Factors Motivating Black Female Learners to Enroll in STEM Streams and Their Strategies to Cope with the Curriculum: A Qualitative Inquiry in a South African Secondary School

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Rarely do I read a manuscript without a list of questions to ask by the end. Kudos to you/your team for a well-constructed study and argument. The research questions, theoretical framework, methods, analysis, discussion/findings, implications, and limitations were explained well.

My one concern with the work is the themes. Your research questions ask for "factors" and "strategies." The themes and subthemes are understandable, however, I'm wondering if there is more. For example, "internal" versus "external" factors could be explored in the subthemes. Take for instance that employment, career, and professional growth are external "in the world," while empowerment and financial independence apply to a personal identity "internal" nature. This is not to say that the manuscript should be rewritten, but to suggest that other intricacies could be teased apart from the themes/subthemes. They could further enhance the manuscript.

Overall, this is a solid manuscript that will add to the field.

Author Response

We have included a response document to the reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the motivations of Black female learners to pursue STEM education and the strategies they use to cope with curricular challenges. While the topic is relevant and timely, the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication.

The abstract must be revised to follow the IMRD format (Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion). Currently, it is structured more as a general summary than a formal academic abstract. It does not clearly distinguish between the background, the design of the study, the key findings, and their implications. The use of signposting (e.g., “This study aimed to…”, “Using a qualitative approach…”, “Findings revealed…”, “These results suggest…”) is strongly recommended to guide the reader. This structural change would also ensure consistency with the journal’s expectations.

The introduction contains many relevant references, but it lacks a strong conceptual thread. There is a tendency to compile existing studies without offering critical insight or clearly identifying a gap in the literature. While topics such as gender stereotypes, socioeconomic barriers, and the importance of mentorship are mentioned, they are not sufficiently problematized nor explicitly linked to the research objective. Additionally, the notion of intersectionality is introduced but not developed in depth, either here or in the rest of the manuscript. This is a missed opportunity to strengthen the theoretical framing of the study.

In the research aim, it would be advisable to number the research questions explicitly (e.g., Research Question 1 (RQ1): What factors encourage female learners to enroll in STEM fields?; Research Question 2 (RQ2): What coping strategies do learners employ to manage the challenges of STEM education?). This improves clarity, facilitates reader orientation, and allows for easier referencing in later sections of the article.

The methodology needs to be expanded and clarified. While the use of a qualitative, phenomenological approach is appropriate, the manuscript lacks detail regarding the development of the interview guide, the process of data collection, and the specific steps followed during thematic analysis. It is unclear whether one or more researchers were involved in the coding, how agreement was reached on emerging themes, or whether any form of triangulation was used. The limitations of the snowball sampling technique—such as potential sample bias and limited diversity—are not discussed. In Table 1, the formatting is inconsistent and should be revised for clarity and professionalism.

In the results, while themes and subthemes are well presented, the analysis is mainly descriptive and would benefit from greater depth. The subthemes are often supported by just one or two quotations, and sometimes lack sufficient analytical elaboration. A highly recommended improvement would be the inclusion of a visual table that pairs each subtheme with a representative quotation to facilitate reading and comprehension. A good example of this can be found in:

Manzano-León, A., Rodríguez-Rivera, P., Raposo-Rivas, M. et al. (2024). Digital game-based learning for transgender identity awareness: a qualitative study in Spanish social education degree. Current Psychology, 43, 18065–18073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05556-3

In this example, each theme is paired with direct student voices, enhancing the connection between empirical material and conceptual categories. A similar structure would be highly beneficial in this manuscript to clearly present the richness of participant experiences and to ensure transparency in the analytical process.

In the discussion, the literature cited is relevant, but the section lacks conceptual depth and interpretive consistency. There is not enough engagement with the theoretical framework (resilience theory) or with the concept of intersectionality, which was mentioned earlier in the manuscript but then underused. The discussion would benefit from establishing a stronger conceptual thread that connects the empirical findings with broader debates in gender, education, and social justice. The current structure tends to reiterate descriptive content from the results section instead of developing new analytical insights. Additionally, some references are cited in a superficial way—what is needed is a more critical dialogue between the findings and the literature, which could include, for example, contrasting cases or theoretical tensions.

Finally, in the conclusions, the manuscript makes broad claims regarding empowerment, economic opportunity, and SDGs, but it lacks specificity in terms of the actual contributions of the study. The limitations are acknowledged but only briefly. The fact that interviews were conducted in English—while the participants’ first language was not English—is mentioned as a limitation, but this issue is not analyzed in detail in terms of how it might have shaped responses or limited participant expression. Similarly, the contextual limitations related to COVID-19, telephone interviews, and socioeconomic barriers deserve a more reflective and critical treatment.

Throughout the article, the writing style requires attention. Some sections are repetitive, and there are syntactic and grammatical errors. Redundancies such as “as mentioned earlier” and long, complex sentences should be revised. The manuscript would benefit from careful language editing to enhance clarity, precision, and academic tone. The reference list is extensive but needs to be checked for consistency and formatting errors.

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed comments. We found all the comments useful. 

We have included a response document addressing your suggestions and recommendations. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This study aims to explore the motivations and coping strategies of ten Black female learners enrolled in STEM subjects at a South African secondary school. Using snowball sampling, the researchers conducted one-on-one telephone interviews. Given the longstanding issue of underrepresentation of women - particularly Black women - in STEM fields, the research aim is, to some extent, meaningful and relevant. However, the study requires improvement in the following areas: the timeliness of the research, the concrete application of theoretical frameworks, and the depth of the data analysis.
2. The interviews were conducted in 2021 (4 years ago) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This context presents a unique social and educational setting that may provide temporary insight into learners’ persistence in STEM education under crisis conditions. The pandemic's constraints - such as limited learner accessibility, the use of telephone interviews, and heightened emotional stress - formed a particular backdrop. While the authors acknowledge the limitations of conducting interviews via telephone (e.g., inability to capture non-verbal cues, difficulty in probing responses), they do not fully reflect this context in their analysis or attempt to extend its educational implications. Without a more thorough interpretation of the pandemic’s influence, the generalizability and sustainability of the findings are significantly weakened. A stronger contextualization of findings is necessary.
3. The analysis of the interview data reveals largely predictable findings, closely aligned with existing literature. The reported motivations - such as the pursuit of job security, economic independence, and self-efficacy - are commonly cited in prior studies. Likewise, coping strategies such as parental support, mentoring, and tutoring are frequently discussed in sociological and educational research. The study falls short in interpretive depth, offering little theoretical insight. While participant quotes are presented extensively, the authors do not provide sufficient interpretive commentary or structure. To enhance analytical rigor, the authors should reexamine the data through a more theoretical lens, systematically organizing responses into more conceptually grounded categories.
4. Although the study claims to adopt resilience theory as a theoretical framework, the analysis does not adequately demonstrate how key components of resilience (e.g., risk factors, protective factors, adaptive processes) are reflected in the participants’ experiences. There is little evidence of data being analyzed in relation to specific elements of resilience theory, and the application appears somewhat superficial or declarative. If resilience theory is to be used meaningfully, the data must be interpreted in alignment with its key constructs.
5. The title “A Qualitative Inquiry in a South African School” is overly general and does not accurately reflect the research context. A more precise and appropriate title would be “A Qualitative Inquiry in a South African Secondary School.”
6. In summary, while the research topic is timely and relevant, the study requires substantial improvement in several aspects: the pandemic-era context (2021), the telephone interview method, the limited depth of thematic analysis, and the underdeveloped application of the chosen theoretical framework. For the study to contribute meaningfully to discussions on Black female learners’ access to and success in STEM, a deeper theoretical interpretation, stronger contextual reflection, and critical evaluation of generalizability are essential.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. This study aims to explore the motivations and coping strategies of ten Black female learners enrolled in STEM subjects at a South African secondary school. Using snowball sampling, the researchers conducted one-on-one telephone interviews. Given the longstanding issue of underrepresentation of women - particularly Black women - in STEM fields, the research aim is, to some extent, meaningful and relevant. However, the study requires improvement in the following areas: the timeliness of the research, the concrete application of theoretical frameworks, and the depth of the data analysis.
2. The interviews were conducted in 2021 (4 years ago) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This context presents a unique social and educational setting that may provide temporary insight into learners’ persistence in STEM education under crisis conditions. The pandemic's constraints - such as limited learner accessibility, the use of telephone interviews, and heightened emotional stress - formed a particular backdrop. While the authors acknowledge the limitations of conducting interviews via telephone (e.g., inability to capture non-verbal cues, difficulty in probing responses), they do not fully reflect this context in their analysis or attempt to extend its educational implications. Without a more thorough interpretation of the pandemic’s influence, the generalizability and sustainability of the findings are significantly weakened. A stronger contextualization of findings is necessary.
3. The analysis of the interview data reveals largely predictable findings, closely aligned with existing literature. The reported motivations - such as the pursuit of job security, economic independence, and self-efficacy - are commonly cited in prior studies. Likewise, coping strategies such as parental support, mentoring, and tutoring are frequently discussed in sociological and educational research. The study falls short in interpretive depth, offering little theoretical insight. While participant quotes are presented extensively, the authors do not provide sufficient interpretive commentary or structure. To enhance analytical rigor, the authors should reexamine the data through a more theoretical lens, systematically organizing responses into more conceptually grounded categories.
4. Although the study claims to adopt resilience theory as a theoretical framework, the analysis does not adequately demonstrate how key components of resilience (e.g., risk factors, protective factors, adaptive processes) are reflected in the participants’ experiences. There is little evidence of data being analyzed in relation to specific elements of resilience theory, and the application appears somewhat superficial or declarative. If resilience theory is to be used meaningfully, the data must be interpreted in alignment with its key constructs.
5. The title “A Qualitative Inquiry in a South African School” is overly general and does not accurately reflect the research context. A more precise and appropriate title would be “A Qualitative Inquiry in a South African Secondary School.”
6. In summary, while the research topic is timely and relevant, the study requires substantial improvement in several aspects: the pandemic-era context (2021), the telephone interview method, the limited depth of thematic analysis, and the underdeveloped application of the chosen theoretical framework. For the study to contribute meaningfully to discussions on Black female learners’ access to and success in STEM, a deeper theoretical interpretation, stronger contextual reflection, and critical evaluation of generalizability are essential.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and confirm that all the suggested changes have been adequately addressed. The authors have responded thoroughly and the current version meets the standards for publication. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors appear to have made a genuine effort to address the reviewers’ comments. While the revisions are not perfect, they are generally adequate, and I recommend acceptance. However, considering the overall quality of the manuscript and its contribution to the relevant field, I believe that the final decision on publication should be left to the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors appear to have made a genuine effort to address the reviewers’ comments. While the revisions are not perfect, they are generally adequate, and I recommend acceptance. However, considering the overall quality of the manuscript and its contribution to the relevant field, I believe that the final decision on publication should be left to the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.