Buddhism Without Belonging: Functional and Digital Forms of Religious Engagement Among Chinese Youth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article amply meets all the academic conditions for publication.
It shows a great knowledge of the topic addressed, a great theoretical consistency and a methodological proposal of remarkable interest.
If we had to add a point that could further enrich the quality of the work, we would suggest addressing the extent to which this functionalist vision imbricated in Buddhism could enter into dialogue with the classical thesis, with a functionalist accent or not, but beyond Parsons, on Durkheim's religion.
Author Response
Comment 1: If we had to add a point that could further enrich the quality of the work, we would suggest addressing the extent to which this functionalist vision imbricated in Buddhism could enter into dialogue with the classical thesis, with a functionalist accent or not, but beyond Parsons, on Durkheim's religion.
Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. I have included a short analytical reflection connecting the functionalist perspective evident in the findings with Durkheim’s classic theory of religion, which views religion as a social institution that reinforces collective norms, moral regulation, and social cohesion. This connection allowed the discussion to move beyond Parsons’ functionalist frame and situate the study in relation to Durkheim’s broader insights—particularly the idea that even in its symbolic-affective and post-institutional form, Buddhism among Chinese youth still fulfills integrative and meaning-making functions for individuals and communities. Please see pg. 21, lines 767-777 and lines 779-789.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA brief summary:
This article, as the title indicates, covers a range of topics around Chinese youth, Buddhism digital engagement, and more. It is based on data collected through a large survey as well as semi-structured interviews. It offers a strongly statistically based account of the relationship Chinese youth have with Buddhism. I am unaware of such an approach towards the topic, so this article appears to offer new material and insights.
Specific comments on various areas:
- The methodology and methods discussion came too late in the article (section 6, ‘Materials and Methods’ Line 705) to be as useful as they needed to be.
- Digital Ethnographic methods were referred to twice – once in the abstract and once in the conclusion, but were otherwise absent from the article.
- It was good to see the Literature survey which outlined where this study fitted into the ‘field’ being explored, and what ‘gap’ it was that their study would address.
- I had expected that some of the literature would have been referred to again when the findings were discussed e.g. as ‘corresponding with x’s findings’, or ‘diverging with Y’s’.
- The strongly statistical nature of the findings (and much of their presentation being in graph form) was difficult for someone without such training to understand the significance of. For example, I was not sure what Figure 3, ‘Mean scores across Digital Participation items’, lines 371-2, meant or indicated.
- The interview material was easier to follow and while possibly selective, made sense. (A list of questions would have given a reader more confidence about the selection of data – see next point.)
- For both the survey and semi-structured interviews it would have helped a reader to know more about the questions asked. Some indication of this was given after line 700, but as I noted earlier, this was too late to be as useful as it should have been, or to give a reader confidence about the assertions made via the data.
- The conclusion section was short, while what was covered seemed reasonable, and from my understanding (but not teased out here) would concur with other studies, and general understandings of what is happening with many religions throughout the world. Given this article is a contribution to a ‘special issue’ the specific themes and even literature mentioned in the call for articles might have been referred to.
- The argument made by many that ‘Buddhism isn’t a ‘religion’ as such’ might have been explored. This parallels findings too e.g. the ‘apparent discrepancy’ between ‘not belonging to a formal religion’ and ‘being Buddhist followers’ (see line 782 and earlier). Was this idea, of whether Buddhism is a religion, explored in the survey, or interviews?
This is mostly good with just some idiosyncratic constructions. Nothing a copyedit won't fix.
Author Response
Comment 1: The methodology and methods discussion came too late in the article (section 6, ‘Materials and Methods’ Line 705) to be as useful as they needed to be.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. For clarity and order, the Materials and Methods discussion was moved after chapter 2 Review of Literature. This is to ensure that readers can have a grasp of the materials and methods used during the study and would set an expectation of the focus of the results and discussion part. Please see chapter 3 Materials and Methods, pg. 8, line 372.
Comment 2: Digital Ethnographic methods were referred to twice – once in the abstract and once in the conclusion, but were otherwise absent from the article.
Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this point. To avoid confusion, I have deleted the term Digital Ethnographic/Ethnography and simply focus in semi-structured interviews as the primary qualitative approach used in the study. Please see abstract (pg. 1) and conclusion (pg. 25) sections.
Comment 3: It was good to see the Literature survey which outlined where this study fitted into the ‘field’ being explored, and what ‘gap’ it was that their study would address. I had expected that some of the literature would have been referred to again when the findings were discussed e.g. as ‘corresponding with x’s findings’, or ‘diverging with Y’s’.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the integration of the previously cited literature into the discussion of findings. While I acknowledge that linking the results to prior studies is a common and valuable practice, I have intentionally chosen not to directly refer to the earlier articles mentioned in the review of related literature for two main reasons. First, the earlier literature cited in the review was used primarily to establish the research gap and theoretical foundation of the study. Those studies were contextually or methodologically different from the present research, making direct comparisons less meaningful or potentially misleading. Second, the focus of the discussion section in this paper was to present and interpret the findings strictly in relation to the study’s research objectives and the specific contextual factors of the participants, without making direct comparisons that could shift emphasis away from the unique contributions of this work. The aim was to allow the findings to stand independently, highlighting their originality and contextual relevance.
Comment 4: The strongly statistical nature of the findings (and much of their presentation being in graph form) was difficult for someone without such training to understand the significance of. For example, I was not sure what Figure 3, ‘Mean scores across Digital Participation items’, lines 371-2, meant or indicated.
Response 4:
Thank you for this valuable feedback. I recognize that the statistical presentation, particularly in Figure 3 and 4, may not have been sufficiently clear for readers without statistical training. In response to this, I have revised the figure captions and accompanied them with explanation to include a straightforward, non-technical description of what the chart shows, what the higher and lower mean scores represent, and how these results relate to the study’s interpretation of digital participation and Buddhist coping functions. This will ensure that the figure’s significance is accessible to all readers, regardless of statistical background. Please see Figure 3, pg. 15, line 556, Figure 4, pg. 16, line 583.
Comment 5: The interview material was easier to follow and while possibly selective, made sense. (A list of questions would have given a reader more confidence about the selection of data – see next point.)
For both the survey and semi-structured interviews it would have helped a reader to know more about the questions asked. Some indication of this was given after line 700, but as I noted earlier, this was too late to be as useful as it should have been, or to give a reader confidence about the assertions made via the data.
Response 5: Thank you for this meaningful insight and suggestion. I have now reorganized the position of each section and have secured that Materials and Methods were placed after the review of literature. Additionally, semi-structured interview questions can now ne read prior to the discussion to allow my future readers establish a picture of what may the possible responses and results. Please see section 3. Materials and Methods, pg. 10, lines 448-449.
Comment 6: The conclusion section was short, while what was covered seemed reasonable, and from my understanding (but not teased out here) would concur with other studies, and general understandings of what is happening with many religions throughout the world. Given this article is a contribution to a ‘special issue’ the specific themes and even literature mentioned in the call for articles might have been referred to.
Response 6: Thank you for this observation. I have revised the conclusion to more explicitly connect the study’s findings with broader global patterns in contemporary religion, highlighting parallels such as the shift toward post-institutional, digitally mediated, and personalized forms of spiritual engagement. I have also integrated references to the specific themes like religious adaptation, youth religiosity, and digital religion and noted how the present findings align with existing literature in these areas. Please see section 6. Conclusions, pg. 25, Ln. 952-984.
Comment 7: The argument made by many that ‘Buddhism isn’t a ‘religion’ as such’ might have been explored. This parallels findings too e.g. the ‘apparent discrepancy’ between ‘not belonging to a formal religion’ and ‘being Buddhist followers’ (see line 782 and earlier). Was this idea, of whether Buddhism is a religion, explored in the survey, or interviews?
Response 7: Thank you for raising this important point. While the survey and interviews did not include a direct question on whether participants considered Buddhism to be a “religion” in the formal sense, the findings do touch on this issue indirectly. The high proportion of respondents identifying as having “no religion” while also affirming belief in Buddhism reflects the perception of Buddhism less as an institutional religion and more as a cultural, ethical, or psychological resource. This was also evident in interview narratives, where participants described Buddhist practices as tools for emotional regulation, moral reflection, or lifestyle inspiration, rather than as expressions of doctrinal faith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript, which offers a timely and well-executed investigation into how Chinese youth engage with functional and digital forms of Buddhism. The study is methodologically sound, with a clear theoretical framework and well-defined research questions. It provides a compelling mix of large-scale survey data and qualitative insights. The discussion successfully connects the findings to wider debates on post-institutional religion and youth spirituality, thereby adding depth to the field.
To further strengthen the paper, I would encourage you to consolidate sections that reiterate similar ideas, particularly where key concepts such as symbolic-affective religiosity are introduced on multiple occasions. Additionally, expanding the discussion slightly on the ethical and social implications of digital, algorithm-driven spirituality would provide a valuable critical perspective. Improving the captions for figures and tables to highlight key findings more clearly would also support readers' understanding.
Overall, this is a strong and original contribution to the fields of religion, youth culture and digital media. With minor revisions to refine the language and sharpen the focus, the paper will be even better.
Author Response
Comment 1: To further strengthen the paper, I would encourage you to consolidate sections that reiterate similar ideas, particularly where key concepts such as symbolic-affective religiosity are introduced on multiple occasions.
Response 1: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I have revised the manuscript to consolidate sections where similar ideas are repeated, particularly the discussions introducing and defining “symbolic-affective religiosity.” Rather than reintroducing the term in multiple places, I have presented a single, clear definition early in the paper supported by relevant literature, and then reference it consistently throughout the results and discussion. Please see pg. 3, lines 126-140.
Comment 2: Additionally, expanding the discussion slightly on the ethical and social implications of digital, algorithm-driven spirituality would provide a valuable critical perspective.
Response 2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. I have expanded the discussion to include a brief but critical reflection on the ethical and social implications of digital, algorithm-driven spirituality. This addresses potential concerns such as the commodification of religious content, the shaping of spiritual engagement through algorithmic curation, and the risk of reinforcing superficial or instrumental religious practices. I have also highlighted how these dynamics may influence authenticity, depth, and inclusivity in contemporary Buddhist engagement among youth. Please see page 22, lines 819-829.
Comment 3: Improving the captions for figures and tables to highlight key findings more clearly would also support readers' understanding.
Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. I have revised the title of some tables and figures were necessary to include a brief statement of the key findings they illustrate, rather than simply describing their content. This will help guide readers’ interpretation and highlight the most important patterns or results at a glance. Please see Figure 3, pg. 15, line 556; Figure 4, pg. 16, line 583; Table 9, pg. 18, line 635; and Table 10, pg. 18, line 644.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis rewrite is a substantial improvement. The extra explanations in places, and moving the methodological section, are much better.
Unless I am mistaken, however, a number of tables appear twice . Please go through this carefully to check, for example, the 'Structural Validity Analysis Results' appear on/starting on lines 501 and 1058. It seems they have been moved but then not deleted from the original position. This is the case for other tables too.
A couple of headings were also confusing - see lines 371 and 940. Perhaps 'Results' and 'Conclusions' were meant to be deleted.
Once these areas are tidied up it will be a good and interesting original article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your careful reading and for pointing out the formatting errors in the previous revision. We have now conducted a thorough proofreading and made the following corrections:
Comment 1: “Analysis Results” appear on/starting on lines 501 and 1058. It seems they have been moved but then not deleted from the original position. This is the case for other tables too.
Response 1: The duplicate tables have been removed.
Comment 2: A couple of headings were also confusing – see lines 371 and 940. Perhaps “Results” and “Conclusions” were meant to be deleted.
Response 2: The redundant headings have been deleted.
In addition, minor language edits have been made throughout the manuscript, and the references have been carefully checked. All revisions are highlighted in blue in the attached version.
Sincerely,
The Authors
August 21, 2025
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
