Review Reports - Saints, Superheroes, and Zombies: Early Childhood Professionals’ Well-Being and Relational Health in the Waning Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article is really well articulated and for the most part clearly aligned with the aims. The contributions the article provides for the field are both interesting and important, and the topic is highly relevant.

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the topic. However, while the language is appropriate for an academic audience, certain sections may be somewhat challenging for a broader audience, particularly in the intro and lit review. Although revision of this is not essential, the authors may wish to consider refining the language to support reader accessibility.

I love the title, but I'm not sure all readers would make the connections 'saint, superheros and zombies' I think if you are keeping that maybe link to the connection somewhere.

In the results section the part around relationships with families has great information but moves more towards a focus on supporting families well-being as opposed to the educators' well-being. Perhaps re-frame that section to be clear the focus remains on how those relationships supported the educators' well-being as that is the focus of this article. I think the section could also be shorter and more concise. While all of the information is important some of it is not paramount to the point of the article.

In the discussion: P. 22 line 967 "EC educators in this study expressed compassion for children...." bring this back to focus of educator wellbeing. How does educator wellbeing support the children as the focus of the article is educator wellbeing.

In relation to formatting there were a lot of inconsistencies:

p. 4 line 139, 143, 163
p. 6 line 235, 243
p. 7 line 282, 287, 289
p. 8 line 346
p. 13 line 583, 584
p. 19 line 831, 832
p. 23 line 1008, 1026
p. 24 line 1061 — all have extra spaces.
p. 12 line 520 — has an unnecessary space.

In the results section sometimes you have a space separating the paragraph from the quote other times you do not, and sometimes you have a double space after a paragraph.

References also need consistent formatting.

You also need to consider terminology for the reader and stay consistent. Is it ECE or EC as it is ECE in the intro and lit review and then becomes EC on the following pages:

p. 4 line 144, 146, 152
p. 22 line 954, 967, 972
p. 24 line 1071

Also, is it educators or professionals or teachers or all three — be consistent. If you are defining them as different, make that clear.

p. 5 line 204: "just as the “image of the child” as competent, capable, and agentic in the Reggio Emilia tradition" "image of the child" is viewed as ..... may be clearer.

p.6 . line 254 perhaps add in a reference to signpost the stressors you discuss as it highlights the educators experience well and gives background and context to the time period.

p. 10 line 446 and p. 2 line 529 are the same quotes. Use it in one or other not both. or comment on p. 10 that this is also an act of self-care and use it as a signpost to the next section.

P. 21 line 930 you refer to the Job Demands-Resources Model and while this model does support what you have found, you have not explained or referred to it anywhere else except this sentence.

P. 22 line 965 "I also tag that with parents” reflect commitment to supporting children and families even when it is difficult." is it meant to be I also add? You've also changed tense: 'we' to 'I'

Thank you for allowing me to review this article I enjoyed reading it. It covered the topic well and gave a clear picture of how early childhood educators were feeling as well as the stressors experienced. However, there are a few small areas that could be tightened up.

Author Response

Review 1 Response:

While the language is appropriate for an academic audience, certain sections may be somewhat challenging for a broader audience, particularly in the intro and lit review. Although revision of this is not essential, the authors may wish to consider refining the language to support reader accessibility.

Thank you. We kept this in mind while revising the paper.

I love the title, but I'm not sure all readers would make the connections 'saint, superheros and zombies' I think if you are keeping that maybe link to the connection somewhere.

We added the following to lines 1036-1039: EC professionals have many strengths that make them superheroes, however, if they do not have good well-being, burnout is a risk and instead of being fully present and responsive with children, they may be physically present but psychologically absent, like zombies.

Thank you for pointing this out. We implicitly understood how this relates to educator well-being but have made it more explicit with this sentence: “Likewise, the trust and appreciation of families supported the well-being of participants in this study. Additionally, participants took pride in their ability to navigate challenges with families and build effective partnerships, an important part of their professional identity.”

The line number has changed with our revisions, so now is 977. Compassion is a subtheme of “Centrality of Relationships” (detailed in Table 2). Although the central focus of the article is educator wellbeing, we also focus on assets of EC educators. We added the sentence: “Compassion is a critical asset that fuels the quality of work with young children” to clarify that we are describing compassion as an asset related to centrality of relationships (lines 984-985).

In relation to formatting there were a lot of inconsistencies:

4 line 139, 143, 163
6 line 235, 243
7 line 282, 287, 289
8 line 346
13 line 583, 584
19 line 831, 832
23 line 1008, 1026
24 line 1061
12 line 520

We deleted extra and unnecessary spaces. We believe these may have appeared when the paper was formatted in the review process as fully justified from left justified, so additional spaces may appear after we re-submit.

In the results section sometimes you have a space separating the paragraph from the quote other times you do not, and sometimes you have a double space after a paragraph.

We have ensured that there are spaces before and after each quote.

References also need consistent formatting.

We have ensured that references are formatted according to APA 7^th edition.

You also need to consider terminology for the reader and stay consistent. Is it ECE or EC as it is ECE in the intro and lit review and then becomes EC on the following pages:

4 line 144, 146, 152
22 line 954, 967, 972
24 line 1071

We used ‘ECE’ to refer to early childhood education and ‘EC professionals’ to refer to those who work with young children. If you prefer, we can change all to ‘ECE professionals.’

Also, is it educators or professionals or teachers or all three — be consistent. If you are defining them as different, make that clear.

We have edited the manuscript to use early childhood professionals or EC professionals throughout.

5 line 204: "just as the “image of the child” as competent, capable, and agentic in the Reggio Emilia tradition" "image of the child" is viewed as ..... may be clearer.

We revised lines 240-242 203-206 and we hope these sentences are now clearer.

p.6 . line 254 perhaps add in a reference to signpost the stressors you discuss as it highlights the educators experience well and gives background and context to the time period.

We need more clarification on this point because this is line 254 and it does not mention or refer to stressors: “changes across entire world in response to the pandemic. Second, we describe early child-“

We are happy to revise but need more information about what is requested.

10 line 446 and p. 2 line 529 are the same quotes. Use it in one or other not both. or comment on p. 10 that this is also an act of self-care and use it as a signpost to the next section.

We deleted the second use of the quote because the same point was made in the first instance.

21 line 930 you refer to the Job Demands-Resources Model and while this model does support what you have found, you have not explained or referred to it anywhere else except this sentence.

Qualitative methodology is more open-ended than quantitative research and is guided by research questions rather than a priori hypotheses. Accordingly, new literature is typically not introduced in the discussion of quantitative findings, however, qualitative researchers must be open to observing new and unexpected phenomena in the data and then considering how those findings might align with theory and previous research (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell & Poth, 2018). As such, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti, et al., 2001) emerged as consistent with the lens through which many EC educators viewed their work. Applied to ECE educators, the JD-R model suggests that burnout and disengagement are more likely to occur when job demands requiring intensive effort exceed job resources, depleting the educators physical and emotional energy. Conversely, sufficient resources can buffer the impact of intense job demands. We added the following to lines 934-937 to justify the introduction of the JD-R model. “While not a central theoretical model for this study, the JD-R model emerged as consistent with the lens through which many EC professionals viewed their work. Many who described exhaustion and burnout stated that they were giving all for the sake of others and had nothing left for themselves – an experience in line with the burnout and disengagement proposed by the JD-R model when job demands require effort exceeding that gained through job resources, thereby depleting the physical and emotional energy of EC professionals.”

22 line 965 "I also tag that with parents” reflect commitment to supporting children and families even when it is difficult." is it meant to be I also add? You've also changed tense: 'we' to 'I'

This quote is the participant’s words verbatim. By ‘tag that with the parents’ the participant means that they apply this principle to parents as well. The “I” in the quote is the participant.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. I will share my comments based on the section they are in.

Abstract - I was puzzled by the gender missing in this section - I will return to this later, but wanted to highlight it was in the abstract also.

Keywords - I suggest you use alternative keywords to ones used in the abstract and title in order to extend your research with search functions.

Introduction - I had expected to see references in this section on page 2: "The well-being of early childhood educators is increasingly recognized as a crucial component of quality ECE. Teacher well-being not only affects educators’ personal and professional lives but also significantly influences classroom climate, child development outcomes, and staff retention."

Also, had expected to see references in this section on pg 3 "Cognitive appraisals of magnitude and importance of the stressor and of one’s efficacy and resources to cope with the stressor influence choice and enactment of coping strategies. For example, when a stressor is appraised as manageable and salient and the self as capable of addressing it, problem-solving is more likely. However, if a stressor is out of one’s control or self-efficacy is insufficient, emotion-focused coping (i.e., regulatory strategies) is more probable. When a stressor can be effectively addressed through effective coping strategies or development of new capacities in response to challenge it is considered “good stress.” “Tolerable stress” can be managed through activating internal and external resources that mitigate negative outcomes."

Methods - information about participants and gender - if they did not take part in the study then surely their minimal data should be removed?

Theory - this was very brief and focused on positionality of the researchers, there appeared to be no conceptual framework for this study.

The section titled ECE in the COVID context should be moved to the introduction. It is not results.

Results - a quote on page 12 mentioning using Brightwhel had been included earlier on page 10- I am not sure why it was slightly edited and used twice?

Conclusion - much of this section requires extensive referencing.

I wish you well in your editing of this paper.

Author Response

Review 2 Response

Abstract - I was puzzled by the gender missing in this section - I will return to this later, but wanted to highlight it was in the abstract also.

Only the gender variable was missing; participants completed all other components of the research, however, we cannot provide a complete description of gender due to a few participants not answering the gender question. We added “gender” after “missing” to clarify.

Keywords - I suggest you use alternative keywords to ones used in the abstract and title in order to extend your research with search functions.

We have added keywords to the abstract section.

We have added references to better support the claims in this section.

We have added references to this section to better support these claims.

Methods - information about participants and gender - if they did not take part in the study then surely their minimal data should be removed?

Only the gender variable was missing. Participants completed all other components of the research, however, we cannot provide a complete description of gender due to a few participants not answering the gender question. We added “gender” after “missing” to clarify.

Theory - this was very brief and focused on positionality of the researchers, there appeared to be no conceptual framework for this study.

The main theory guiding this analysis is the transactional model of stress and coping described in the introduction.

The section titled ECE in the COVID context should be moved to the introduction. It is not results.

We have moved this section to the introduction.

Results - a quote on page 12 mentioning using Brightwheel had been included earlier on page 10- I am not sure why it was slightly edited and used twice?

We deleted the second use of the quote because the same point was made in the first instance.

Conclusion - much of this section requires extensive referencing.

We have added references to this section.

I wish you well in your editing of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making these changes. I wish you well in finalising your paper.