Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting manuscript. The topic is both relevant and important, but further work is needed to ensure that it meets academic standards. 

In my view, the theoretical background should be strengthened, particularly in the introduction. Including more relevant previous research would not only add weight to the arguments but also help position this study within the existing body of knowledge. This would clarify what gaps in the literature this research aims to address and how it contributes to the field. At present, I find that the article does not sufficiently build a foundation for identifying a clear knowledge gap that it seeks to fill. Relevant references that would naturally support the study’s claims are missing, which affects the strength of the argumentation. 

The main challenge with the manuscript is the methodology section, which makes it difficult to grasp the overall structure and coherence of the study. It is unclear who is included in the different groups, how minority groups were selected, and who the participants are. Additionally, the description of the analysis process needs to be more explicit—how was thematic analysis applied, and how was narrative analysis used? A clearer explanation of how the findings were derived would be beneficial. I also find it difficult to assess how the group discussions were conducted and how the narratives emerged from them. Since the study emphasizes students’ own stories, a clearer presentation of how these narratives were constructed within the research process would improve transparency. 

The findings section could also benefit from greater conceptual clarity. One aspect that remains unclear is the conceptualization of compassion. The authors indicate in their findings that compassion exists but that more is needed at the institutional level. However, it is not explicitly defined what the authors mean by compassion in this context. A clearer definition would strengthen the coherence of the argument and ensure that readers understand how this concept is operationalized in the study. 

The discussion section is stronger but appears somewhat disconnected from the rest of the text. To enhance the overall coherence, it would be helpful to establish a clearer link between the introduction, research question, methodology, findings, and discussion. 

I hope these comments are helpful. Based on my assessment, I would recommend major revisions to clarify the theoretical framework, methodology, and conceptual definitions, as well as to strengthen the coherence between sections. 

 

Author Response

In my view, the theoretical background should be strengthened, particularly in the introduction. Including more relevant previous research would not only add weight to the arguments but also help position this study within the existing body of knowledge. This would clarify what gaps in the literature this research aims to address and how it contributes to the field. At present, I find that the article does not sufficiently build a foundation for identifying a clear knowledge gap that it seeks to fill. Relevant references that would naturally support the study’s claims are missing, which affects the strength of the argumentation. 

• The introduction has been re-written and re-structured, defining key terms and adding further relevant literature. If there are relevant references which have been missed by the authors we are happy to include further (pages 3-8).

The main challenge with the manuscript is the methodology section, which makes it difficult to grasp the overall structure and coherence of the study. It is unclear who is included in the different groups, how minority groups were selected, and who the participants are.

• More information has been added here. We did not collect sociodemographic data formally for participants, and this has been explained in the text (pages 8-9)

Additionally, the description of the analysis process needs to be more explicit—how was thematic analysis applied, and how was narrative analysis used? A clearer explanation of how the findings were derived would be beneficial. I also find it difficult to assess how the group discussions were conducted and how the narratives emerged from them. Since the study emphasizes students’ own stories, a clearer presentation of how these narratives were constructed within the research process would improve transparency. 

• We have included this information now in far more detail (pages 9-11).

The findings section could also benefit from greater conceptual clarity. One aspect that remains unclear is the conceptualization of compassion. The authors indicate in their findings that compassion exists but that more is needed at the institutional level. However, it is not explicitly defined what the authors mean by compassion in this context. A clearer definition would strengthen the coherence of the argument and ensure that readers understand how this concept is operationalized in the study. 

• This is an important point thank you. We have included a section in the introduction that defines compassion and introduces the reader to previous work in this area. We have also linked compassion as a concept with specific behaviours and practices from the institution that participants cite in the findings, and have elaborated on this in the discussion.

The discussion section is stronger but appears somewhat disconnected from the rest of the text. To enhance the overall coherence, it would be helpful to establish a clearer link between the introduction, research question, methodology, findings, and discussion. 

• Two clear research questions has now been included at the end of the introduction (page 7). To summarise these are (1) to describe student experiences in transition, and (2) identify where compassionate practices from universities aid this. In centralising compassion in the introduction, findings, and discussion, as well as adding a lot more detail in the methods, we believe there is now much more coherence in this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is important, addressing belonging and inclusion for underrepresented students, an area of growing interest in higher education.

The structure follows logical progression.

The narrative approach is compelling, with well-defined phases in students' experiences. Rich qualitative data derived from student narratives, which enhances its depth.

The methodology is suitable for capturing students’ lived experiences.

The study does not clearly differentiate itself from existing literature. Some findings (e.g., "universities should increase diversity and representation") are well-documented in prior studies. Suggestion: Clearly articulate what this study adds that previous studies do not.

The objectives are implied rather than stated. The manuscript lacks clear research questions, which should have been introduced in the Introduction.

The study recruited 32 students. How diverse were the participants? (Beyond labels like "racism," "ableism," "classism"), Were international students sufficiently represented compare to the demographics of the university? Include a table summarizing demographics (gender, ethnicity, major, grade…). Justify whether this sample is representative enough?

How were focus groups conducted? Duration? Group dynamics? How did researchers ensure participants felt safe sharing? Provide more details on the focus group procedures. Address potential biases introduced by group settings (e.g., dominant voices overpowering discussions).

The study claims to use Reflective Thematic Analysis and Narrative Analysis. However, the coding process lacks transparency. It is unclear how themes emerged and who validated them. Provide a brief step-by-step process on how codes/themes were derived and how reliability was ensured (inter-coder agreement?).

The three-phase structure (Expectations, Arriving & Adapting, Making Connections) is clear. However distinction between these phases is sometimes blurred (e.g., "Expectations" already discuss some adaptation issues). Improve the coherence between themes by ensuring they do not overlap.

The results are descriptive, lacking critical analysis. Incorporate more analysis rather than description (such as "This finding aligns with prior research by X but contradicts with Y."…).

The manuscript does not engage with alternative explanations (Do some students struggle not because of university culture but due to personal/social factors?). Consider counterarguments in the Discussion. Acknowledge limitations of the dataset.

Line 25-30: "Transition to university can be seen as a time of newfound freedom and independence. However, while universities are a location of privilege, knowledge, and opportunity, they are also, for many, a place of both financial and emotional cost." Suggestion: “University transitions offer independence but also financial and emotional challenges.”

Line 11: "participants described how the academic status of the university led to positive expectations but that, for some, [UNIVERSITY]’s reputation as a white, middle-class university had made them apprehensive." Suggestion: "participants described how the academic status of the university led to positive expectations; however, for some, [UNIVERSITY]’s reputation as a white, middle-class institution was concerning."

Line 105: Ethical could be added to the end of the manuscript according to the format.

Line 481: Figure 1 lacks captions. According to the content, it should be “Table 1”. Please specify the source of this content.

The study identifies problems (such as "students struggle with belonging"), but what specific actions should universities take? The recommendations are too general. Suggestion: Provide evidence-backed recommendations (such as  "Mentorship have been found to increase retention by X% (Author, Year)."). Differentiate between short-term and long-term strategies.

Key limitations should be acknowledged.

Conclusion should highlight unanswered questions and suggest future research directions.

Author Response

The study does not clearly differentiate itself from existing literature. Some findings (e.g., "universities should increase diversity and representation") are well-documented in prior studies. Suggestion: Clearly articulate what this study adds that previous studies do not.

• We have now rewritten the findings and results in the context of compassion and aiming to specifically identify the initiatives from the institution that demonstrate compassion (or lack of) in the participants’ experiences of transition to university. We have stated this as our aim in the newly added research questions (page 7) and referred to this throughout the findings and discussion. We hope these adaptations to the paper alleviate your concerns as to the vagueness and lack of originality in our previous manuscript.

The objectives are implied rather than stated. The manuscript lacks clear research questions, which should have been introduced in the Introduction.

• We have added these on page 7, at the end of the introduction.

The study recruited 32 students. How diverse were the participants? (Beyond labels like "racism," "ableism," "classism"), Were international students sufficiently represented compare to the demographics of the university? Include a table summarizing demographics (gender, ethnicity, major, grade…). Justify whether this sample is representative enough?

• We did not collect sociodemographic data on each participant in this study. We describe how our recruitment process ensured that we did have a diverse group of students from a range of backgrounds, and that we are justified in describing these as underrepresented groups at this specific university (pages 11-12)

How were focus groups conducted? Duration? Group dynamics? How did researchers ensure participants felt safe sharing? Provide more details on the focus group procedures. Address potential biases introduced by group settings (e.g., dominant voices overpowering discussions).

• This has now been added (pages 8-9)

The study claims to use Reflective Thematic Analysis and Narrative Analysis. However, the coding process lacks transparency. It is unclear how themes emerged and who validated them. Provide a brief step-by-step process on how codes/themes were derived and how reliability was ensured (inter-coder agreement?).

• A step-by-step description of the joint analysis process between research staff and the project student advisors has now been added (pages 9-10)

The three-phase structure (Expectations, Arriving & Adapting, Making Connections) is clear. However distinction between these phases is sometimes blurred (e.g., "Expectations" already discuss some adaptation issues). Improve the coherence between themes by ensuring they do not overlap.

• We do not see an area of ‘Expectations’ which concerns adaptations, except one quote where a student says they were expecting they would have to adapt and that was daunting.
• We have however worked on the results section to provide more of our interpretation through the analytic process and reflect on the findings in the context of compassion. This included re-labelling the sections as: “Expectations”, “Navigating a new social environment” and “Finding your people”.

The results are descriptive, lacking critical analysis. Incorporate more analysis rather than description (such as "This finding aligns with prior research by X but contradicts with Y."…).

• We would argue that the analysis (in being narrative) comes in the re-telling of the student story and identifications of patterns and meanings in these between the 32 participants. While we understand that there are some qualitative approaches that include references to prior literature in the analysis section, we chose not to take this approach.
• But it was also stated by the other reviewer that the results section was a bit descriptive, so we have added more of our original analytic interpretations into the results section and have couched these in reflections on how the student stories in each stage can be couched in the compassion (or lack of) of the institution, its staff, and student body. (see pages 11 – 21)

The manuscript does not engage with alternative explanations (Do some students struggle not because of university culture but due to personal/social factors?). Consider counterarguments in the Discussion.

• In discussing the perceived dominant culture at the institution we do not believe we ignored personal or social factors, in fact we highlighted them in many cases (e.g. financial constraints, neurodiversity, a disconnect between personal expectations and reality) and hence we do not see a place for a counterargument in the discussion.
• But, in the edits to the manuscript reflecting to other comments we believe we have addressed this comment. The emphasis on compassionate policies – defined by noticing others and actively taking steps to alleviate their suffering – removes a focus on culture but instead looks to how institutions can support individuals, in all personal, social or cultural barriers to belonging.

 

Acknowledge limitations of the dataset.

• We have now done this on page 24.

 

Line 25-30: "Transition to university can be seen as a time of newfound freedom and independence. However, while universities are a location of privilege, knowledge, and opportunity, they are also, for many, a place of both financial and emotional cost." Suggestion: “University transitions offer independence but also financial and emotional challenges.”

• This has been changed as suggested.

 

Line 11: "participants described how the academic status of the university led to positive expectations but that, for some, [UNIVERSITY]’s reputation as a white, middle-class university had made them apprehensive." Suggestion: "participants described how the academic status of the university led to positive expectations; however, for some, [UNIVERSITY]’s reputation as a white, middle-class institution was concerning."

• This sentence was changed to reflect the edits to the findings and keep the the word limit of the abstract.

Line 105: Ethical could be added to the end of the manuscript according to the format.

• A statement of ethical approval has been added to the end of the manuscript

Line 481: Figure 1 lacks captions. According to the content, it should be “Table 1”. Please specify the source of this content.

• This has been changed to Figure 1 in the text.

The study identifies problems (such as "students struggle with belonging"), but what specific actions should universities take? The recommendations are too general. Suggestion: Provide evidence-backed recommendations (such as  "Mentorship have been found to increase retention by X% (Author, Year)."). Differentiate between short-term and long-term strategies.

• We don’t believe that our study was extensive enough to list full recommendations on compassionate principles. A key finding of the recent Student Minds report on the implementation of the University Mental Health Charter framework in the UK is that there are many initiatives that institutions claim will/have had a positive impact on students but that there is little research data that proves what works and what doesn’t.
• Alongside these papers we are writing our project report which, instead of recommendations, outlines key questions of reflection for institutions that have arisen from the project. This should be live on our website by time of publication and the paper will link to these. An outline of these is now included in Figure 1.

Key limitations should be acknowledged.

• This has been included (page 24)

Conclusion should highlight unanswered questions and suggest future research directions.

• As this was a co-produced study, we wish to conclude the paper with the words from our student co-author. We have added suggestions for future research in the limitation paragraph prior to this section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article appears to have improved since the previous submission, particularly in the methods section, which is now clearer and more thoroughly developed. The presentation of findings is god, and the discussion section is well-written and grounded in both empirical data and existing research.

At the same time, the manuscript still comes across as somewhat unfinished. The introduction lacks a clear explanation of the concept of compassion as it is understood in this context. I would have appreciated a more in-depth presentation of the concept of compassion and its relevance within the university setting. It is also unclear what previous research has been conducted in this area, and how the authors position their own work within that body of literature. In addition, there is some lack of clarity in the use of key terms. The title emphasizes belonging, while compassion appears to be central. I recommend that the authors clearly define which concept serves as the main focus of the article and structure the manuscript accordingly. 

As it stands, the connection between compassion, wellbeing, and belonging seems somewhat disjointed. I would have liked a clearer description of how these concepts are interrelated, and why they are relevant to the aim of the study. Perhaps the inclusion of a clearly articulated research question could also help strengthen the coherence of the study.

Overall, the article has several strong elements, but I recommend further refinement of the introduction and conceptual framework to ensure a clear and coherent argument throughout the paper.

Author Response

The article appears to have improved since the previous submission, particularly in the methods section, which is now clearer and more thoroughly developed. The presentation of findings is god, and the discussion section is well-written and grounded in both empirical data and existing research.

• Many thanks, we’re happy you see improvement and thank you again for your suggestions.

At the same time, the manuscript still comes across as somewhat unfinished. The introduction lacks a clear explanation of the concept of compassion as it is understood in this context. I would have appreciated a more in-depth presentation of the concept of compassion and its relevance within the university setting. It is also unclear what previous research has been conducted in this area, and how the authors position their own work within that body of literature.

• This has been added (page 3).

In addition, there is some lack of clarity in the use of key terms. The title emphasizes belonging, while compassion appears to be central. I recommend that the authors clearly define which concept serves as the main focus of the article and structure the manuscript accordingly. 

• Part of the challenge here has come from the anonymisation of the project name, which contains compassion. However, we have now included compassion in the first half of the title to emphasise its centrality to the paper.

As it stands, the connection between compassion, wellbeing, and belonging seems somewhat disjointed. I would have liked a clearer description of how these concepts are interrelated, and why they are relevant to the aim of the study.

• The introduction has been re-worded and structured to emphasise compassion over belonging and to speak more in-depth about how previous literature has shown the effect of compassion on university students’ wellbeing.

Perhaps the inclusion of a clearly articulated research question could also help strengthen the coherence of the study.

• Our research aims are stated on page 8: “The aim of this study was to (1) provide a narrative account of the experiences of students from underrepresented groups as they navigate this campus university environment and (2) identify how compassionate practices from the institution (or lack thereof) affect these experiences.”

Overall, the article has several strong elements, but I recommend further refinement of the introduction and conceptual framework to ensure a clear and coherent argument throughout the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded adequately all of my comments, I think the manuscript is improved now. I have no further comments. 

Author Response

The authors responded adequately all of my comments, I think the manuscript is improved now. I have no further comments. 

• Many thanks for your time reviewing the paper and your helpful suggestions