Graduate Student Engagement and Digital Governance in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The focus on digital governance in higher education is timely, particularly in light of accelerated digitalisation post-pandemic and the impact this has on experiences of postgraduate students. The emphasis on postgraduate student perspectives adds a novel dimension, as much existing literature centres on faculty or administrative viewpoints, or those of undergraduates.

Methodologically there appear to be some issues with this work though. The paper claims to adopt a phenomenological approach, citing Patton and Yıldırım & Şimşek, but this appears to be mostly decorative. There appears to be no philosophical grounding (e.g., no mention of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, or even van Manen), which implies that the conceptual commitment to phenomenology is superficial. The study uses semi-structured interviews, which are ofcourse appropriate for phenomenological work. However, there's no evidence that the interviews delved into the texture or essence of the students' experiences. Instead, the questions read more like opinion polling (“Do you think universities are sufficient?”), which is inappropriate for phenomenological research.

The authors mention coding, categorisation, and theme development. However, there's no evidence of concepts important to phenomenology such as phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, or bracketing. The analysis merely quantifies codes (how many people said X), which betrays the spirit of phenomenology entirely. There is no mention of the researchers' positionality, no reflexive statement, and no discussion of how their assumptions were managed. This is inexcusable in a phenomenological study, where the researcher is deeply implicated in interpreting lived experience. Simply put, this does not appear to be a phenomenological study. Instead, this paper reads more like a thematic analysis or qualitative descriptive analysis paper. There is nothing wrong with either of these approaches at all, but if this is the case, then own the methodology, rather than masking it with something else.

The methodological issues are a shame, as I think this research could make a genuine contribution to postgraduate students' experiences in their institutions. Perhaps reframing this as a qualitative descriptive study would put more focus on the actual arguments and contributions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some improvements in the text can be made, but generally the use of English is fine.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Reviewer Comment 1:

“The paper claims to adopt a phenomenological approach, citing Patton and Yıldırım & Şimşek, but this appears to be mostly decorative. There appears to be no philosophical grounding (e.g., no mention of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, or even van Manen), which implies that the conceptual commitment to phenomenology is superficial.”

Response:

Thank you. As you rightly pointed out, the previous version of the study referred to a phenomenological approach without grounding it in its philosophical foundations. Therefore, we have revised the methodology section and decided to withdraw the phenomenological claim. The actual aim of the study is to descriptively present students’ experiences related to digital governance. Accordingly, the methodological framework has been restructured as a qualitative descriptive study. With this change, theoretical coherence has been achieved, and the issue of lacking philosophical background has been resolved.

Reviewer Comment 2:

“The study uses semi-structured interviews, which are of course appropriate for phenomenological work. However, there's no evidence that the interviews delved into the texture or essence of the students' experiences. Instead, the questions read more like opinion polling (“Do you think universities are sufficient?”), which is inappropriate for phenomenological research.”

Response:

Thank you for this comment. The nature of the interview form and questions falls short of meeting the requirements of phenomenological research design. Therefore, we have repositioned the study within the framework of qualitative descriptive analysis, where the data is treated in a descriptive yet in-depth manner. Our questions aimed to understand how students define digital governance and perceive its implementation in universities, rather than to explore the essence of their lived experiences. This aligns more closely with a descriptive rather than phenomenological approach. Hence, this mismatch has been corrected through a methodological reframing.

Reviewer Comment 3:

“The authors mention coding, categorisation, and theme development. However, there's no evidence of concepts important to phenomenology such as phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, or bracketing. The analysis merely quantifies codes (how many people said X), which betrays the spirit of phenomenology entirely.”

Response:

Thank you for this accurate observation. The coding and analysis process did not include core phenomenological concepts such as epoche, imaginative variation, or bracketing. However, the analytical process of the study aligns with the qualitative descriptive analysis approach. Codes were inductively derived from participant statements, grouped into categories, and themes were developed from these categories. The findings were enriched with direct quotations and frequency data based on participants' expressions. This technique increases validity in descriptive analysis. Therefore, the claim of phenomenological analysis has been withdrawn, and qualitative content and descriptive analysis have been explicitly stated as the chosen method.

Reviewer Comment 4:

“There is no mention of the researchers' positionality, no reflexive statement, and no discussion of how their assumptions were managed. This is inexcusable in a phenomenological study, where the researcher is deeply implicated in interpreting lived experience.”

Response:

Thank you for your warning. We acknowledge this important deficiency. However, since the study is no longer positioned within a phenomenological framework but rather within a qualitative descriptive design, expectations regarding researcher subjectivity have been reconsidered accordingly. Still, to clarify the researcher’s position, the revised methodology includes the following statement: “The researcher has no academic, administrative, or personal relationship with the institution where the study was conducted or with the participating students. This prevented biases or influence that might arise from power dynamics.” Furthermore, it is stated that open-ended questions were used during the interviews to prioritize the participants’ narratives, and that the researcher was aware of their subjectivity.

Reviewer Comment 5:

“Simply put, this does not appear to be a phenomenological study. Instead, this paper reads more like a thematic analysis or qualitative descriptive analysis paper. There is nothing wrong with either of these approaches at all, but if this is the case, then own the methodology, rather than masking it with something else.”

Response:

We find this comment very valuable. Based on your feedback, the methodology section of the study has been completely revised. In the new version, it is clearly stated that we adopted a qualitative descriptive analysis approach. Additionally, the coding process, theme development methods, and strategies to ensure trustworthiness are described in detail. Thus, the consistency between the methodological foundations and practical implementation of the study has been ensured.

 

In Conclusion:

We have carefully considered all reviewer comments and restructured the methodology section, data collection tools, and analysis process of our study accordingly.

Thank you once again for your constructive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This valuable research is vital to the field and advances the preparation of graduate students. The authors presented a strong rationale and a good methods section. No theoretical framework is present. Methods could be strengthened by a positionality statement regarding the authors' relationship or connection to the university and students. Additionally, pertaining to data analysis, the identification of codes requires further explanation. Did the authors conduct inductive analysis, without a present theoretical framework?

Author Response

Reviewer 2 – Response to Comments

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in helping us strengthen the clarity, transparency, and methodological rigor of our study. Below are our responses to each comment.

Reviewer Comment: "No theoretical framework is present."
Response:
Thank you for highlighting the absence of a theoretical framework. We appreciate this important observation and would like to clarify that this was a deliberate methodological choice aligned with the study’s aims. Rather than applying a predefined theoretical lens, the study adopts a conceptually grounded and inductive approach that prioritizes participants' lived experiences and meaning-making processes.

The primary goal was to understand how graduate students define and perceive digital governance in higher education, an area underrepresented in the literature. We intentionally refrained from constraining our interpretations within a single theoretical framework to remain faithful to students' authentic voices. We have elaborated on this rationale in the manuscript to clarify our positionality and research orientation for readers.

Reviewer Comment: "Methods could be strengthened by a positionality statement regarding the authors' relationship or connection to the university and students."
Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including a positionality statement enhances the transparency and trustworthiness of the study. In response, we have clearly explained the researcher's relationship with the research context. Specifically, the researcher is an alumna of the university where the study was conducted, but currently has no academic, administrative, or personal affiliation with the institution or its students.

This disconnection minimized the potential for power dynamics or biased influence during data collection. Furthermore, the researcher approached the study with critical self-reflection and maintained an open-ended and participant-centred interview style. We have incorporated this information into the revised manuscript to address this concern directly.

Reviewer Comment: "The identification of codes requires further explanation."
Response:
We appreciate this insightful comment and agree that a more detailed description of the coding process was needed. In response, we expanded the data analysis section to explain how the codes were derived using an inductive content analysis approach. Rather than relying on predefined codes or categories, the researchers identified meaningful units from the data and grouped them into emerging codes.

These codes were then categorized and used to develop broader themes. Two independent researchers conducted the coding process to ensure inter-coder reliability, and consensus was reached through iterative discussions. We also now report how many participants mentioned each code, thereby adding a quantitative dimension to the qualitative findings. Direct participant quotes are included to support the themes we present in tables for clarity. These additions aim to enhance the methodological transparency and depth of the analysis.

We want to thank the reviewer for their time, engagement, and helpful critique, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.