Mobilization of Funds of Knowledge in Ecological Environments: Latine Parent Engagement in a College Outreach Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the theoretical frameworks used in this work. Combining FoK and EST, particularly the networked conceptualization of EST, is a great way to embrace the complexity of the study's focus. The data set is sufficiently rich to give us important insights, as well.  I do have major concerns, though, that lead me to recommend major revision.

1) FoK are only defined once using a quote from Moll et al. They are not described, defined, identified, or explained as they functioned in this study. This is my major concern, as the paper is written with FoK as a central theoretical frame but they are not used as analytical tools. You can see from my comments that I have questions throughout the manuscript about what they actually looked like, who defined them, and how they were used in analysis and interpretation.

2) Clarity about the networks in the ecological systems of this particular program and these particular participants is lacking. The excerpts from interviews are rich with particulars but those particulars aren't tied to specific features of the context within which the CKA operated. The macro and chronosystems of the state, district, and university are underspecified. The politics of immigration, language, and racism in the particular place the CKA exists are important to make clearer. I happen to know where this took place so I know the specifics of relevant state and district policies. Those specifics matter a lot! Florida and Arizona and Texas have similar language policies, for example, but they operate very differently in practice.

3) The lack of specificity and clarity in FoK and EST make the findings, conclusions, and implications pretty muddy. Taking advantage of the strengths of the qualitative methodology used to help us understand the more general from the particulars of the study would be a great improvement. 

4) The analytic work is described well but including an excerpt from the final data table would clarify the process immensely. 

5) The limitations must include that parents and students were not involved in the analysis and interpretation, as were the staff. It is the case that the researchers and the staff chose the excerpts from the interviews with families and students. This needs to be acknowledged. It doesn't negate the power of the work but it works against claims that you applied CBPR to a study of parent engagement.

6) The writing is excellent in terms of clarity and organization. The authors clearly have deep knowledge as researchers of FoK and EST.

7) This study is an important contribution that I believe is a good match for this journal. I hope the authors revise it and resubmit it. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Education Sciences

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript, “Mobilization of Funds of Knowledge in Ecological Environments: A Networked Perspective of Latina/o/x Family Educational Engagement” for the Special Issue on Familial and Relational Influences on College Outcomes among Minoritized Students. This qualitative study examines the ways in which Latina/o/x families utilize their own funds of knowledge along with “college knowledge” gained through a college outreach program to navigate systems in support of their children’s postsecondary educational aspirations. Overall, I thought the paper was well-written and it was interesting to see the quotes from the interviews where families knowledge they gained from the college outreach program and how they utilized this information. 

 

Overall comments: 

·      I will include this comment with the caveat that I’m familiar with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, but not the Neal & Neal networked adaptation nor the construct of “funds of knowledge”. I found it challenging as a reader to keep all three of these frameworks in mind throughout the paper. I also felt that the results reflected EST but it was unclear how they reflected a “networked perspective” as suggested in the title of the paper. 

·      I liked how the results were broken down by systems-level. Reading through the results, it sounded like a straightforward description of what information families took from the college outreach program and how they applied what they learned from the College Knowledge Academy within different domains of their children’s lives. I wasn’t clear if the paper was arguing that “funds of knowledge” refers to cultural knowledge distinct from the CKA intervention, or if knowledge gained during CKA is included within “funds of knowledge”. I think including some examples of the subcodes for “funds of knowledge” would be helpful. I also think making it more explicit where you see prior knowledge intersecting with knowledge gained from CKA would be really helpful. 

·      It was unclear in the in the results the extent to which each theme was present across different interviews. It would be helpful to add some descriptive information, such as the number of interviews that included discussion of mobilization of funds of knowledge across each ecological context. 

·      Related to my comment about the title, I found some sentences in the conclusion to be overstating the findings. For example, the sentence, “The result is a more nuanced understanding of how Latina/o/x families extend their educational engagement across different system levels.” I would suggest adding something about after participating in a college outreach intervention to statements like this. We don’t know if the results apply to families broadly, or to those who received the information from CKA.

·      I don’t understand this sentence in the Conclusion: “La-tina/o/x families acquire college knowledge and encounter affirming, culturally rich social interactions through which they develop their families’ educational goals and gain a greater sense of agency in education.” – what “affirming, culturally rich social interactions” are you referring to? It would be helpful to make this more explicit in the results as well. Is this something embedded within CKA?

 

Minor comments: 

·      I think the title should include something about the college outreach program. As written, it sounds like the paper is about Latina/o/x families in general, rather than specifically about those who participated in a college outreach program.

·      I was curious why authors selected the term “Latina/o/x” rather than “Latina/o/e”?

·      Could the authors define P20 the first time this term is used in paragraph 3?

·      The “Funds of Knowledge” section on page 3, particularly the second paragraph, was a bit hard for me to follow as someone not familiar with this literature. I wonder if adding some examples to help illustrate the concepts would help the reader. For example, what does it mean to “convert funds of knowledge into forms of capital”? An example relevant to parental engagement with college outreach programs would be particularly helpful.

·      I would recommend moving the paragraph that starts with “The purpose of this paper…” on page 9 to be after the Guiding Frameworks (and before Methodology), perhaps with a header of “Current Study” or something. Before the reader reads about the guiding frameworks, it was hard to appreciate all that was stated in this paragraph.

·      Methods – did independent coders establish inter-rater reliability for coding?

·      Results – were there any interviews that did not support the hypothesis?

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall aim of the paper is to better understand how Latinx parents and families mobilize skills and knowledges through an academic support program to support their children's postsecondary goals and aspirations. I really appreciate the asset-based approach that the authors are taking to highlight the ways that parents have positively and meaningfully engage in education spaces, and I wholeheartedly agree that Latinx parents and families should be seen as important partners in student success. 

That being said, there are some major concerns with the paper in its current format, particularly with the disjointed conceptual framework, the lack of specificity in the research design and methods, not enough evidence in the finding to support their claims, and lack of engaging with current literature in the discussion. The specific comments below are offered to improve this manuscript towards being publication ready

Introduction

The title of manuscript speaks to family engagement, and the manuscript begins with a statement about the "role of parents". Some of the literature presented is parent specific, but much of the literature listed focuses on families or families of color. Is the paper about parents, or is it about families (which include parents and others)? And this is a source of tension throughout the paper. Your claims are about Latinx families, but you only quote parents in the findings section. The manuscript needs to be better streamlined and storied to either be solely about parents (which is fine) or about the broadened understanding of families but as it stands in it not clear which direction you are hoping to make a contribution and therefore weakens the ability for the manuscript to be successful. I think you seem to have the most evidence to narrow the scope and solely focus on parents, but this would need to be better reflected in the introduction, literature review and discussion sections

p.2- While you go more into depth into the funds of knowledge later in the conceptual framework, it would help the reader to define (even briefly or parenthetically) what funds of knowledge are and why it's important to study it. Specifically, what is the sense of urgency of studying this topic now? Adding a sentence or two to the introduction would help.

p.2 (research question)- What does it mean for families to be "networked". You mention a network perspective a few times, but it is not at all clear about what that actual means 

Conceptual Framework

p.3- It's not clear why these two frameworks were chosen for this project. How do they complement one another and what do they allow you to see and understand? 

p.3- have the funds of knowledge been use before study Latinx students and families? This would be a useful place to add that context (with citations). Additionally, what are concrete and specific examples of skills and knowledges that have been useful. Right now, the funds of knowledge section reads vaguely, and I read it still not knowing what counts as funds of knowledge (it needs an example)

p.5- is it possible to add the funds of knowledge to this figure? It would be very helpful to have a visualization of how the authors feel both frameworks are working together to support parents/families, but right now the graph only shows the ecological model. Visualize and explain how you see these two frameworks working together

Methodology

p. 5- you say that the project is "aligned with that of community-based research", and that "practitioner partners helped in the research design, data collection and analysis, and presentation of findings".... how (when) did they do this? How did they help with data collection? Were authorship opportunities presented for this paper? Additionally, community research must address issues of power and hierarchy. How did you ensure their voices and perspective would be heard? At present this study does not read as one following community-based research. You also talk about this process in the trustworthiness section so you can expand here and/or there

p. 6 (College knowledge Academy)- "Twenty years ago"... I would just put the year instead of saying twenty years ago because that will change every year in publication

Participants

p. 6- Can you include a sociodemographic table to give us more information about the parents and families? Or at least a summary of ... (Average age, average number of kids, years participating in program, nationality (if applicable) or county of family heritage). 

Data Analysis

p. 7. Currently this section is much too vague for anyone to try to replicate. In general, it's better to be more detailed here (sometimes annoyingly so). For example, you say midway through the paragraph: "After expanding upon the preliminary codes and moving into axial coding (Creswell, 2007), we uploaded the codes into NVivo 10 for further analysis". What is axial coding and why do it? What exactly did you do the in "further analysis"? While I have personally used axial coding, it's best to assume that not everyone will be familiar with it and give some details. Also "further analysis" is not a helpful description of what you did to get your results. Tell us exact what you did, step by step.

p. 7 (data analysis)- Did you use the funds of knowledge theory in the data analysis? There is only mention coding data through the Bronfenbrenner model but if the framework uses both, it is expected that both frameworks would be reflected in the data analysis. If you only used one, I would give some justification as to why

Trustworthiness 

Surprise to see no positionality statement or reflection. How did author 2 come to be involved with the program (it just says they worked in an evaluation and research capacity)? Why does the project matter to the authors? How are they personally and professionally connected to Latinx families? This is an important part of the research project that is missing. Can be added to the trustworthiness section or a separate positionality statement.

Findings

p.8. The first sentence reads: "The findings demonstrate how families mobilized their funds of knowledge through social interactions across multiple systems to support educational attainment". However, every quote that follows is from a parent. For what I could tell, you only provide evidence from parents, which makes it difficult to trust claims that speak to the broaden notion of families. Are there quotes from other family members you can add to support this claim?

p. 10 Labeling each section by the name of the ecological level (exosystem) doesn't quite seem to help tell me what the main findings out. First, it would be helpful to the reader to remind them what those levels mean. Additionally, for each level, were there particular pattens of why or how they mobilized their FOK to the ecosystem? I would use that as the header of each section. For example, a header like, Advocacy funds of knowledge mobilized in ecosystem of school district, would let the reader know the main summary of your findings so that they can look for that evidence in the subsequent quotes you share. 

Throughout the findings section, following APA format, any quote over 40 words needs to be indented

 

p. 11 (“In the two aforementioned examples, CKA parents discuss how they engage at the exosystem level to be a part of change efforts and resource allocations that support Latina/o/x families.”). The evidence of an indirect link to post-secondary education is not clear/unconvincing. From the quotes giving about taking community classes, how does this help their children to succeed in higher education? Additionally, none of the quotes tie back to CKA specifically so it’s difficult to then conclude that the parents did all these things in the exosystem as a result of their engagement with CKA

 

p. 11 (macrosystem)- “As Latina/o/x families’ navigate systems related to educational attainment, their social interactions can be influenced by macro-level forces that include discrimination based on language and race, segregation, poverty, and multiple other deficit perspectives”)- Be more explicit about what and which social interactions you believe are playing a role in FOK mobilization, this still is not clear

 

Through findings: It would be helpful to story and introduce these parents to the reader. Simply saying “one mother” or “one father” reduces these participants to mere words and this is not in alignment with the community engaged approach. Who are these mothers and fathers, how long have they been involved with the program? Introduce us to the people first and then bring in quotes.

 

p.12- (“Andrea and Rogelio were encouraged to question economic and knowledge systems and privileges within”). Rogelio’s quote does not seem to suggest that he was encouraged to question knowledge systems and privileges. It seems he was more encouraged to see college as a real place and engage with faculty. Not clear how that connects to questioning systems

 

p. 12 (chronosystem)- The Chronosystem represents influences over time. How has this program helped families to mobilize funds of knowledge over time? There is nothing about time (passage of time, mobilization over time) writen in this section. 

 

Discussion

 

Overall- This discussion section can be enhanced by restating your findings clearly, as well as connecting your findings back to the literature. How do your findings support (or refute) other studies about Latinx parents and/or families? What new and unique methodological, and theoretical contributions to the literature does this study provide? None of this is currently in the discussion section.  How have you demonstrated that this FOK mobilization is a result of involvement with program? This claim I don’t believe has been supported enough from the evidence (i.e. quotes) provided

 

p. 13- the discussion section is generally not a place to introduce new information. You mention parents being “institutional agents” which is the first time I think this has been mentioned in the paper… If this is important to your findings, this needs to be storied earlier in the manuscript (included and defined in conceptual framework)

 

Implications

 

p. 14. There is only one implication for research written. Please list at least 1-2 more. Based on the limitations of this study, what other research needs to be completed to fully understand this phenomenon? Additionally, what are 2-3 implications for policy and for practice? 

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revision is a strong contribution to the field! I appreciate how the authors responded to the comments. The one thing that could be strengthened is expanding the existing literature they draw on. Expanding the description of prior works the authors have published is good but there is a huge community of scholars who have done relevant work. Acknowledging that others have contributed to the authors' work and to the field is important. 

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments. We have uploaded a word document detailing the revisions and responses to both reviewers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors,

Thank you for you work on this manuscript. I definitely see improvements in the paper and greater clarity in the overall structure and flow. However, there are still some major concerns with ongoing difficulty following the coherence and overall argument of the paper. I've read the paper multiple times and still having difficulty parsing out all your main arguments (other than CKA helped parents mobilize FOK). Is part of your argument that CKA is part of the reason parents were so successful mobilizing FOK? Wasn't that the goal of the program? We already know the "what", how did CKA achieve this is perhaps more interesting.

I think the real value of this paper is highlighting the ingenuity, resilience, and advocacy of the parents (which was enhanced by CKA no doubt) but to spend all this time quoting parents experiences only to write in the discussion (p.22) that " we position the CKA as an important intersecting influence in the families' ecological environments". undersells your participants. I think the focus of the main argument is still too heavily on uplifting CKA and less on uplifting the parents who are they ones doing amazing things!

Part of the challenge is that some of the quotes (in the macrosystem and chronosystem for example) do a really good job of specifically connecting CKA to parents FOK but the other system examples  do not. The most compelling examples are in the macro and chronosystems (these sections now read really nicely) so maybe consider focusing the paper on those areas. 

Additionally, the organization of the paper is still off (the lack of a proper literature review section, having the purpose and research questions on p. 7, the absence of connecting the study findings back to previous literature in the discussion section) makes it difficult to truly understand the paper's unique contribution in the field. The purpose and questions should come much sooner in paper so people don't have to dig to find it, and the introduction has many elements of a literature review it in so that can be shorten and those sections moved before for a brief literature review section before the conceptual framework. 

I like this manuscript overall and am rooting for you. I want you to publish this (and I want to cite it), but it's not quite ready. You have something important to say so I would encourage you to be more bold and explicit in your arguments, tell us what you posit and why, and show evidence. It's all there. Keeping working. You got this!

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments. We have uploaded a word document with responses to the suggested revisions by both reviewers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf