Game Changing: Incorporating Technology into Social Work Research for Social Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract 
Your abstract is well-structured and effectively conveys the purpose and scope of the research. However, I have a few suggestions for clarity, focus, and flow.
1.    The original abstract is clear in its purpose but can benefit from a sharper focus. The "grand challenge" concept is introduced early, but it might be more effective to directly emphasize the lack of resources and the novelty of your contribution. This helps streamline the reader's understanding of the paper’s objective.
2.    Words like "on the rise," "increasingly relevant," and "began to realize" are a bit vague and could be made more precise to convey urgency and specificity.
3.    You mention the target audience ("emerging adults in college settings"), but a little more emphasis on this group’s unique characteristics (e.g., their tech-savviness, need for accessible, engaging learning tools) could help further clarify why this approach is particularly relevant for them.

Content 
Overall, the article presents a thoughtful and innovative exploration of the development process for a video game aimed at gender-based violence prevention, successfully bridging social work and technology. The detailed documentation of each phase—from team formation to narrative creation and feasibility testing—offers valuable insight for academics and practitioners seeking to engage in similar interdisciplinary projects. However, the section detailing the development process would benefit from more concise language and clearer segmentation of steps to improve readability and replication. Future iterations could also enhance the depth of reflection on challenges faced during development and how they were navigated, which would provide richer guidance for others embarking on educational game design in academic contexts.

Conclusion
The conclusion is well-argued but could be even stronger with a brief summary of key outcomes from the feasibility study (e.g., “students found the game more engaging than existing programming,” etc.) to tie the developmental narrative to specific findings. A sentence or two would suffice and reinforce the credibility of the conclusions drawn.

The article is a well-researched and original contribution to scholarship, with potential to inspire further research and practical applications in the field. A bit more clarity and refinement in language could enhance its accessibility, but the overall merit is very strong.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English 
the English is already strong, with only minor improvements, simplifying some sentences and ensuring that transitions between sections are clear could enhance readability and coherence. A few sentences are long and could be broken up for easier comprehension. Also, there are a couple of places where punctuation (e.g., commas) could help break up ideas and improve readability. 
For example "The first author led the collaborative effort by utilizing team members in a consulting capacity to respect their individual research agendas, and additionally, the author engaged in training for interdisciplinary team leadership, fostering an environment where each member felt comfortable contributing their expertise throughout the project's various phases."
Issues:
•    Too many ideas packed into one sentence (long and dense)
•    The flow feels heavy and complex
"Focus groups were particularly effective in this context because they fostered open dialogue, students were asked questions like, 'Imagine you are with someone you just met in your room and you want to have sex with them. Describe what that process is like for you?'"
Issues:
•    This sentence runs together without a clear pause or separation between the two major clauses
•    There's a comma splice (two independent clauses joined incorrectly by a comma)

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Your abstract is well-structured and effectively conveys the purpose and scope of the research. However, I have a few suggestions for clarity, focus, and flow.

Thank you for the kind words about the abstract.

The original abstract is clear in its purpose but can benefit from a sharper focus. The "grand challenge" concept is introduced early, but it might be more effective to directly emphasize the lack of resources and the novelty of your contribution. This helps streamline the reader's understanding of the paper’s objective.

The abstract was changed to emphasize the innovation of the paper rather than the specific grand challenge in Social Work. It was changed to the following below:

Words like "on the rise," "increasingly relevant," and "began to realize" are a bit vague and could be made more precise to convey urgency and specificity.

During the revision of the abstract, those phrases were eliminated.

You mention the target audience ("emerging adults in college settings"), but a little more emphasis on this group’s unique characteristics (e.g., their tech-savviness, need for accessible, engaging learning tools) could help further clarify why this approach is particularly relevant for them.

Thank you for the suggestion. Language was added in the abstract to clarify why we are targeting emerging adults using some of the suggestions provided by the reviewer. The revised abstract is below:

In the digital era, technology is being utilized for educational purposes and interventions.  There are several known applications of technology. However, social sciences, in particular, have been slow to adopt technologies for interventions that address behavioral or attitudinal change; or for prevention educational tools. In addition, for those who want to integrate technology into current programming or develop technology to address a problem, there are no resources on how to engage in the integration or development process. Because of this lack of guidance, there is an  untapped potential of technology to make information and resources more accessible. This paper seeks to address this gap by documenting the development process of a video game that was created to address the issue of gender-based violence among college students. Specifically, it focuses on the design and piloting of a narrative-based game centered on beliefs and behaviors related to gender-based violence. The aim is to offer an alternative approach to existing prevention programs, particularly targeting emerging adults in college settings due to their prolific and preference for the use of technology, the high rates of sexual and dating violence on college campuses, and their need for more engaging gender-based violence prevention education strategies. Additionally, this paper intends to contribute to ongoing dialogue and efforts related to the creation and integration of technology in helping professions.

 

Content 
Overall, the article presents a thoughtful and innovative exploration of the development process for a video game aimed at gender-based violence prevention, successfully bridging social work and technology. The detailed documentation of each phase—from team formation to narrative creation and feasibility testing—offers valuable insight for academics and practitioners seeking to engage in similar interdisciplinary projects. However, the section detailing the development process would benefit from more concise language and clearer segmentation of steps to improve readability and replication.

The development process section was revised to provide clarity on the steps that were taken during development.

Future iterations could also enhance the depth of reflection on challenges faced during development and how they were navigated, which would provide richer guidance for others embarking on educational game design in academic contexts.

A challenges and barriers section was added to the document prior to the conclusion to discuss those challenges faced during the development process.

Conclusion
The conclusion is well-argued but could be even stronger with a brief summary of key outcomes from the feasibility study (e.g., “students found the game more engaging than existing programming,” etc.) to tie the developmental narrative to specific findings. A sentence or two would suffice and reinforce the credibility of the conclusions drawn.

Key outcomes were added to the conclusion to tie the developmental narrative to specific findings.

The article is a well-researched and original contribution to scholarship, with potential to inspire further research and practical applications in the field. A bit more clarity and refinement in language could enhance its accessibility, but the overall merit is very strong.

Thank you for the feedback. I read through the entire manuscript to make sure the language was clear and ideas were clearly communicated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a case study describing the development of a digital game designed to prevent gender-based violence (GBV) among college students that could potentially be used in the field of social work to impact this important topic.

While the topic is socially significant and the case study is interesting, this reviewer believes that manuscript needs major revisions for it to be a strong article for publication.

Overall, this reviewer found it very confusing that the manuscript starts off with a narrative of the development process for the game that was developed in the Bickman, 2008 paper and then abruptly transitions into present day with the work that was done by the submitting author and team on page 4. The cohesion between the prior case-study and the present-day game development is not strong.

Additionally, the manuscript solely relies on a narrative style format to present both the Bickman case study and the current study that the submitting author and team conducted. There is opportunity to include both quantitative and qualitative data in this manuscript to strengthen it. For example, simply including the number of interviews and focus groups could add some more relevant specifics to the manuscript and not have it solely rely on a narrative format. Some of the themes from the interviews could also be included and then connected.

How many participants completed an initial survey, played the game, participated in an interview, and then took a follow-up survey for the mixed methods study that was mentioned? Percentages or another quantifiable data point could be included for responses to the pre and post survey questions instead of just saying “a significant number of participants…”. These would all be simple but important information that could be included that could strengthen the manuscript.

This reviewer would have liked to know more details about the current game in the case study and then the discussion section could use the author and co-authors’ experience to explain how this might be expanded to provide a framework for others in the field of social work. To strengthen the manuscript, less focus should be on the Bickman case study.

On page 3, it is mentioned that there is a gap in current research. The claim of a "gap" should be supported with more specific examples or citations, perhaps looking in other fields like implementation science or serious game design would help bolster this section so you compare what other fields have and what the social work field lacks. A review of more literature in serious game design would yield some similar results of the development process that are presented as novel in this manuscript.

On page 2, it was mentioned how other GBV games have been “proven effective” additional evidence is needed to illustrate this claim.

On page 5 and page 6 the manuscript mentions that IRB approval was obtained for different parts of the study, but then on page 7 for the Ethical Considerations and Consent to Participate sections, answers are reflected that seem to only be relevant to the initial case study highlighted in the beginning of the manuscript.

The conclusion section switches from being written in third person to being written in first person at the end.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This manuscript presents a case study describing the development of a digital game designed to prevent gender-based violence (GBV) among college students that could potentially be used in the field of social work to impact this important topic.

Thank you for this positive feedback about the manuscript.

While the topic is socially significant and the case study is interesting, this reviewer believes that manuscript needs major revisions for it to be a strong article for publication.

Overall, this reviewer found it very confusing that the manuscript starts off with a narrative of the development process for the game that was developed in the Bickman, 2008 paper and then abruptly transitions into present day with the work that was done by the submitting author and team on page 4. The cohesion between the prior case-study and the present-day game development is not strong.

Thank you for this feedback. Bickman is the reference that describes how to do a descriptive case study. It is simply a citation but the study is not described in this paper. Because of this confusion, I added context to the manuscript. The following is the corrected statement:

Using the model developed by Bickman (2008),  the current descriptive case study  seeks to fill a gap in the literature by providing a detailed description of a technology development process.

Additionally, the manuscript solely relies on a narrative style format to present both the Bickman case study and the current study that the submitting author and team conducted. There is opportunity to include both quantitative and qualitative data in this manuscript to strengthen it. For example, simply including the number of interviews and focus groups could add some more relevant specifics to the manuscript and not have it solely rely on a narrative format. Some of the themes from the interviews could also be included and then connected.

More information about the studies were added when discussing the development of game stories and the feasibility study. A paragraph was also added to discuss some of the results of the mixed methods study to gather data for the narratives. This paragraph was also added in the development of game stories section.

How many participants completed an initial survey, played the game, participated in an interview, and then took a follow-up survey for the mixed methods study that was mentioned? Percentages or another quantifiable data point could be included for responses to the pre and post survey questions instead of just saying “a significant number of participants…”. These would all be simple but important information that could be included that could strengthen the manuscript.

More quantitative data was added to the development of game stories and feasibility study sections to provide more information about the execution of the two mixed methods studies. As far as any survey changes, there were not any significant changes from pre-to post amongst the participants in either study. Researchers posited that those who participated in the focus groups (which were the only people who completed the post test) did not have problematic views to begin with so there was no statistically significant changes in the rape myth acceptance or gender norms scales.

This reviewer would have liked to know more details about the current game in the case study and then the discussion section could use the author and co-authors’ experience to explain how this might be expanded to provide a framework for others in the field of social work. To strengthen the manuscript, less focus should be on the Bickman case study.

The basics of the game are described in the videogame design section.

On page 3, it is mentioned that there is a gap in current research. The claim of a "gap" should be supported with more specific examples or citations, perhaps looking in other fields like implementation science or serious game design would help bolster this section so you compare what other fields have and what the social work field lacks. A review of more literature in serious game design would yield some similar results of the development process that are presented as novel in this manuscript.

Thank you for the feedback. I am not sure how to address this particular issue. I state in the manuscript on page 3 that the gap is specifically in a framework for how to develop games for the purposes of behavioral/attitudinal change in social work and the social sciences; and not necessarily that games or game development are missing from the literature. There are plenty of games and smartphone apps used in other fields. But if there is a lack of literature addressing how to develop these technologies in the social sciences, there is nothing to cite. Any further guidance would be helpful.

On page 2, it was mentioned how other GBV games have been “proven effective” additional evidence is needed to illustrate this claim.

There are two examples of technologies that have been proven effective along with the citations that discuss their effectiveness.

On page 5 and page 6 the manuscript mentions that IRB approval was obtained for different parts of the study, but then on page 7 for the Ethical Considerations and Consent to Participate sections, answers are reflected that seem to only be relevant to the initial case study highlighted in the beginning of the manuscript.

I read through the manuscript and made sure that I indicated that all studies were IRB approved. In addition, IRB approval was not needed to write this particular manuscript because all of the work had been completed in IRB approved studies. This manuscript was only a reporting of what had already been done.

The conclusion section switches from being written in third person to being written in first person at the end.

This was corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version of the manuscript has been significantly improved, but in it's current state there are still some additional revisions that need to happen.

Thank you for providing more details on the great work that was done over the course of five years for the intervention. It has provided clarity to the manuscript.

Some areas for improvement are:

• The author states that the main purpose of the paper is to serve as a development model for developing interventions in the social work field. However, in the discussion section the author never returns to tying the game's development back into the social work field specifically.
• The challenges and barriers section needs major revisions, as it provides many additional details that take away from the objective tone of the article. For example, the writing of the narratives could be reframed in a different way as to not highlight that difficulty with English was the reason.
• "Step 2" is missing from the article.
• Would like some information of specifically what from the model by Bickman, 2008 was used in the development of the game. It's a little confusing how that was used as a model for game development but the author asserts that a detailed description of the technology development process is lacking.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

At different points in the article, the author switches between third person and first person. Using third person throughout will establish a more objective tone for the article. 

Also, there are inclusions of a lot of subjective phrases in the article. These should be removed so that the article maintains a more objective and neutral tone. For example "enthusiastically" was used in the article. This should be removed so that the findings are presented in a neutral manner and speak for themselves.

Also there are parts of the article that are written in a more informal manner that do not align with the concise, objective and analytical tone of peer-reviewed articles. An example of this is on page 4 "while searching the gender studies department..." Please reframe areas in the paper that are more informal and subjective with sentence structure and details provided.

The term "the author" or "the first author" can be removed throughout the article to provide additional clarity and brevity when describing all of the steps in the development process.

Author Response

This version of the manuscript has been significantly improved, but in it's current state there are still some additional revisions that need to happen.

Thank you for providing more details on the great work that was done over the course of five years for the intervention. It has provided clarity to the manuscript.

Thank you for this positive feedback.

Some areas for improvement are:

The author states that the main purpose of the paper is to serve as a development model for developing interventions in the social work field. However, in the discussion section the author never returns to tying the game's development back into the social work field specifically.

Some was added to the conclusion to tie the manuscript back to social work. What is below was added:

During the feasibility study, participants said that the game was more impactful than other online tools and it encouraged a nuanced discussion around sexual assault and consent. Technology can be an effective tool for change. Social work, as a profession, has a unique opportunity to use technology to facilitate behavioral and attitudinal change. This is a particular case of how entertainment and education can intersect to provide an engaging and immersive learning opportunity that promotes active learning. This manuscript also provides a roadmap to follow in order to harness technology for social good; now those who wish to work towards that grand challenge will have some step by step guidance on technology development.

The challenges and barriers section needs major revisions, as it provides many additional details that take away from the objective tone of the article. For example, the writing of the narratives could be reframed in a different way as to not highlight that difficulty with English was the reason.

Thank you for this feedback. I read through the challenges and barriers and made sure third person language was used throughout. I also read through for the sake of clarity.

"Step 2" is missing from the article.

The numbering in the article was fixed.

Would like some information of specifically what from the model by Bickman, 2008 was used in the development of the game. It's a little confusing how that was used as a model for game development but the author asserts that a detailed description of the technology development process is lacking.

Language was added to the manuscript to indicate that Bickman is a simple model for completing a case study not developing technology. The following below was added for clarification.

Using the case study model developed by Bickman (2008), the current descriptive case study  seeks to fill a gap in the literature by providing a detailed description of a technology development process. Each of the steps of his process were followed including: 1) defining and selecting a case(s) for a case study 2) Using multiple cases as part of the case study 3) strengthening the evidence used in a case study and 4 )Analyzing case study evidence.  Because this is not a traditional case study, the flexibility and simplicity of these steps were a good guide for completing the work.