Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly relevant and necessary topic that has received little attention from the scientific community. In this sense, the contribution of this manuscript is very significant. The methodology is perfectly suited both to the characteristics of the manuscript and to its originality, being an essentially qualitative work.

The bibliography is adequate and relevant. The discussion is well-structured and opens up new hypotheses and challenges for continuing these lines of research. However, the conclusions are insufficient given the article's importance. I suggest expanding the conclusions and connecting them to the realities of artist-educator-researchers (AER).

Author Response

Comment 1: The article addresses a highly relevant and necessary topic that has received little attention from the scientific community. In this sense, the contribution of this manuscript is very significant. The methodology is perfectly suited both to the characteristics of the manuscript and to its originality, being an essentially qualitative work.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this feedback.

Comment 2: The bibliography is adequate and relevant. The discussion is well-structured and opens up new hypotheses and challenges for continuing these lines of research. However, the conclusions are insufficient given the article's importance. I suggest expanding the conclusions and connecting them to the realities of artist-educator-researchers (AER).

Response 2: Thank you for this feedback. I agree with your observations. Here is the amendment (lines 468-477): 

This study contributes to a growing body of scholarship that positions identity not as a stable or fixed construct, but as an emergent and relational process shaped through ongoing negotiation between personal meaning-making and institutional discourses. From this perspective, the ERA identity may be understood as a dynamic force in which individuals continually reconcile competing expectations, values, and temporal demands across domains of practice. The capacity to sustain such an identity is therefore contingent not only on individual resilience but on the structural conditions that legitimize multiplicity and hybridity within professional roles. Without institutional recognition of these hybrid identities, ERAs remain vulnerable to symbolic marginalization that quietly erodes professional agency, creative risk-taking, and long-term vocational commitment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an autoethnographic study of the professional challenges experienced by arts educators, with a particular focus on integrating the Educator-Researcher-Artist (ERA) identity. It addresses the important issue of vocational burnout and staff turnover in an increasingly demanding institutional environment. The study addresses the widespread problem of burnout and staff turnover in teaching, focusing specifically on the often-overlooked context of arts education. The concept of sustaining multiple professional identities is a crucial topic for contemporary academic careers. The choice of structural symbolic interactionism (Stryker, 1980) and social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) provides a robust theoretical framework. These theories are well suited to analysing the interplay between institutional roles (structure) and personal identification (social identity), which directly supports the central theme of identity security and fragmentation. However, these theories are not recent. The Paper: should incorporate contributions. from More recent investigation In the field. It should articulate the interaction between institutional structures that cause fragmentation (Stryker) and the subsequent lack of validation that threatens social identity (Tajfel & Turner). The main area for critical review is the choice of methodology and the scope of the conclusions drawn.
Although autoethnography provides rich, deeply contextualised data centred on the researcher's experience, it inherently limits the ability to generalise. A critical review would question how the unique experiences of the single author can be generalised to the broader category of 'arts educators'. Opting for autoethnography does not exempt researchers from the risk of bias and self-validating approaches. The main critical consideration is how the single-person narrative can be convincingly used to inform systemic, institutional change.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper presents an autoethnographic study of the professional challenges experienced by arts educators, with a particular focus on integrating the Educator-Researcher-Artist (ERA) identity. It addresses the important issue of vocational burnout and staff turnover in an increasingly demanding institutional environment. The study addresses the widespread problem of burnout and staff turnover in teaching, focusing specifically on the often-overlooked context of arts education. The concept of sustaining multiple professional identities is a crucial topic for contemporary academic careers. The choice of structural symbolic interactionism (Stryker, 1980) and social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) provides a robust theoretical framework. These theories are well suited to analysing the interplay between institutional roles (structure) and personal identification (social identity), which directly supports the central theme of identity security and fragmentation. However, these theories are not recent. The Paper: should incorporate contributions. from More recent investigation In the field. It should articulate the interaction between institutional structures that cause fragmentation (Stryker) and the subsequent lack of validation that threatens social identity (Tajfel & Turner). The main area for critical review is the choice of methodology and the scope of the conclusions drawn.
Although autoethnography provides rich, deeply contextualised data centred on the researcher's experience, it inherently limits the ability to generalise. A critical review would question how the unique experiences of the single author can be generalised to the broader category of 'arts educators'. Opting for autoethnography does not exempt researchers from the risk of bias and self-validating approaches. The main critical consideration is how the single-person narrative can be convincingly used to inform systemic, institutional change.

Response 1: Thank you for your observations. You raise a valid point about the recency of the literature; however, it is remiss to exclude foundational researchers such as Stryker and Tajfel & Turner, given the content being discussed. If I were to bypass such authors and draw on more recent literature in identity theory and structural symbolic interactionism, I would find myself citing authors who themselves reference Stryker and Tajfel & Turner. When using a framework as a reference, it is best practice to cite the source.  

In terms of research currency, I agree that incorporating the latest research is essential. Approximately half of the citations in this study are within the past 10 years.

For the central critical piece you have raised, which is the methodology of choice, you are completely right that it disallows the ability to generalise. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, which is why I acknowledged the limitations of this paper and recommend a study with a broader participant group to deepen this research (see lines 447-456).

I would like to convey that part of the motivation for writing this autoethnography was to "start a conversation" about the challenges faced by the educator-researcher-artist. From here, I plan to follow up with case study research.