moreover, the sample includes heterogeneous stakeholders (government, banks, trainers), yet the manuscript treats them as a unified category, weakening internal validity. Literature emphasizes explicit demonstration of saturation through coding logs, iteration counts or stabilization metrics, none of which are presented.
3. The paper introduces the Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model as if it were a major new contribution, but the model is not clearly supported by the interview data. Several parts of the model—such as the “recursive learning loop”—seem to come from theory rather than from what participants actually said. In addition, the model is presented as if it applies broadly and can predict outcomes, even though the study uses a phenomenological approach, which focuses on interpreting experiences rather than creating generalizable models. This disconnect between method and claims reduces the study’s overall validity.
4. The study’s main argument (that financial literacy influences women’s digital marketing adoption) is already well-known and widely supported in existing research on SMEs in developing countries. The findings reported here (such as saving habits, trust in digital tools and careful borrowing) are common patterns documented in many previous studies. Because the research depends mainly on self-reported behaviors, without checking financial records, digital analytics or actual behavioral data, the paper cannot convincingly support its claims about “data-driven decisions” or “strategic digital capability.”
5. The manuscript frequently claims that financial literacy is “gendered” and shaped by context, but it never clearly explains what this means in practice. It does not define how gendered financial literacy differs from regular financial literacy, nor does it provide specific dimensions or indicators that would show what makes financial literacy “gender-sensitive.” Instead, it often mixes up gendered challenges (such as family duties or cultural expectations) with actual financial skills or competencies. Because these ideas are not clearly defined or measured, the conceptual framework and the G-FLCM model lack clarity, making it difficult for readers to assess, reproduce or apply the study’s contribution.

 

Finally, one minor issue. If the figures are not your own work, you have to mention the source. If they are your own work, then mention it somehow.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript addresses an important topic at the intersection of gender, financial literacy, and digital entrepreneurship in emerging economies. It attempts an ambitious theoretical integration. However, its overall contribution is significantly weakened by substantial conceptual, methodological, and analytical shortcomings.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comprehensive and insightful evaluation. We appreciate the recognition of the manuscript’s relevance and its attempt to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives. At the same time, we fully acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns regarding conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and analytical grounding. In response, we have conducted extensive revisions across the theoretical framework, methodology, and analysis sections to strengthen the manuscript’s coherence and rigor. Specifically, we have (i) clarified the functions and complementarities of the integrated theories while reducing conceptual redundancy; (ii) provided detailed justification of the sampling strategy and explicit evidence of how thematic saturation was achieved; (iii) refined the analytical narrative to ensure that all components of the proposed model are directly grounded in participants’ accounts; and (iv) moderated claims to align more closely with the interpretive nature of qualitative inquiry. These revisions substantially enhance the manuscript’s theoretical precision, methodological credibility, and analytical contribution. All changes have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate review.

Comments 2: Furthermore, to ensure conceptual parsimony, it is important to clarify that the paired theories in this framework serve complementary—not redundant—roles. TRA and TAM are aligned but not interchangeable: TRA explains intention formation through attitudes and subjective norms, whereas TAM extends this logic by specifying the technological determinants of behavioral intention, namely perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and digital trust. Their combination allows the model to distinguish between general intention formation (TRA) and technology-specific adoption mechanisms (TAM). Similarly, although KBV and RBV both address strategic resources, they operate at different analytical levels. RBV emphasizes the possession of valuable, rare, and inimitable resources, while KBV focuses on the processes through which knowledge is created, transferred, and transformed into capability. Integrating these perspectives enables the model to conceptualize financial literacy not merely as a static resource but as an evolving knowledge-based capability shaped through learning and experience.

Response 2: 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important and constructive observation. In response, we have substantially strengthened the theoretical justification and clarified the functional differentiation among the integrated frameworks to ensure parsimony, conceptual clarity, and theoretical coherence.

First, we revised Section 2.3 (Conceptual Framework) by explicitly articulating the distinct analytical role of each theoretical pillar within a structured, multi-layered architecture. A newly added explanatory paragraph now clarifies that the model operates across three complementary levels:
(1) Behavioral mechanisms, informed by TRA and TAM, which explain intention formation and technology-specific determinants such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and digital trust;
(2) Capability formation, shaped by KBV and RBV, which conceptualize financial literacy as a strategic intangible resource and explain how knowledge is accumulated, transformed, and mobilized into entrepreneurial capability; and
(3) Contextual shaping, guided by Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory, which explains how gender norms, socio-cultural expectations, and structural constraints condition the acquisition, interpretation, and enactment of financial and digital capabilities.

Second, to address the reviewer’s concern regarding potential conceptual redundancy, we added a dedicated paragraph clarifying that the selected theories are complementary rather than overlapping. Specifically, while TRA and TAM share an interest in behavioral intention, TRA offers the general psychological foundation, whereas TAM extends this by specifying technology-related determinants of adoption. Similarly, although KBV and RBV both address strategic resources, RBV emphasizes resource possession, whereas KBV focuses on the processes of knowledge creation, transfer, and transformation into capability. This refinement ensures theoretical precision and avoids construct duplication.

These revisions collectively strengthen the conceptual coherence of the manuscript and directly address the reviewer’s concern regarding theoretical overload. All additions and modifications in this section have been highlighted in yellow to facilitate the reviewer’s examination.

We sincerely appreciate this valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the theoretical rigor and clarity of the manuscript.

Comments 3: The study claims to reach theoretical saturation with 75 participants, including 45 entrepreneurs and 30 stakeholders, but provides no evidence of how saturation was achieved or assessed. The sample is large for phenomenological inquiry, where depth is prioritized instead of sample size. Moreover, the sample includes heterogeneous stakeholders (government, banks, trainers), yet the manuscript treats them as a unified category, weakening internal validity. Literature emphasizes explicit demonstration of saturation through coding logs, iteration counts or stabilization metrics, none of which are presented.

Response 3:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this rigorous and constructive critique regarding theoretical saturation, sample size, and the treatment of heterogeneous stakeholders. This feedback has greatly strengthened the methodological transparency and analytic rigor of our manuscript. In response, we have implemented several substantial revisions, all of which have been highlighted in yellow within the Methods section to facilitate your review.

1. Clarifying methodological orientation and sample justification
We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern that the sample size appeared large for phenomenological inquiry. To address this, we added a clarifying paragraph in Section 3.1 Research Approach and Stages, explaining that although the study draws on phenomenological sensitivity, it does not employ a strict phenomenological methodology. Instead, the study adopts a multi-informant qualitative thematic analysis design with phenomenological sensitivity, which allows for broader sample diversity while maintaining the depth required for experiential inquiry. This clarification aligns the methodological approach with established practices in entrepreneurship and development research.

2. Providing explicit evidence of theoretical saturation
To address the request for evidence of saturation, we substantially expanded Section 3.2 Informants, Data Collection, and Ethical Approval. The revised manuscript now includes a detailed description of our saturation procedures, including:

• A structured three-cycle coding process (open → axial → selective coding)

• Use of a saturation grid to track code recurrence and theme stabilization

• Cross-informant comparison across entrepreneur and stakeholder datasets

• Documentation that no new conceptual insights emerged during the final interviews (five entrepreneur interviews and two stakeholder interviews)

This addition provides explicit, process-based evidence of how saturation was evaluated and reached, in line with qualitative rigor guidelines (Guest et al., 2020).

3. Treating stakeholder groups separately rather than as a unified category
We recognize the reviewer’s concern regarding heterogeneity among stakeholder groups. In response, we added a new paragraph in Section 3.2, clarifying that stakeholder data were not analyzed as a single homogeneous unit. Instead:

• Each stakeholder type (government officials, microfinance/banking representatives, platform partners, SME mentors, and community trainers) was
  coded separately,

• Their narratives were used primarily for methodological and contextual triangulation,

• They served to validate and enrich themes emerging from women entrepreneurs rather than functioning as the main analytic category.

This refinement significantly strengthens internal validity and demonstrates that heterogeneity among stakeholders was analytically respected rather than collapsed.

In sum, the revised manuscript now presents a transparent, rigorous, and systematically documented saturation process, clarifies the methodological approach to justify sample size, and explicitly disaggregates the role of heterogeneous stakeholders. These enhancements directly address the reviewer’s concerns and materially improve the credibility and methodological robustness of the study.

All revisions have been clearly marked in yellow in the revised manuscript.

We are grateful for this valuable feedback, which has meaningfully strengthened our methodological section.

Comments 4: The paper introduces the Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model as if it were a major new contribution, but the model is not clearly supported by the interview data. Several parts of the model—such as the “recursive learning loop”—seem to come from theory rather than from what participants actually said. In addition, the model is presented as if it applies broadly and can predict outcomes, even though the study uses a phenomenological approach, which focuses on interpreting experiences rather than creating generalizable models. This disconnect between method and claims reduces the study’s overall validity.

Response 4:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this critical point regarding the empirical grounding and methodological positioning of the Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM). This feedback has been extremely valuable in strengthening the alignment between our qualitative approach and the conceptual model presented in the manuscript.

First, in response to the concern that elements of the model—such as the recursive learning loop—appeared to originate from theory rather than participants’ narratives, we have substantially revised the analysis to clarify the empirical roots of each model component. Section 4.4 (Synthesis and Model Development) has been expanded to provide explicit empirical justification for financial cognition, digital trust, behavioral intention, social constraints, and iterative learning. For each component, we now explicitly trace how first-order codes, axial themes, and participant quotations informed the emergent structure of the G-FLCM. These additions, highlighted in yellow, demonstrate that the model was inductively derived from participants’ lived experiences rather than imposed deductively from existing theory.

Second, as part of strengthening methodological coherence, we have elaborated the generative coding pathway that produced the model. Section 3.4 (Data Analysis Procedures) now includes a detailed explanation of the Gioia-inspired generative qualitative modelling approach (first-order expressions → second-order themes → aggregate dimensions). This addition clarifies how the conceptual elements of the G-FLCM were systematically grounded in the data, further ensuring transparency and interpretive rigor. This paragraph is also highlighted in yellow for visibility.

Third, in response to the reviewer’s concern that the model might be interpreted as predictive or generalizable—potentially conflicting with the phenomenological orientation—we have added an explicit clarification in Section 4.5, emphasizing that the G-FLCM is intended as an interpretive, explanatory framework rather than a predictive or universally generalizable model. The revised text makes clear that the model synthesizes recurring experiential patterns within this specific context and aims to illuminate how women interpret and negotiate financial–digital capability development. This clarification has been added as a new paragraph and highlighted in yellow.

Collectively, these revisions:

1. strengthen the empirical grounding of the model,

2. ensure full alignment between methodological approach and conceptual claims, and

3. address the reviewer’s concerns regarding the interpretive rather than predictive nature of the contribution.

We are grateful for this insightful feedback, which has significantly improved the theoretical validity and methodological transparency of the manuscript.

Comments 5: The study’s main argument (that financial literacy influences women’s digital marketing adoption) is already well-known and widely supported in existing research on SMEs in developing countries. The findings reported here (such as saving habits, trust in digital tools and careful borrowing) are common patterns documented in many previous studies. Because the research depends mainly on self-reported behaviors, without checking financial records, digital analytics or actual behavioral data, the paper cannot convincingly support its claims about “data-driven decisions” or “strategic digital capability.”

Response 5: 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. We fully acknowledge the importance of avoiding overstated claims, especially when the empirical evidence is derived from self-reported behaviors. In response, several substantial revisions have been made across the Results, Discussion, and Limitations sections, all highlighted in yellow within the revised manuscript.

1. Refinement of Terminology to Avoid Overclaiming (Results Section, highlighted in yellow)

We have carefully adjusted the wording in Section 4.4.2 to avoid implying advanced or formalized analytical capability. Phrases such as “data-driven decisions”, “strategic capability”, or “digital analytics proficiency” have been replaced with more empirically accurate expressions, including:

• “emerging analytical orientations”

• “perceived data-based adjustments”

• “basic analytic practices” grounded in simple indicators such as likes, chats, or sales fluctuations

• “learning-by-doing processes” rather than formal analytic routines

These revisions directly address the reviewer’s concern by ensuring that the descriptions align with what participants actually reported.

2. Addition of Supporting Participant Quotations (Results Section, highlighted in yellow)

To strengthen empirical grounding, we added illustrative quotes (e.g., W18, W33) demonstrating that participants engage in simple, intuitive adjustments rather than formal analytics. These quotations help clarify that the study does not claim sophisticated data use, but rather early-stage capability development consistent with experiential learning.

3. Explicit Acknowledgment of Methodological Limitations (Section 5.4, highlighted in yellow)

We have added a new paragraph in the Limitations section acknowledging that:

• the study relies primarily on subjective accounts of behavior,

• financial logs, digital analytics, or behavioral tracking were not accessible, and

• this limits the ability to claim definitive “data-driven” or “strategic” practices.

At the same time, we explain that triangulation with stakeholder interviews and visual artifacts (screenshots of digital ads, transaction records, marketing layouts) enhances credibility, even if it does not replace objective behavioral data.

4. Alignment Between Claims, Methodology, and Empirical Scope

We have revised several sentences in the Discussion to ensure that claims regarding capability formation are appropriately bounded. Rather than suggesting that women entrepreneurs currently possess fully formed strategic capabilities, we now emphasize that:

• these are emerging,

• built incrementally through experience, and

• shaped by contextual constraints.

This revision ensures stronger methodological consistency and addresses the reviewer’s concern about overstating the study’s theoretical claims.

Comments 6: The manuscript frequently claims that financial literacy is “gendered” and shaped by context, but it never clearly explains what this means in practice. It does not define how gendered financial literacy differs from regular financial literacy, nor does it provide specific dimensions or indicators that would show what makes financial literacy “gender-sensitive.” Instead, it often mixes up gendered challenges (such as family duties or cultural expectations) with actual financial skills or competencies. Because these ideas are not clearly defined or measured, the conceptual framework and the G-FLCM model lack clarity, making it difficult for readers to assess, reproduce or apply the study’s contribution.

Response 6:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree that the earlier version of the manuscript did not sufficiently articulate what distinguishes gendered financial literacy from general financial literacy, nor did it provide explicit dimensions and indicators that allow the concept to be assessed, reproduced, or applied. In response, we have undertaken substantial conceptual refinement and extensive revisions across Section 2.3. Conceptual Framework and the later synthesis sections. All modifications have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for ease of review.

First, we added a clear operational definition of gendered financial literacy immediately after the paragraph introducing the theoretical foundations in Section 2.3. The revised manuscript now defines gendered financial literacy as: “a capability shaped, constrained, and negotiated through gendered norms, social expectations, and power relations—integrating financial cognition, digital trust formation, constrained agency, and reflective adaptive learning.”

This definition specifies what distinguishes gendered financial literacy from regular financial literacy and anchors the framework in a capability-oriented and socially embedded perspective.

Second, we introduced a set of explicit dimensions and indicators for gendered financial literacy, also in Section 2.3. These include:

1. Financial Cognition – budgeting, saving discipline, loan awareness, investment reasoning;

2. Digital Trust Formation – safety perceptions, platform reliability, perceived fairness of digital systems;

3. Constrained Agency – mobility restrictions, role expectations, household responsibilities, gender norms;

4. Reflective Capability / Adaptive Learning – learning-by-doing, trial-and-error cycles, feedback-based adjustments.

These dimensions clarify the internal structure of the construct and provide a transparent basis for evaluating empirical grounding.

Third, to address the reviewer’s concern regarding conceptual conflation, we added a dedicated clarification paragraph emphasizing that gendered constraints are not treated as financial skills. Instead, they operate as contextual conditioning mechanisms that shape whether and how financial skills can be accessed, enacted, and transformed. This analytical separation significantly strengthens the conceptual precision of the G-FLCM model. This paragraph has been added in Section 2.3 and marked in yellow.

Fourth, we revised Section 4.4 (Synthesis and Model Development) to explicitly link each component of the G-FLCM to first-order codes, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions derived from the empirical data. This includes examples showing how participants described trust formation, constrained agency, and reflective learning processes. This addition demonstrates clearly that the model is grounded in observed patterns rather than imposed theoretically.

Collectively, these revisions enhance the definitional clarity, analytic transparency, and methodological replicability of the G-FLCM. We are grateful for the reviewer’s feedback, which has significantly improved the rigor and communicative clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Gendered Financial Literacy and Digital Marketing Adoption: Insights from Female Entrepreneurs in an Emerging Economy

-----------------

1. Clarity and Validity of the Research Problem, Objectives, and Conceptual Framework

•  Strengths:
• The research addresses a highly relevant issue: gendered barriers to financial literacy and digital adoption.
• Grounding in TRA, TAM, KBV, and Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory is ambitious and potentially impactful.
• Concerns:
• The problem statement lacks focus and coherence—too many frameworks are introduced without clear operationalization.
• The articulation of research objectives is vague. There’s no sharp delineation of research questions or propositions.
• Conceptual saturation is unclear—readers are not guided as to how each theory is integrated into the analytical framework.

Suggestion: A tighter theoretical framing—perhaps using only 2 core theories—would allow for more analytical depth.

 

2. Appropriateness of the Research Methodology

• Concerns:
• While 75 participants appear substantial, the sampling logic is unclear: how were participants selected? Snowball? Purposeful?
• The paper lacks sufficient information about data saturation, ethics approval, and trustworthiness criteria (e.g., member checks, triangulation).
• No examples of actual interview questions or themes are provided in the appendix, which weakens transparency.

Suggestion: Add methodological rigor—clarify selection strategy, include a coding schema, and show how analytical trustworthiness was ensured.

 

 

 

 

3. Data Analysis, Results, and Interpretation

• Strengths:
• The use of Creswell’s Spiral Model is mentioned, indicating iterative coding and thematic synthesis.
• Concerns:
• Themes are surface-level; interpretation is largely descriptive and not sufficiently anchored to the theories mentioned.
• No illustrative quotes from participants are included to substantiate themes—this weakens qualitative credibility.
• The claimed development of the Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM) lacks process explanation and graphical representation (the model figure is vague and poorly integrated).

 

4. Novelty and Contribution

• Concerns:
• While the title and abstract promise a novel integrative model (G-FLCM), the actual contribution is not sufficiently developed or grounded in empirical depth.
• Existing studies on gendered financial literacy and digital marketing adoption have explored similar terrain, and this manuscript does not clearly establish its unique contribution to theory or practice.

Suggestion: Articulate what differentiates G-FLCM from existing models (e.g., financial capability frameworks, feminist digital entrepreneurship models).

Author Response

Comments 1: 

• The problem statement lacks focus and coherence—too many frameworks are introduced without clear operationalization.
• The articulation of research objectives is vague. There’s no sharp delineation of research questions or propositions.
• Conceptual saturation is unclear—readers are not guided as to how each theory is integrated into the analytical framework.

Suggestion: A tighter theoretical framing—perhaps using only 2 core theories—would allow for more analytical depth.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback regarding the clarity of the research problem, the coherence of the conceptual framework, and the articulation of the study’s theoretical foundations. We fully agree that these elements are critical for ensuring the analytical rigor and interpretive depth of a qualitative conceptual study.

In response, substantial revisions have been made across the Introduction and Section 2.3 (Conceptual Framework) to sharpen the research focus, clarify the integration of the theoretical pillars, and strengthen the internal coherence of the conceptual architecture. All revisions have been marked in yellow highlights within the manuscript.

1. Strengthening the focus of the research problem
We have revised the Introduction to present a more coherent and sharply defined problem statement. Specifically, we clarified that the central gap lies not merely in the lack of studies on financial literacy among women, but in the absence of an integrated understanding of how financial cognition, digital trust, behavioral intention, and gendered constraints interact to shape digital adoption. This repositioning provides a more focused pathway for the study’s theoretical and empirical contributions.

2. Clear functional differentiation of the theories
To address concerns regarding the number of frameworks, we have added a new paragraph in Section 2.3 explaining the distinct analytical role of each theory:
– TRA explains intention formation;
– TAM clarifies the technological determinants of intention;
– KBV conceptualizes financial knowledge as an intangible capability;
– Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory contextualizes how gendered norms condition capability enactment.

We further emphasize that these frameworks operate at different analytical levels, thereby ensuring that they are complementary rather than redundant. This addition clarifies theoretical integration and justifies the multi-framework approach.

3. Adding a level-based integration strategy
Following the reviewer’s suggestion for greater conceptual precision, we incorporated an explicit explanation of the three-level theoretical stratification:
– Level 1: Behavioral mechanisms (TRA & TAM)
– Level 2: Capability formation (KBV & RBV)
– Level 3: Contextual shaping (Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory)

This structural mapping strengthens conceptual saturation and guides the reader in understanding how each theoretical pillar contributes to the Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM).

4. Refining research questions for sharper delineation
We revised the transition and explanation preceding the research questions to demonstrate a clear analytical progression from:
(1) financial literacy levels →
(2) capability enactment →
(3) integrative model explanation.
This adjustment improves coherence between the objectives, questions, and theoretical framing.

5. Addressing the suggestion for a tighter framing
Instead of reducing the number of theories, we addressed the reviewer’s concern by introducing the above stratified integration logic and clarifying the non-overlapping analytical function of each framework. This allows the study to retain theoretical depth while demonstrating parsimony and coherence.

Once again, we thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for a clearer and more focused conceptual structure. We believe the revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript’s theoretical clarity, methodological alignment, and overall scholarly contribution.

Comments 2: 

• While 75 participants appear substantial, the sampling logic is unclear: how were participants selected? Snowball? Purposeful?
• The paper lacks sufficient information about data saturation, ethics approval, and trustworthiness criteria (e.g., member checks, triangulation).
• No examples of actual interview questions or themes are provided in the appendix, which weakens transparency.

Suggestion: Add methodological rigor—clarify selection strategy, include a coding schema, and show how analytical trustworthiness was ensured.

Response 2:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency. In response, we have substantially strengthened the methodological section and added two detailed appendices to address this concern.

First, we have clarified the sampling logic in Section 3.2, explicitly stating that the study employed theoretical and purposive sampling, with informants selected based on their ability to provide rich and theoretically meaningful insights. Additional explanation is provided regarding the heterogeneity of women entrepreneurs and stakeholder groups, along with justification for their inclusion.

Second, we have enhanced transparency by adding a comprehensive Appendix A – Full Interview Guide, which presents the complete set of interview domains, questions, probes, and reflective prompts used during the in-depth interviews and FGDs. This appendix ensures full visibility into the structure and operationalization of the data-collection process.

Third, we have added Appendix B – Coding Schema (Gioia Framework), which reports the full progression of the analytical process, including first-order concepts, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions. This coding schema demonstrates how empirical narratives were systematically translated into conceptual categories and ultimately informed the development of the G-FLCM.

Fourth, trustworthiness procedures have been elaborated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, detailing methodological triangulation, source triangulation, peer debriefing, reflexive memoing, and the structured three-cycle coding process used to assess theoretical saturation. These additions reinforce the credibility, dependability, and confirmability of the findings.

All newly added materials are clearly marked in the revised manuscript (highlighted in yellow).

Comments 3: 

• Themes are surface-level; interpretation is largely descriptive and not sufficiently anchored to the theories mentioned.
• No illustrative quotes from participants are included to substantiate themes—this weakens qualitative credibility.
• The claimed development of the Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM) lacks process explanation and graphical representation (the model figure is vague and poorly integrated).

Response 3: 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful and constructive feedback provided. The comments have greatly strengthened the conceptual clarity, theoretical integration, and qualitative rigor of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper in line with all suggestions, and every revision has been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for ease of reference.

In response to the concern that the themes were previously surface-level and not sufficiently anchored to the theoretical frameworks, we have substantially deepened the analytical interpretation across all sections of the Results. Each thematic subsection (Sections 4.1–4.3) now includes explicit theoretical articulation connecting empirical patterns to TRA, TAM, the Knowledge-Based View, and Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory. These additions transform the themes from descriptive accounts into theoretically grounded interpretations. We clarified how financial cognition relates to intention formation (TRA), how emerging digital practices reflect perceived usefulness and ease of use (TAM), how learning processes constitute knowledge-based capability development (KBV), and how women’s adaptive behaviors reflect gendered negotiation and agency (Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory). These theoretical linkages have been added immediately after the presentation of each empirical theme and are marked in yellow in the revised document.

We also addressed the comment regarding the absence of participant quotations, which previously weakened qualitative credibility. The revised manuscript now includes extensive illustrative quotations from women entrepreneurs (W01–W45) and stakeholder informants (S01–S30) to substantiate all major findings. Additionally, we incorporated insights from FGD sessions to demonstrate collective sense-making, triangulation, and contextual validation. These enhancements provide greater authenticity, transparency, and depth to the phenomenological narratives, thereby strengthening the credibility and confirmability of the qualitative analysis. All newly added quotations and FGD-based insights are highlighted in yellow.

Regarding the reviewer’s concern that the development of the Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM) lacked process explanation and that the figure appeared vague and poorly integrated, we have implemented extensive improvements. Section 4.5 now includes a clear and detailed explanation of the sequential mechanism of the model—showing how financial cognition forms the input layer, how digital trust and perceived usefulness shape the process layer, how behavioral intention leads to digital adoption, and how reflective learning generates a recursive empowerment loop. We also clarified how the four theoretical lenses (TRA, TAM, KBV, and Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory) align with specific components of the model, and why some operate implicitly rather than as standalone layers in the diagram. To improve graphical coherence, we refined the description of how the figure should be read, including the meaning of horizontal capability bands, vertical mediating alignments, and the circular literacy wheel. These revisions directly address the reviewer’s concern by making the model’s logic transparent, theoretically coherent, and empirically grounded, and all additions are highlighted in yellow.

In sum, the revised manuscript now offers deeper theoretical anchoring, richer empirical substantiation, and a clearer conceptual model. We believe that these comprehensive revisions have significantly strengthened the originality, rigor, and contribution of the study. All changes made to address the reviewer’s comments have been highlighted in yellow throughout the revised manuscript. We thank the reviewer once again for the valuable guidance that has greatly enhanced the quality of this work.

Comments 4: 

• While the title and abstract promise a novel integrative model (G-FLCM), the actual contribution is not sufficiently developed or grounded in empirical depth.
• Existing studies on gendered financial literacy and digital marketing adoption have explored similar terrain, and this manuscript does not clearly establish its unique contribution to theory or practice.

Suggestion: Articulate what differentiates G-FLCM from existing models (e.g., financial capability frameworks, feminist digital entrepreneurship models).

Response 4:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to further clarify the novelty, empirical grounding, and theoretical distinctiveness of the proposed Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM). In response, we have undertaken substantial and targeted revisions across the manuscript. All revisions have been highlighted in yellow to ensure clear traceability for the reviewer.

1. Strengthening the empirical grounding of the model

To address the reviewer’s concern that the contribution was not sufficiently grounded in empirical depth, we implemented multiple enhancements in the Findings (Sections 4.1–4.3):

• Added illustrative quotes that directly demonstrate the mechanisms leading to the G-FLCM, especially the transformation of financial cognition into digital trust and digital action.

• Inserted explicit transition statements at the end of each RQ subsection (e.g., “These themes constitute the input layer of the G-FLCM”), providing a clear evidence-to-model alignment.

• Expanded FGD-based insights showing peer-driven and socially negotiated learning processes that shape capability development.

These additions offer a transparent inductive pathway showing how RQ1 → RQ2 → RQ3 sequentially construct the model.
All new empirical grounding is highlighted in yellow.

2. Clarifying what differentiates the G-FLCM from existing models

We fully agree with the reviewer that the manuscript must clearly articulate how the G-FLCM differs from existing frameworks. To address this, we added two major components:

a. A new subsection in the Discussion (Section 5.2: Theoretical Contributions)

This subsection explains in detail how the G-FLCM:

• reconceptualizes financial literacy as a gendered capability,

• integrates TRA, TAM, KBV, and feminist entrepreneurship theory into a single, sequential capability mechanism,

• identifies a pathway absent in previous models:
  financial literacy → digital trust → technology adoption → entrepreneurial sustainability.

b. A new comparative table (Table 4)

Table 4 contrasts the G-FLCM with:

• traditional financial capability frameworks,

• feminist digital entrepreneurship models,

• TRA/TAM technology adoption models.

This table makes the contribution explicit: none of the existing models explain the transformation of financial cognition into digital capability within gendered sociocultural contexts.

Both additions are highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript.

3. Refining Figure 4 to improve integration and clarity

Responding to the earlier reviewer’s comment that the model figure was “vague and poorly integrated,” we have substantially improved Figure 4 by:

• adding dashed arrows that visualize peer learning, social negotiation, and reflective capability,

• including side annotations to show contextual mechanisms,

• aligning visual layers directly with RQ1–RQ3 to show how empirical themes build each layer of the model.

This updated diagram now clearly reflects the interpretive mechanisms of the G-FLCM.
The revised figure is included in the manuscript and marked accordingly.

4. Enhancing the Practical Contributions section

We expanded Section 5.3 to clarify the practical distinctiveness of the G-FLCM. Unlike conventional literacy programs that rely on information dissemination, the G-FLCM:

• identifies a sequenced intervention pathway,

• incorporates trust-building and reflective behavioral intention,

• foregrounds emotional security, perceived risk, and peer support—elements overlooked in traditional empowerment models.

This ensures that the model provides actionable, stage-appropriate guidance for policymakers, educators, and financial institutions.

All expansions are highlighted in yellow.

Summary of Major Revision Actions (all highlighted in yellow)

• Expanded empirical grounding in Findings (new quotes + RQ alignment statements).

• Added explicit evidence-to-model transitions in RQ1–RQ3.

• Introduced new Section 5.2 Theoretical Contributions.

• Added Table 4: Comparative analysis of models.

• Enhanced Figure 4 with sociocultural and capability-development annotations.

• Expanded Practical Contributions with sequenced pathway and applied implications.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an important and timely topic: how “gendered” financial literacy capabilities of women entrepreneurs shape their use of digital marketing and the sustainability of their businesses in an emerging economy context. The manuscript has clear publication potential but requires major revisions, particularly in sharpening the theoretical contribution, aligning the research questions with the qualitative methodology, and increasing the transparency of the research procedures.

A key strength of the article is the ambitious integration of several theoretical frameworks combined with a rich empirical material (75 informants), which allows for a multi-faceted understanding of the phenomenon. The practical and policy implications are also well developed and convincingly grounded in the realities of Indonesia and, more broadly, emerging economies.

Comments

The manuscript draws simultaneously on KBV, RBV, TRA, TAM, feminist entrepreneurship theory, digital consumer behaviour, and additionally introduces Diffusion of Innovation in the implications. As a result, the G-FLCM model is at times presented as an integration of TRA–TAM–KBV–feminist entrepreneurship, while RBV, digital consumer behaviour and DOI remain more peripheral. It becomes difficult to see what exactly constitutes the distinctive theoretical contribution: whether it is primarily the integration of these frameworks, or the specific conceptualisation of “gendered financial literacy” as a capability. I encourage the authors to identify one or two core theoretical lenses (for example, KBV and feminist entrepreneurship as the main foundation, with TRA/TAM used as a behavioural mechanism) and to show clearly how G-FLCM differs from the five existing financial literacy models in Table 1, not only by being “gendered” but also in terms of structure and underlying assumptions. It would also be useful to reduce explicit references to RBV or DOI in the main argument (keeping them more in the background) in order to streamline the theoretical section and strengthen the central message.

There is also an issue of naming and framing the proposed model. The manuscript uses both “Gendered Financial Literacy and Digital Marketing Adoption Model” and “Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM)”, which may give the impression of two separate models although they describe the same construct. In some parts, the emphasis is on capability (capability system, gendered capability), in others on an adoption model (input–process–output). It would be advisable to settle on a single label and acronym (e.g., G-FLCM) and apply it consistently throughout the text (abstract, figures, Table 3, Discussion and Conclusions). In Sections 2.3 and 4.5 it should also be clarified whether G-FLCM is intended as a conceptual model only or primarily as a proposal for further quantitative testing (which is implied by the later suggestions regarding PLS-SEM).

The first research question, formulated as “What is the level of financial literacy among women entrepreneurs?”, is strongly associated with a quantitative approach and scale-based measurement, whereas the study itself is qualitative and phenomenological, and the three levels (“basic, intermediate, strategic”) are inductively derived from narratives. One possible solution would be to rephrase RQ1 in more qualitative terms (for example, “How do women entrepreneurs describe and enact their financial literacy in business practice?”). Alternatively, the authors should provide a more detailed methodological explanation of how these levels were constructed: what criteria differentiate them, whether they emerged inductively or were pre-defined, and what typical cases illustrate each level.

The article consistently argues that financial literacy is a “gendered” capability, shaped by social norms, family roles and structural inequalities. The data indeed contain themes such as balancing domestic and business responsibilities, prioritising children’s education, or risk aversion towards credit. However, in many parts women’s behaviours are described without an explicit male reference point; there is little comparison to typical financial patterns among male entrepreneurs, even at the level of existing literature. As a result, gender differences are often implied rather than explicitly demonstrated. In the discussion it would therefore be valuable to more clearly deconstruct the specific gender mechanisms at play: which themes in the data are characteristically “female” in the sense discussed by feminist entrepreneurship literature, and which appear more universal for micro-entrepreneurs regardless of gender. Complementing this with references to studies comparing financial literacy of women and men in similar contexts would help to substantiate the “gendered” nature of the model.

Editorial remarks

There is a duplicated subsection title “3.3. Focus of Study”, which appears first as a description of the study focus and later as a description of the data analysis based on the spiral model (e.g., around lines 435 and 466); the numbering and headings should be harmonised. References to figures are not fully consistent: the text refers to Figure 1 and Figure 2 (integrated framework), then to “Figure 2. Conceptual framework: G-FLCM” and “Figure 3. G-FLCM model”, which makes it difficult for the reader to track how many figures there are and in what sequence. There are also visible line-break artefacts likely caused by formatting, which should be corrected at the typesetting stage. Finally, the terminology should be unified: the expressions “gendered financial literacy”, “gender-sensitive financial literacy” and “gendered financial literacy capability model” ought to be used consistently, with a clear indication of whether “gendered” and “gender-sensitive” are intended as synonyms or convey different nuances.

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper addresses an important and timely topic: how “gendered” financial literacy capabilities of women entrepreneurs shape their use of digital marketing and the sustainability of their businesses in an emerging economy context. The manuscript has clear publication potential but requires major revisions, particularly in sharpening the theoretical contribution, aligning the research questions with the qualitative methodology, and increasing the transparency of the research procedures.

Response 1: 

Thank you very much for this constructive overall evaluation of the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the importance and timeliness of the topic, as well as the manuscript’s potential for publication. At the same time, we acknowledge the key areas identified for major improvement.

In response to the reviewer’s concerns, we have undertaken substantial revisions aimed at:

1. Sharpening the theoretical contribution
   We clarified the unique conceptual position of the G-FLCM and strengthened how the manuscript communicates its theoretical value.

2. Aligning the research questions with the qualitative methodology
   We refined the formulation of the research questions and ensured that the qualitative design, analysis, and findings are coherently integrated.

3. Improving transparency of research procedures
   We expanded explanations related to sampling, data collection, and thematic analysis to enhance methodological clarity.

These revisions improve the overall coherence, rigor, and contribution of the manuscript. We have highlighted all changes in yellow to facilitate the reviewer’s assessment.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s helpful feedback and believe the manuscript is now substantially strengthened as a result.

Comments 2: A key strength of the article is the ambitious integration of several theoretical frameworks combined with rich empirical material (75 informants), which allows for a multi-faceted understanding of the phenomenon. The practical and policy implications are also well developed and convincingly grounded in the realities of Indonesia and, more broadly, emerging economies.

Response 2: 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this generous and encouraging assessment. We appreciate the recognition of the manuscript’s theoretical ambition, the integration of multiple conceptual frameworks, and the depth of the empirical material drawn from 75 informants. We are also grateful that the reviewer found the practical and policy implications to be well developed and relevant to Indonesia and other emerging economies.

This feedback affirms the value of the study’s multi-layered approach and reinforces the importance of linking gendered financial literacy with digital entrepreneurship in developing contexts. We have continued to refine the narrative clarity and coherence of these contributions throughout the revised manuscript, with all adjustments highlighted in yellow.

Comments 3: The manuscript draws simultaneously on KBV, RBV, TRA, TAM, feminist entrepreneurship theory, digital consumer behaviour, and additionally introduces Diffusion of Innovation in the implications. As a result, the G-FLCM model is at times presented as an integration of TRA–TAM–KBV–feminist entrepreneurship, while RBV, digital consumer behaviour and DOI remain more peripheral. It becomes difficult to see what exactly constitutes the distinctive theoretical contribution: whether it is primarily the integration of these frameworks, or the specific conceptualisation of “gendered financial literacy” as a capability. I encourage the authors to identify one or two core theoretical lenses (for example, KBV and feminist entrepreneurship as the main foundation, with TRA/TAM used as a behavioural mechanism) and to show clearly how G-FLCM differs from the five existing financial literacy models in Table 1, not only by being “gendered” but also in terms of structure and underlying assumptions. It would also be useful to reduce explicit references to RBV or DOI in the main argument (keeping them more in the background) in order to streamline the theoretical section and strengthen the central message.

Response 3: 

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback and fully agree that the theoretical foundation required sharpening and streamlining. In response, we have undertaken a series of major revisions to clarify the core theoretical architecture and the distinctive contribution of the G-FLCM. All revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.

1. Narrowing and Clarifying the Core Theoretical Lenses (KBV + Feminist Entrepreneurship)

As recommended, the manuscript now explicitly positions Knowledge-Based View (KBV) and Feminist Entrepreneurship Theory as the two primary theoretical foundations of the G-FLCM. These two perspectives are used to define and justify the conceptualisation of gendered financial literacy as a capability.

We also clarified that TRA and TAM serve only as behavioural mechanisms, not as structural foundations of the model.

A new clarifying statement has been added at the end of Section 2.1, explaining the intentional theoretical narrowing to ensure coherence and avoid overextension.

2. Reducing the prominence of RBV, Digital Consumer Behaviour, and DOI

Following the reviewer’s guidance:

• Explicit references to RBV, digital consumer behaviour theory, and Diffusion of Innovation have been reduced in the main theoretical argument.

• These frameworks are now treated as background perspectives rather than core elements.

• They are used only where they provide contextual support, particularly in implications.

This revision streamlines the manuscript and sharpens the central theoretical narrative.

3. Adding an explicit comparison of G-FLCM with the five existing models (Table 1)

A full paragraph has been added at the end of Section 2.2 (highlighted in yellow) that clearly articulates how G-FLCM differs from the five existing financial literacy models in:

• Structure → introducing a sequential capability pathway (financial cognition → digital trust → adoption → sustainability)

• Underlying assumptions → embedding gendered agency, social negotiation, and contextual learning rather than treating literacy as an individual, gender-neutral competence

This paragraph directly addresses the reviewer’s request for explicit differentiation.

4. Reinforcing theoretical distinctiveness in Discussion and Contributions

Section 5.2 Theoretical Contributions now contains:

• A clearer explanation of the model’s novelty

• A concise synthesis of how KBV + feminist entrepreneurship + behavioural mechanisms uniquely converge in G-FLCM

• Removal of unnecessary secondary theoretical references

This ensures that the contribution is communicated consistently across the manuscript.

We believe these revisions directly and comprehensively address the reviewer’s concerns by:

• Clarifying the theoretical core

• Streamlining supporting frameworks

• Strengthening model distinctiveness

• Demonstrating clear differentiation from existing literature

We thank the reviewer for this valuable guidance, which has significantly improved the theoretical clarity and contribution of the manuscript.

Comments 4: There is also an issue of naming and framing the proposed model. The manuscript uses both “Gendered Financial Literacy and Digital Marketing Adoption Model” and “Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM)”, which may give the impression of two separate models although they describe the same construct. In some parts, the emphasis is on capability (capability system, gendered capability), in others on an adoption model (input–process–output). It would be advisable to settle on a single label and acronym (e.g., G-FLCM) and apply it consistently throughout the text (abstract, figures, Table 3, Discussion and Conclusions). In Sections 2.3 and 4.5 it should also be clarified whether G-FLCM is intended as a conceptual model only or primarily as a proposal for further quantitative testing (which is implied by the later suggestions regarding PLS-SEM).

Responses 4:

Thank you for this insightful comment. We acknowledge that the earlier manuscript used two labels for the same model and lacked explicit clarification regarding the conceptual status of the G-FLCM. These issues have now been fully addressed.

1. Consistent model naming (G-FLCM)

We have standardised the terminology by using only one label—Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM) throughout the manuscript. All earlier references to alternative names have been removed.

2. Clarification of the model’s epistemological status

To avoid ambiguity, we have added explicit clarifications in Section 2.3 and Section 4.5 stating that:

• The G-FLCM is a qualitative, interpretive, conceptual capability model, not a predictive or test-ready framework.

• Although the model includes a sequential structure that could inform future quantitative testing (e.g., PLS-SEM), such testing is not the intention of the present study.

3. New clarifying paragraphs added

The following sentences were added and can be found highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript:

• Section 2.3 (end):
  “Accordingly, the G-FLCM is proposed as a conceptual capability model that organises how financial cognition, digital behaviour, and gendered social dynamics interact, rather than as a predictive model intended for direct quantitative testing.”

• Section 4.5 (opening paragraph):
  “To avoid ambiguity regarding its purpose and analytical scope, the G-FLCM is presented in this study as a qualitative, interpretive capability model rather than a predictive or test-ready adoption framework. While the sequential structure may lend itself to future quantitative operationalisation, such testing lies outside the scope of this study.”

4. Marking of revisions

All revisions responding to this comment—including terminology standardization and the new explanatory sentences—have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for the reviewer’s convenience.

Comments 5: The first research question, formulated as “What is the level of financial literacy among women entrepreneurs?”, is strongly associated with a quantitative approach and scale-based measurement, whereas the study itself is qualitative and phenomenological, and the three levels (“basic, intermediate, strategic”) are inductively derived from narratives. One possible solution would be to rephrase RQ1 in more qualitative terms (for example, “How do women entrepreneurs describe and enact their financial literacy in business practice?”). Alternatively, the authors should provide a more detailed methodological explanation of how these levels were constructed: what criteria differentiate them, whether they emerged inductively or were pre-defined, and what typical cases illustrate each level.

Responses 5: 

Thank you very much for this important observation. We agree that the original formulation of RQ1 appeared quantitative in nature and did not fully reflect the phenomenological and inductive orientation of the study.

To address this concern, we have undertaken the following revisions (all highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript):

1. RQ1 has been rephrased to align with qualitative inquiry

The research question now reads:

“RQ1: How do women entrepreneurs describe and enact their financial literacy in business practice?”

This revision shifts the focus from measuring a “level” to exploring lived experiences, consistent with the qualitative and phenomenological design.

2. Clarification added in the Methods section

We have added a detailed explanation of how the categories “basic, intermediate, and strategic” were inductively derived from the data.
The new paragraph clarifies:

• the categories were not pre-defined,

• they emerged through axial and selective coding,

• each level reflects patterns of cognition, behaviour, and capability enactment,

• examples of typical cases inform the analytical distinction.

This explanation ensures methodological transparency and coherence with the overall interpretive framework.

Comments 6: The article consistently argues that financial literacy is a “gendered” capability, shaped by social norms, family roles and structural inequalities. The data indeed contain themes such as balancing domestic and business responsibilities, prioritising children’s education, or risk aversion towards credit. However, in many parts women’s behaviours are described without an explicit male reference point; there is little comparison to typical financial patterns among male entrepreneurs, even at the level of existing literature. As a result, gender differences are often implied rather than explicitly demonstrated. In the discussion it would therefore be valuable to more clearly deconstruct the specific gender mechanisms at play: which themes in the data are characteristically “female” in the sense discussed by feminist entrepreneurship literature, and which appear more universal for micro-entrepreneurs regardless of gender. Complementing this with references to studies comparing financial literacy of women and men in similar contexts would help to substantiate the “gendered” nature of the model.

Responses 6: 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree that the manuscript needed a clearer articulation of the gendered mechanisms shaping women’s financial behavior, beyond merely implying differences through descriptive narratives. In response, we have substantially strengthened the Discussion section to explicitly demonstrate how gender dynamics operate in the financial and digital practices of women entrepreneurs.

To address this comment, we have added a new interpretive subsection within Section 5.1 Integrated Discussion of Findings, which now:

1. Clarifies which financial behaviors in our data are characteristically shaped by women’s gendered social positions—such as balancing domestic and business responsibilities, prioritizing children’s welfare, heightened risk aversion toward credit, reliance on familial approval, and navigating normative expectations.
   These themes are now explicitly tied to feminist entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014; Bucher-Koenen et al., 2017; Martinez Dy et al., 2018), aligning the empirical patterns with established theoretical explanations of gendered financial behavior.

2. Differentiates gender-specific mechanisms from universal entrepreneurial practices, such as basic budgeting, cash-flow management, and low-cost digital experimentation.
   This distinction is important for demonstrating that the “gendered” nature of the G-FLCM arises from sociocultural conditioning—not from presumed inherent differences between men and women.

3. Strengthens the theoretical justification for conceptualizing financial literacy as a gendered capability, showing explicitly how social norms, relational expectations, and structural inequalities influence how financial knowledge is accessed, interpreted, and enacted.

4. Integrates comparative references from prior studies on male–female financial literacy differences, as recommended.
   These comparisons help substantiate that the gendered patterns observed in this study are consistent with broader empirical evidence.

The newly added paragraph (highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript) explicitly states these distinctions and supports the claim that the G-FLCM is rooted in gendered mechanisms rather than implied differences.

We believe this enhancement greatly improves the clarity, theoretical rigor, and empirical grounding of the manuscript, and we appreciate the reviewer’s guidance in strengthening this dimension of the discussion.

Comment 7: There is a duplicated subsection title “3.3. Focus of Study”, which appears first as a description of the study focus and later as a description of the data analysis based on the spiral model (e.g., around lines 435 and 466); the numbering and headings should be harmonised. References to figures are not fully consistent: the text refers to Figure 1 and Figure 2 (integrated framework), then to “Figure 2. Conceptual framework: G-FLCM” and “Figure 3. G-FLCM model”, which makes it difficult for the reader to track how many figures there are and in what sequence. There are also visible line-break artefacts likely caused by formatting, which should be corrected at the typesetting stage. Finally, the terminology should be unified: the expressions “gendered financial literacy”, “gender-sensitive financial literacy” and “gendered financial literacy capability model” ought to be used consistently, with a clear indication of whether “gendered” and “gender-sensitive” are intended as synonyms or convey different nuances.

Responses 7:

Thank you very much for this constructive comment. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all issues related to terminology, headings, and figure consistency. The following improvements have been made:

1. Correction of duplicated subsection titles

The duplicated heading “3.3. Focus of Study” has been corrected. The second occurrence (previously placed above the description of the data analysis procedure) has been renamed appropriately to ensure a coherent and sequential structure of the Methods section.
✔ Revised heading structure is now consistent across Sections 3.1–3.4.

2. Harmonisation of figure sequence and titles

All figure titles have been standardised to avoid conceptual overlap and to reflect clear progression from theoretical basis → integrative model → final conceptual model. The following changes were made:

• Figure 1 is now titled:
  “Theoretical Foundations of Gendered Financial Literacy”

• Figure 2 is now titled:
  “Theoretical Interaction Model Linking Knowledge, Gendered Agency, and Behavioural Mechanisms”

• Figure 3 remains as the final model:
  “Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM)”

Additionally, all in-text references to figures have been corrected to ensure sequencing accuracy and eliminate ambiguity.

✔ These changes resolve the confusion noted by the reviewer regarding overlapping figure names and unclear numbering.

3. Clarification and standardisation of terminology

To ensure conceptual clarity, the manuscript now makes a clear distinction between:

• gender-sensitive financial literacy → the broader analytical perspective acknowledging sociocultural influences on women’s financial behaviour

• gendered financial literacy → the capability-based construct operationalised within the G-FLCM

To prevent confusion, we added the following clarifying sentence in Section 2.1 (Theoretical Foundations):

“Throughout this manuscript, the term gendered financial literacy refers to the capability-based construct operationalised within the G-FLCM, while gender-sensitive financial literacy is used to describe the broader analytical perspective that acknowledges the influence of social norms and gendered structures.”

Furthermore, the model is consistently referred to as:

➡️ Gendered Financial Literacy Capability Model (G-FLCM)

across the entire manuscript, including abstract, Section 2.3, Section 4.5, Discussion, Tables, and Figures.

✔ This fully resolves the inconsistency noted in the review.

4. Removal of formatting artefacts

Line-break artefacts caused by previous formatting have been cleaned throughout the manuscript to improve readability and ensure typesetting readiness.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most comments have been addressed. The authors expanded the empirical grounding of each model component and added explicit statements that the model is interpretive, not predictive. This directly responds my concern. However, some model components (e.g., the recursive loop, capability sequencing) still lean heavily on theoretical abstraction. Also, the model remains more elaborate than typically justified by phenomenological data. Based on the authors’ responses and the revised manuscript, several important improvements have been made. The authors have clarified theoretical roles, strengthened methodological transparency, refined conceptual definitions and moderated claims that previously extended beyond the available data. However, some issues remain only partially resolved. Specifically, the manuscript continues to be theoretically dense and although improved, the proposed G-FLCM model still contains elements that rely more on theoretical extrapolation than strictly grounded qualitative evidence. Additionally, while the overall manuscript is clearer, the integration of numerous theoretical frameworks still risks conceptual overload.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

Most comments have been addressed. The authors expanded the empirical grounding of each model component and added explicit statements that the model is interpretive, not predictive. This directly responds my concern. However, some model components (e.g., the recursive loop, capability sequencing) still lean heavily on theoretical abstraction. Also, the model remains more elaborate than typically justified by phenomenological data. Based on the authors’ responses and the revised manuscript, several important improvements have been made. The authors have clarified theoretical roles, strengthened methodological transparency, refined conceptual definitions and moderated claims that previously extended beyond the available data. However, some issues remain only partially resolved. Specifically, the manuscript continues to be theoretically dense and although improved, the proposed G-FLCM model still contains elements that rely more on theoretical extrapolation than strictly grounded qualitative evidence. Additionally, while the overall manuscript is clearer, the integration of numerous theoretical frameworks still risks conceptual overload.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reassessment of the revised manuscript and for acknowledging the substantial improvements made in empirical grounding, methodological transparency, and conceptual clarification. We fully recognize the reviewer’s remaining concern regarding the degree of theoretical abstraction in certain model components. In response, we have further moderated the manuscript’s claims by explicitly positioning the G-FLCM as an analytical abstraction grounded in recurrent qualitative patterns rather than as a literal or exhaustive representation of empirical data. Throughout Section 4.5, the model is consistently framed as an interpretive and heuristic synthesis intended to support analytical understanding, not prediction or direct empirical mapping. We believe that this clarification appropriately calibrates the model’s epistemological status while preserving its theoretical contribution and alignment with the qualitative, interpretive nature of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial improvements in conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and theoretical integration. The authors have adequately addressed the reviewer’s previous concerns, particularly through clearer theoretical structuring, transparent sampling and analytic procedures, and stronger empirical grounding of the G-FLCM model. Minor revisions are still recommended to enhance readability and conciseness, as the manuscript is relatively lengthy and could benefit from selective condensation—especially in the literature review and discussion sections—without compromising its scholarly contribution. Additionally, minor refinements in paragraph transitions and further clarification of the conceptual model’s graphical presentation would improve overall coherence. Subject to these minor editorial adjustments, the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Comments 1:

The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial improvements in conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and theoretical integration. The authors have adequately addressed the reviewer’s previous concerns, particularly through clearer theoretical structuring, transparent sampling and analytic procedures, and stronger empirical grounding of the G-FLCM model. Minor revisions are still recommended to enhance readability and conciseness, as the manuscript is relatively lengthy and could benefit from selective condensation—especially in the literature review and discussion sections—without compromising its scholarly contribution. Additionally, minor refinements in paragraph transitions and further clarification of the conceptual model’s graphical presentation would improve overall coherence. Subject to these minor editorial adjustments, the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive evaluation of the revised manuscript. In response to the suggestions, we have undertaken selective condensation to enhance readability and conciseness, with particular attention to the literature review and discussion sections, while preserving the manuscript’s scholarly contribution and empirical depth. Redundant theoretical explanations were streamlined, paragraph transitions were refined for smoother narrative flow, and the discussion was tightened to emphasize integrative interpretation rather than repetition of results. In addition, the graphical presentation of the G-FLCM was clarified by improving labeling consistency and explanatory alignment with the text. We believe that these minor editorial refinements have further strengthened the coherence, clarity, and overall presentation of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. We have reviewed the introduced changes and find them to be fully satisfactory, as they comprehensively address all concerns raised in the previous review.

The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript by sharpening the theoretical contribution, better aligning the methodology with the research questions, deepening the gender-context analysis, and improving the overall clarity and coherence of the argument. As a result, the work is now mature and complete.

We are pleased to recommend it for acceptance and wish you the best in the subsequent stages of the publication process.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. We have reviewed the introduced changes and find them to be fully satisfactory, as they comprehensively address all concerns raised in the previous review.

The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript by sharpening the theoretical contribution, better aligning the methodology with the research questions, deepening the gender-context analysis, and improving the overall clarity and coherence of the argument. As a result, the work is now mature and complete.

We are pleased to recommend it for acceptance and wish you the best in the subsequent stages of the publication process.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful re-evaluation of the revised manuscript and for the very positive and encouraging feedback. We are grateful for the recognition that the revisions have satisfactorily addressed all previously raised concerns and have strengthened the theoretical contribution, methodological alignment, gender-context analysis, and overall coherence of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s constructive engagement throughout the review process and their recommendation for acceptance, which we consider both valuable and motivating for the finalization of this work.