An Intervention Addressing Impostor Phenomenon in Undergraduate Physics and Astronomy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article describes a small-scale investigation into students experience of imposter syndrome (called imposter phenomenon in the paper) at a British University. The study considered the effect of an intervention that allowed students to discuss their own experiences and then followed up with these students to understand the effect of the intervention

A weakness of the study is the sample size with only a total of eight students involved. However, that does allow the article to spend time discussing the points made by individual students. As each student’s experience is individual to them this gives a sense of the range of issues that students experience.

The authors point out that the sample is self-selecting and that they were further challenged by the study taking place during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The design of the intervention is well-motivated by the literature and the results of the intervention are positive, so I am somewhat surprised that the authors have not followed up with a larger study – perhaps using the intervention with a whole class.

In reading the paper the first time I felt that it could have been more concise. Having reviewed it a second time I think this is because section 6 involves a long discussion of the literature. I suggest the authors consider if this could be placed earlier in the paper as I found it distracted from the flow.

One area that might be tightened up is section 5. The authors often discuss quotes at length, when generally the implications of the quotes seem clear to me so this discussion could be reduced. However, I did not really get a sense of the key outputs from the pre-interviews that were used as input to the design of the intervention.

I am aware this comment strays into a language comment, but it did make the paper difficult to read.  The authors have chosen to use the term imposter phenomenon rather than imposter syndrome, which I feel is more common in the UK. I note there is some variation in the literature they cite so either choice is acceptable. However, if  “imposter phenomenon” is to be used I think it should have the definite article i.e. “the imposter phenomenon”. The authors might also consider “imposter phenomena” as there are different factors involved that together might comprise a syndrome.

The inclusion of the material used in the intervention in the additional material supplies a useful resource for university teachers wishing to tray such an intervention for themselves.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers of Paper: education-3493713,

 

              We would like to thank both reviewers for their comments with regard to our paper. The suggestions are very helpful, and we believe have improved the quality of out article. Please see our comments in response to the reviewers’ suggestions, outlining the changes we have made in relation to the article. For ease, I have put our responses in italics.

 

Reviewer 1

 

The design of the intervention is well-motivated by the literature and the results of the intervention are positive, so I am somewhat surprised that the authors have not followed up with a larger study – perhaps using the intervention with a whole class.

The intervention was run with the whole class, and this has been made clearer in the text. It is the hope of the authors to follow up the current study with a quantitative pre/post survey. We have made clearer these intentions in the discussion.

 

In reading the paper the first time I felt that it could have been more concise. Having reviewed it a second time I think this is because section 6 involves a long discussion of the literature. I suggest the authors consider if this could be placed earlier in the paper as I found it distracted from the flow.

Both reviewers correctly highlighted that the paper could have been more concise. We have removed around 10% of the text to try to help with this issue. This has involved combining sections and shortening the less relevant paragraphs of the paper. We tried moving section 6 to earlier in the paper, but it disrupted the argument of the paper. It seemed odd that we would have the information about our intervention prior to the study that demonstrated that imposter phenomenon was the key issue that we were examining. As such, we have not changed the positioning of this text.

One area that might be tightened up is section 5. The authors often discuss quotes at length, when generally the implications of the quotes seem clear to me so this discussion could be reduced. However, I did not really get a sense of the key outputs from the pre-interviews that were used as input to the design of the intervention.

We agree, on reflection, that section 5 was repetitive. As such, we have shortened the discussion of the quotes to avoid this issue. In terms of the key outputs of the pre-interview, in the new section 4 where we introduce our intervention, we have now included more explicit references to decisions made that were informed by the pre-interviews.

I am aware this comment strays into a language comment, but it did make the paper difficult to read.  The authors have chosen to use the term imposter phenomenon rather than imposter syndrome, which I feel is more common in the UK. I note there is some variation in the literature they cite so either choice is acceptable. However, if “imposter phenomenon” is to be used I think it should have the definite article i.e. “the imposter phenomenon”. The authors might also consider “imposter phenomena” as there are different factors involved that together might comprise a syndrome.

We have included an explanation for our choice of imposter phenomenon over imposter syndrome. We have included in text:

“The wording ’imposter phenomenon’ over ‘imposter syndrome’ as the use of syndrome is seen to medicalize the experience and make it seem like an uncommon phenomenon.”

 

 

The inclusion of the material used in the intervention in the additional material supplies a useful resource for university teachers wishing to tray such an intervention for themselves.

Reviewer 2

This is a very interesting paper. It was very comprehensive. However, it was too long for my taste. I would have preferred a more succinct paper in which the complete details could be found in an addendum or a website that would be active for many years. That is a decision that the editor must make.

Both reviewers correctly highlighted that the paper could have been more concise. We have removed around 10% of the text to try to help with this issue. This has involved combining sections and shortening the less relevant paragraphs of the paper.

 

The Abstract uses the word “imposter phenomenon” many times. As many readers and search engines only read the abstract, that concept should be briefly defined in the abstract to aid in their understanding of the paper

To make this clear we have moved our definition to the abstract.

 

The paper includes a control group to define concepts. However, students have friends in the other group with whom they communicate freely. How do the authors account for this fact? Actions taken by individuals in one group can influence their peers. That comment should be addressed in the paper

Our paper does not include a control group. We think this confusion may have arisen as the intervention from which we have drawn our concepts from did have a control group. We believe this was not fully clear in the previous draft. As such, we have now reworded the headings and structure of the paper to make this clearer.

 

Since the authors have observed a change over many years, observing the students more frequently might be better.

This refers to the Walton & Cohen study prior to this paper that already demonstrated change over many years. Our paper reports the design and introduction of a new intervention based upon this early study. We have made this clearer in the text.

 

Conducting in separate environments would remove peers' influence. However, since the environments differ, other factors must be considered. Another way would be to conduct the study with different class yea

 

We have now included these suggestions as future research possibilities:

“Further research may also wish to see how the imposter phenomenon varies depending on the academic context. For example, investigating whether students’ experience of imposter phenomenon changes with time or over the course of their studies could be interesting in terms of how imposter phenomenon affects students in higher education.”

 

I am skeptical of how one short intervention can change.

A single intervention is unlikely to alleviate all issues regarding student imposter feelings. We have now reflected this in the text:

“We do not expect that this intervention alone should be the only measure to address student impostor phenomenon but rather is one step of many that could be taken to help alleviate the challenges associated with the imposter phenomenon.”

 

We would like to thank the reviewers again for their helpful comments and are happy to address any further comments the reviewers may have.

 

Kind regards,

Corresponding author of education-3493713,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see enclose PDF

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers of Paper: education-3493713,

 

              We would like to thank both reviewers for their comments with regard to our paper. The suggestions are very helpful, and we believe have improved the quality of out article. Please see our comments in response to the reviewers’ suggestions, outlining the changes we have made in relation to the article. For ease, I have put our responses in italics.

 

Reviewer 1

 

The design of the intervention is well-motivated by the literature and the results of the intervention are positive, so I am somewhat surprised that the authors have not followed up with a larger study – perhaps using the intervention with a whole class.

The intervention was run with the whole class, and this has been made clearer in the text. It is the hope of the authors to follow up the current study with a quantitative pre/post survey. We have made clearer these intentions in the discussion.

 

In reading the paper the first time I felt that it could have been more concise. Having reviewed it a second time I think this is because section 6 involves a long discussion of the literature. I suggest the authors consider if this could be placed earlier in the paper as I found it distracted from the flow.

Both reviewers correctly highlighted that the paper could have been more concise. We have removed around 10% of the text to try to help with this issue. This has involved combining sections and shortening the less relevant paragraphs of the paper. We tried moving section 6 to earlier in the paper, but it disrupted the argument of the paper. It seemed odd that we would have the information about our intervention prior to the study that demonstrated that imposter phenomenon was the key issue that we were examining. As such, we have not changed the positioning of this text.

One area that might be tightened up is section 5. The authors often discuss quotes at length, when generally the implications of the quotes seem clear to me so this discussion could be reduced. However, I did not really get a sense of the key outputs from the pre-interviews that were used as input to the design of the intervention.

We agree, on reflection, that section 5 was repetitive. As such, we have shortened the discussion of the quotes to avoid this issue. In terms of the key outputs of the pre-interview, in the new section 4 where we introduce our intervention, we have now included more explicit references to decisions made that were informed by the pre-interviews.

I am aware this comment strays into a language comment, but it did make the paper difficult to read.  The authors have chosen to use the term imposter phenomenon rather than imposter syndrome, which I feel is more common in the UK. I note there is some variation in the literature they cite so either choice is acceptable. However, if “imposter phenomenon” is to be used I think it should have the definite article i.e. “the imposter phenomenon”. The authors might also consider “imposter phenomena” as there are different factors involved that together might comprise a syndrome.

We have included an explanation for our choice of imposter phenomenon over imposter syndrome. We have included in text:

“The wording ’imposter phenomenon’ over ‘imposter syndrome’ as the use of syndrome is seen to medicalize the experience and make it seem like an uncommon phenomenon.”

 

 

The inclusion of the material used in the intervention in the additional material supplies a useful resource for university teachers wishing to tray such an intervention for themselves.

Reviewer 2

This is a very interesting paper. It was very comprehensive. However, it was too long for my taste. I would have preferred a more succinct paper in which the complete details could be found in an addendum or a website that would be active for many years. That is a decision that the editor must make.

Both reviewers correctly highlighted that the paper could have been more concise. We have removed around 10% of the text to try to help with this issue. This has involved combining sections and shortening the less relevant paragraphs of the paper.

 

The Abstract uses the word “imposter phenomenon” many times. As many readers and search engines only read the abstract, that concept should be briefly defined in the abstract to aid in their understanding of the paper

To make this clear we have moved our definition to the abstract.

 

The paper includes a control group to define concepts. However, students have friends in the other group with whom they communicate freely. How do the authors account for this fact? Actions taken by individuals in one group can influence their peers. That comment should be addressed in the paper

Our paper does not include a control group. We think this confusion may have arisen as the intervention from which we have drawn our concepts from did have a control group. We believe this was not fully clear in the previous draft. As such, we have now reworded the headings and structure of the paper to make this clearer.

 

Since the authors have observed a change over many years, observing the students more frequently might be better.

This refers to the Walton & Cohen study prior to this paper that already demonstrated change over many years. Our paper reports the design and introduction of a new intervention based upon this early study. We have made this clearer in the text.

 

Conducting in separate environments would remove peers' influence. However, since the environments differ, other factors must be considered. Another way would be to conduct the study with different class yea

 

We have now included these suggestions as future research possibilities:

“Further research may also wish to see how the imposter phenomenon varies depending on the academic context. For example, investigating whether students’ experience of imposter phenomenon changes with time or over the course of their studies could be interesting in terms of how imposter phenomenon affects students in higher education.”

 

I am skeptical of how one short intervention can change.

A single intervention is unlikely to alleviate all issues regarding student imposter feelings. We have now reflected this in the text:

“We do not expect that this intervention alone should be the only measure to address student impostor phenomenon but rather is one step of many that could be taken to help alleviate the challenges associated with the imposter phenomenon.”

 

We would like to thank the reviewers again for their helpful comments and are happy to address any further comments the reviewers may have.

 

Kind regards,

Corresponding author of education-3493713,