Needs Analysis of a PhD Program Concatenated with a Professional Master’s in Landscape and Rural Tourism in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article is relevant, but would benefit from theoretical adjustments. The legal and academic analysis of higher education regulations is well contextualized within the Mexican and international landscape. The article emphasizes an epistemologically relevant approach. The methodological analysis carried out is robust and has a broad analysis matrix, whose procedures are described in detail.    However, it is important to present a literature review and theoretical framework on needs analysis. This is a topic with extensive literature and research, namely on needs analysis for curriculum design and development.  The conclusions can be improved and deepened to be more robust, emphasising the articulation of the results with existing literature and research, as well as the implications of the study.

Author Response

REVIEWER #1 CHECKLIST:

“The article is relevant, but would benefit from theoretical adjustments. The legal and academic analysis of higher education regulations is well contextualized within the Mexican and international landscape. The article emphasizes an epistemologically relevant approach. The methodological analysis carried out is robust and has a broad analysis matrix, whose procedures are described in detail.    However, it is important to present a literature review and theoretical framework on needs analysis. This is a topic with extensive literature and research, namely on needs analysis for curriculum design and development.  The conclusions can be improved and deepened to be more robust, emphasizing the articulation of the results with existing literature and research, as well as the implications of the study.”

1 However, it is important to present a literature review and theoretical framework on needs analysis.

R: A theoretical framework on needs analysis was added, citing relevant authors such as Witkin & Altschuld (1995), Kaufman & Guerra-López (2013), and others. The section adequately integrates theories such as organizational contingency theory and sociological neo-institutionalism.

 

1.6. Theoretical Framework for Needs Analysis

Needs analysis constitutes a fundamental systematic process for curriculum design and educational innovation. It was defined as a process to determine the gap between current and desired results, placing these discrepancies in order of priority, a definition consistent with the conceptualization presented by Romero (2006). In the field of curriculum design, Witkin & Altschuld (1995) proposed a three-phase model: pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment. It’s clear that curricular needs analysis provides the rational and empirical justification for decisions about what should be taught.

Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) provided a conceptual framework for understanding institutional adaptation to changes in the environment. This classical organizational theory maintains that organizations must face different conditions in their environments, and these differences lead to the development of differentiated organizational attributes. Donaldson (2001) argued that changes in contingent factors create a mismatch that leads to lower performance, generating the need for organizational adaptation.

In the specific domain of curriculum design, a robust needs analysis framework is essential. Kaufman and Guerra-López (2013) proposed a comprehensive model that distinguishes between "needs assessment" (identifying gaps) and "needs analysis" (examining causes and solutions). This approach aligns with our methodology, which first identifies gaps in the educational offer and then proposes solutions through curricular design. Similarly, Watkins, West Meiers, and Visser (2012) emphasize the importance of multiple levels of analysis—from individual competencies to organizational and societal demands—which we incorporate by examining both institutional capacities and broader national priorities.

 

 

 

 

For postgraduate education specifically, González-Arrieta et al. (2020) argue that needs analysis for doctoral programs should balance academic rigor with professional relevance, particularly in applied fields. Their model proposes incorporating stakeholder perspectives throughout the design process, an approach that matches our emphasis on connecting academic training with productive sector needs. Additionally, the framework developed by Nusche (2008), for OECD educational evaluations, empha-sized that postgraduate program design should respond to labor market signals while maintaining theoretical depth, a balance we seek in our proposal.

Sociological neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) emphasized that organizations adopt certain structures not only for technical efficiency but also to gain legitimacy. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified three mechanisms of institutional isomorphism: coercive, mimetic, and normative. In the case of CP, new regulatory provisions exert coercive pressure that drives structural changes in its programs. As Meyer and Rowan (1977) noted: “Organizations that incorporate institutionalized practices in society increase their legitimacy and survival prospects” (p. 340). Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012) have expanded this perspective with the theory of institutional logics, which “provides a framework for analyzing the interrelationships between individuals, organizations, and society” (p. 2).  L. 194- 224.

2. A literature review on needs analysis was added.

R: The article incorporates some references on needs analysis in curriculum design, highlighting Kaufman & Guerra-López (2013), Watkins et al. (2012), González-Arrieta et al. (2020) and Nusche (2008).  L. 208-224.

3 The conclusions can be improved and deepened to be more robust, emphasizing the articulation of the results with existing literature and research, as well as the implications of the study.

R: The conclusions have been appropriately structured and maintain a specific paragraph that articulates the findings with the emerging literature on postgraduate education reform, mentioning several of the authors included in the theoretical framework. L. 1010-1032.

4 The implications of the study were included.

R: The section on "practical implications" is maintained, which analyzes how the proposed model can address broader challenges in Mexican higher education. L. 1019-1032.

 

REVIEWER #1 CHECKLIST:

“The article is relevant, but would benefit from theoretical adjustments. The legal and academic analysis of higher education regulations is well contextualized within the Mexican and international landscape. The article emphasizes an epistemologically relevant approach. The methodological analysis carried out is robust and has a broad analysis matrix, whose procedures are described in detail.    However, it is important to present a literature review and theoretical framework on needs analysis. This is a topic with extensive literature and research, namely on needs analysis for curriculum design and development.  The conclusions can be improved and deepened to be more robust, emphasizing the articulation of the results with existing literature and research, as well as the implications of the study.”

1 However, it is important to present a literature review and theoretical framework on needs analysis.

R: A theoretical framework on needs analysis was added, citing relevant authors such as Witkin & Altschuld (1995), Kaufman & Guerra-López (2013), and others. The section adequately integrates theories such as organizational contingency theory and sociological neo-institutionalism.

 

1.6. Theoretical Framework for Needs Analysis

Needs analysis constitutes a fundamental systematic process for curriculum design and educational innovation. It was defined as a process to determine the gap between current and desired results, placing these discrepancies in order of priority, a definition consistent with the conceptualization presented by Romero (2006). In the field of curriculum design, Witkin & Altschuld (1995) proposed a three-phase model: pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment. It’s clear that curricular needs analysis provides the rational and empirical justification for decisions about what should be taught.

Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) provided a conceptual framework for understanding institutional adaptation to changes in the environment. This classical organizational theory maintains that organizations must face different conditions in their environments, and these differences lead to the development of differentiated organizational attributes. Donaldson (2001) argued that changes in contingent factors create a mismatch that leads to lower performance, generating the need for organizational adaptation.

In the specific domain of curriculum design, a robust needs analysis framework is essential. Kaufman and Guerra-López (2013) proposed a comprehensive model that distinguishes between "needs assessment" (identifying gaps) and "needs analysis" (examining causes and solutions). This approach aligns with our methodology, which first identifies gaps in the educational offer and then proposes solutions through curricular design. Similarly, Watkins, West Meiers, and Visser (2012) emphasize the importance of multiple levels of analysis—from individual competencies to organizational and societal demands—which we incorporate by examining both institutional capacities and broader national priorities.

 

 

 

 

For postgraduate education specifically, González-Arrieta et al. (2020) argue that needs analysis for doctoral programs should balance academic rigor with professional relevance, particularly in applied fields. Their model proposes incorporating stakeholder perspectives throughout the design process, an approach that matches our emphasis on connecting academic training with productive sector needs. Additionally, the framework developed by Nusche (2008), for OECD educational evaluations, empha-sized that postgraduate program design should respond to labor market signals while maintaining theoretical depth, a balance we seek in our proposal.

Sociological neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) emphasized that organizations adopt certain structures not only for technical efficiency but also to gain legitimacy. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified three mechanisms of institutional isomorphism: coercive, mimetic, and normative. In the case of CP, new regulatory provisions exert coercive pressure that drives structural changes in its programs. As Meyer and Rowan (1977) noted: “Organizations that incorporate institutionalized practices in society increase their legitimacy and survival prospects” (p. 340). Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012) have expanded this perspective with the theory of institutional logics, which “provides a framework for analyzing the interrelationships between individuals, organizations, and society” (p. 2).  L. 194- 224.

2. A literature review on needs analysis was added.

R: The article incorporates some references on needs analysis in curriculum design, highlighting Kaufman & Guerra-López (2013), Watkins et al. (2012), González-Arrieta et al. (2020) and Nusche (2008).  L. 208-224.

3 The conclusions can be improved and deepened to be more robust, emphasizing the articulation of the results with existing literature and research, as well as the implications of the study.

R: The conclusions have been appropriately structured and maintain a specific paragraph that articulates the findings with the emerging literature on postgraduate education reform, mentioning several of the authors included in the theoretical framework. L. 1010-1032.

4 The implications of the study were included.

R: The section on "practical implications" is maintained, which analyzes how the proposed model can address broader challenges in Mexican higher education. L. 1019-1032.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper the authors present a qualitative study - a needs analysis to assess the feasibility of creating a PhD in Sciences concatenated with the Professional Master's in Landscape and Rural Tourism, based on documentary review, mapping of academic offerings at the national and international levels, and the identification of trends in postgraduate education in related field.

This research contibutes to establishing the foundations for developing a PhD Program concatenated with a professional master's in landscape and rural tourism in Mexico.

I think that the empirical part of this paper is complete and results well documented. 

Several issues need to be addressed:

• You mention that Colegio de Postgraduados could adapt to recent political changes and the deep institutional transformations currently underway. I think you should write more about these changes in society and how they interact with the Colegio de Postgraduados in the introduction.
• You should add theory about some education paradigms that align with a higher education when you write about needed changes. You should also write more about neoliberalism and Fourth Transformation (4T) with a reference to theory. I would also suggest that you add theory in the part of National Postgraduate system reconfiguration when you write about curricula.
• I would suggest that you add more theory and references to some similar research in the intoduction part of the article and that in the end of this part of the article, just before materials and methods, you write the aim of your study, with the research questions, along with this part of the article: "This methodological study examines how the Colegio de Postgraduados (CP), a key  institution in higher agricultural education in Mexico, could adapt to recent political  changes and the deep institutional transformations currently underway..."
• I think you should write more about Rodríguez (2022) study because you write only about the recommendations of this paper. According with what you have written it seems that this study is of a sigificance to your research so it should be more described. I would also suggest that you find more studys alike this one, so you can incorporate it to you theoretical part of the research and the discussion.
• I would also suggest that in the introduction part you go from wider to the narrower - that you first write about  legislative framework for higher educatioan and National postgraduate system reconfiguration and only after that you mention the specific university and programme. I would also suggest that you use less subtitles in the introduction part, because some of them are really short.
• The aim of the study should be stated more clearly, following the research questions. you stated: "the objective of carrying out a needs analysis for a PhD in Sciences concatenated with the Professional master’s in landscape and Rural Tourism (MPPTR).", but the need analysis is a methodological procedure with which you collect data to get the answer to the aim of the study and research questions.
• The need analysis is well described, but when you list the key elements of the analysis there is no reference of the literature you got it from.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2 CHECKLIST: 

“Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled "Needs Analysis of a PhD Program Concatenated with a Professional Master’s in Landscape and Rural Tourism in Mexico." Your work addresses a relevant topic within the field of graduate education and presents a thoughtful curricular proposal. However, I would like to offer several observations and suggestions to strengthen the clarity, objectivity, and academic rigor of the manuscript.”

 

1 The abstract would benefit from greater precision regarding the methodology. For instance, it would be helpful to specify the type of documentary analysis used and how many programs were included in the mapping process.

R: The summary specifies that 24 doctoral programs were analyzed: 8 from Mexico, 8 from Latin America, and 8 from North America/Europe. L. 7-9.

 

2 Briefly summarizing key findings from the international comparison would also enhance the abstract’s informative value.

R: Summary key findings from the international comparison were added in the abstract. L. 9-14.

 

3 Throughout the manuscript, the language occasionally adopts a political tone, with references to the “4T,” “social justice,” and the “post-neoliberal model.” While context is important, I recommend adopting a more neutral and academic tone to ensure objectivity and broader acceptance among international readers.

R:  We accepted the recommendation to eliminate 4T, and other terms that may cause political issues.  L. 45, 70, 111 and in abbreviation table.

4 In the introduction, explicitly stating a research question or hypothesis would help guide the narrative and clarify the study’s purpose.

R: The research question was stated in the introduction: What are the needs in curricular structure and content a PhD program concatenated to MPPTR should have, in order to address the current gaps in advanced training in rural landscape management, and rural tourism within the contemporary Mexican higher education framework? This question guides the needs analysis, and the subsequent curricular proposal, considering both national priorities and international educational trends. L. 75-79.

 

5 Regarding the methodology, the mapping and selection process for analyzed programs needs further explanation. What selection criteria were applied? How many programs were excluded? Additionally, the rationale for choosing specific countries for the comparative analysis should be clearly justified.

R: Section 2.2 details the inclusion criteria, the selection process, and the reasons for choosing the specific countries, including information on the sample distribution.  L. 266-297.

 

6 For the curricular proposal, I suggest including a tentative study plan outlining the structure by semester, proposed subjects, duration, and types of academic activities. This would provide a clearer view of the program’s feasibility and internal coherence.

R: Section 3.6 "Curricular Proposal for the Concatenated PhD" describes in detailing the complete structure of the program by semester, including courses, credits, and pedagogical approach.  L. 915-974.

 

7 In the conclusions, there is some repetition of ideas from earlier sections. It would be more effective to highlight only the key findings and unique contributions of the proposal.

R: The conclusions was structured to avoid repetition and highlight the most relevant contributions of the study. L.1010-1032.

 

8 A brief discussion of the study’s limitations and suggestions for future steps—such as external validation or consultation with relevant stakeholders—would further enrich this section. It was added L. 209-214

R: Section 4.1 "Limitations and Future Directions" was added, which addresses the limitations of the study and suggests directions for future research. L. 1039-1055.

 

9 Finally, although the manuscript is purposeful and well-informed, some parts are overly descriptive and could benefit from a more concise and focused style. Streamlining the content would significantly improve the manuscript’s overall readability.

R: The manuscript was reviewed to make it concise and focused, especially in sections such as the summary, introduction, and conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled "Needs Analysis of a PhD Program Concatenated with a Professional Master’s in Landscape and Rural Tourism in Mexico." Your work addresses a relevant topic within the field of graduate education and presents a thoughtful curricular proposal. However, I would like to offer several observations and suggestions to strengthen the clarity, objectivity, and academic rigor of the manuscript.

The abstract would benefit from greater precision regarding the methodology. For instance, it would be helpful to specify the type of documentary analysis used and how many programs were included in the mapping process. Briefly summarizing key findings from the international comparison would also enhance the abstract’s informative value.

Throughout the manuscript, the language occasionally adopts a political tone, with references to the “4T,” “social justice,” and the “post-neoliberal model.” While context is important, I recommend adopting a more neutral and academic tone to ensure objectivity and broader acceptance among international readers.

In the introduction, explicitly stating a research question or hypothesis would help guide the narrative and clarify the study’s purpose.

Regarding the methodology, the mapping and selection process for analyzed programs needs further explanation. What selection criteria were applied? How many programs were excluded? Additionally, the rationale for choosing specific countries for the comparative analysis should be clearly justified.

For the curricular proposal, I suggest including a tentative study plan outlining the structure by semester, proposed subjects, duration, and types of academic activities. This would provide a clearer view of the program’s feasibility and internal coherence.

In the conclusions, there is some repetition of ideas from earlier sections. It would be more effective to highlight only the key findings and unique contributions of the proposal. A brief discussion of the study’s limitations and suggestions for future steps—such as external validation or consultation with relevant stakeholders—would further enrich this section.

Finally, although the manuscript is purposeful and well-informed, some parts are overly descriptive and could benefit from a more concise and focused style. Streamlining the content would significantly improve the manuscript’s overall readability.

Thank you again for your submission. I hope these comments prove useful in strengthening your valuable contribution.

Author Response

please see attachment

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf