Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The overall merit of this article is high though there are still many aspects that will need improving. Many minor corrections are required - more precision is required in the claims that are being made on the basis of the data presented, more precision with key concepts over secondary literature (too many concepts are included early on and it is not clear which are central to the analysis and indeed how some of them are being used to illuminate the data). Some updates of key literature are required. Clarity is needed about the specifics of data collection - is this an ethnography, a case study or a longitudinal study and where does sampling fit it? Listing the periods of data collection, the amount of data e.g. interviews, observation and field notes etc will help here. I have listed many suggestions in the attached file which I hope will help. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached revisions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a really interesting paper, which sets up the bakground and context of the work well. The following are some comments to render the nature of the study clearer for the reader.

I needed to read line 124-5 a few times to parse it - can you revisit this slightly unclear sentence?

I would have preferred the (many?) direct quotes to be more fully embedded in the sentences they occur.

My sense in line 140-141 is that reference to the UK context here would not be a universal reading of the definition, Yes, this is what you take from it for this paper but that reading is specific for this paper, perhaps you need clarity on that.

More is needed on the context of the study - I am assuming participants are all on a PGCE course at London Met but you don't explicitly cover that these trainees are studying at one institution, for example. What was the selection criteria? You say purposive sample - is this just all of the students on the course who were migrants into the UK? What was the make-up of the rest of the cohort?

It's not clear in the initial presentation of research methods and instruments that you did do some observation but you then use some observational data early on in the Results section, so this needs clarification.

The formatting of data abstracts could do with some work, just to ensure there's a clarity in their presentation and an ease for the reader of knowing what is commentary and what is data. (indenting/ italics?).

I'm convinced by and interested in lots of the analysis of this data. What did just hit me was another distinction for Christophe and the greater acceptance that the pupils there had towards him. You mentioned intersectionality earlier but you don't seem to raise gender here (apart from fleetingly towards the end of the paper), and I couldn't help but think that this could be impacting on some of the experiences under consideration (in the same way that data shows how male tutors consistently receive stronger feedback than women). I realise that opens up a lot, but perhaps some acknowledgement that this may be a factor might be wise.

Author Response

Please see attached revisions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf