“A Common Danger Unites”: Reflecting on Lecturers’ Higher Education Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic Using an Ethnographic Fictional Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The strongest aspect of this research paper is in the detail of the research processes, the reflections, and the distinctive discussion of the finding that draws upon the commons of the community so illustrating the way in which the work can be used for reflection looking back and ahead on being a HE lecturer past the Covid19 pandemic.

While the research report is generally very good, there are a number of issues that the authors should consider to improve in the paper before publication:

Sharing the themes constituted in the first part of the research will help better understanding of the resultant story and make it more convincing as research findings. It also helps to connect the different parts of the research. Besides, it will be a significant addition to the effort seen in this research report to build trust in these research findings and discussion which move away from traditional scientific methods; though equally important considering that their different capacities to shed light on different perspectives of phenomena and situations of research interest.

In the discussion section, it is recommended that you add a note recognising that the findings are only a small window of the complex and multifaceted picture of what went on, what was left behind and what continues to persist.

Consider a brief note sharing the reason behind the story decision of 3 HE academics. This will help dispel any possibility of connecting the 3 academics of the story with the 3 recruited participants of the focus group (or possibly with you as authors).

The statistical figures shared (on lines 193-194) do not really make sense here for such a small participant sample (of 3). For this sample it makes better sense to simply share the demographic data of the participants in a more straightforward manner.

While the detail of the data collection methods is generally thorough, it is recommended that you also include whether the focus group meeting held online or in presence. Additionally, it would also help to add the timeframes of the different data collection methods.

The literature background section of the paper considers “topical issues of student engagement, collegiality, and worklife balance” besides the abrupt shift of academic processes to the online space. An explanatory note on why you limit yourselves to this background literature providing a backdrop to this work would help to connect this section to other parts of the research report.

It is recommended that on line 89 you stick to “generation Z” and let go of the term “digital natives” which remains tied to a lot of controversy in the academic research world. Similarly, on line 175 it is recommended to terminology which sounds more neutral such as “alternative interpretations” rather than “misconceptions” especially considering your intention of sidestepping the flagged debate.

In the story you refer to “Groundhog Day”. Consider adding a note about this film (?) and what it signifies or else change the wording to be more culture neutral. Readers cannot be assumed to know about it.  

The paper needs to be proofread to remove exceptional typographical errors, e.g. consider lines 558 and 692.

High quality of English language. However I recommend the article is proofread to  remove the few exceptional typographical errors.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please review document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The issue of the manuscript is a very current and this is an important topic of the higher education research. The ethnographic approach can be very fruitful due to the specific perspective and methodology – but in the case of an empirical analysis the results are very significant parts of the analyses. It is a requirement to create new knowledge which is embedded in the theoretical framework. This framework and the methodology can be seen but in my opinion the results are less novel and important. The proportions of the different parts of the manuscript are not well-balanced – the methodological elements are more dominant.

My remarks are the following:

-        the formatting of in text citations and the reference list do not fit into the journal’s instructions (the items are in alphabetical order in the reference list and authors should use square brackets with numbers in the text)

-        the abstract has to contain the results too

-        I can not see the resource of the first quotation (row 17)

-        the abstract and the introduction contain similar sentences – in my opinion authors have to modify them in the second case

-        the earlier work-conditions of the lecturers can be more detailed. Some elements (which became more significant during the COVID), were significant of the earlier frames too.

-        „Guiding philosophy” has got a similar formatting than „Methodology and Methods” (row 143 and 144)

-        the quantitative approach (mean, standard deviation) is less relevant in the case of three people

-        The methodological part contains a paragraph about online blogs – but I can not see the relevant results which belong the analysis of these blogs (perhaps this is my fault and I was careless) – so the authors should highlight these elements. The criteria of the selection are clear but we do not know how many blogs are involved in this research and why.

-        we can see the steps of inductive thematic analysis – it would be better if the appendix or one table showed the codes and themes. The codes/categories are generally used during the analyses – in the current situation I can not see the relevance of them (the results do not contain them and the codes/categories do not fit into the structure of the analysis).

-        the names of the lecturers are not bold in some cases (row 566, row 622)

-        after the fictional narrative only the results should come in my opinion (the methodological elements should belong to the earlier methodological section).

-        the results have to be built in the theoretical frames and connect with the theories and earlier empirical results. In my opinion this part is not enough detailed and novel that e.g. these feelings and situations are familiar for the individuals.

-        I can not see the statements, author contributions etc. at the end of the manuscript.

To sum up, the approach of the research is interesting, the cited references are numerous but the whole concept of the analysis is not clear-cut for me (e.g. the usage of the blogs, codes and categories) and the results are less elaborated.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please see review document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for your answer. I can see the improvement of the manuscript and I understand your arguments and explanations.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I am glad that you can see the improvement of the manuscript and that you understand the arguments and explanations. As i see no further specific direction I now assume this is sufficient to publish.