Parent Involvement Through a Practice Theory Lens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary: The article proposes the use of practice theory as a theoretical resource to conceive of and analyze the dynamics of parental involvement, i.e., “practices and interactions taking place between school staff and parents” (p. 1, lines 30-31). In the Introduction, the paper makes a clear and effective distinction between the concepts of parent “involvement” vs “engagement”; in section n. 2 the paper provides a rich review of literature on these concepts; in section 3, the paper richly describes practice theory, outlining its relevance to the study of parent involvement dynamics and referencing important authors in the field. In section 4, the paper argues for the use of practice theory as a means to understand and analyze parent involvement dynamics. In section 5, the paper suggests more practical applications of practice theory to support effective parent involvement and improve daily school and teachers’ practices.

 

General comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper, I really enjoyed its thought-provoking theoretical contribution. I found it very relevant to the Journal as well as, more broadly, to research on parent involvement. The paper is well-structured, well-written (despite some typos, see below), the literature review is rich and effectively covers the main topics of the paper; the conclusions are coherent with the rest of the text. Furthermore, the paper is particularly innovative in suggesting the application of practice theory to the study of parental involvement dynamics. In order to make the paper fully publishable, I suggest some interventions below.

 

Specific comments:

a) Parent involvement vs parent engagement

The Author(s) make an effective and clear distinction between the two terms (in the Introduction), and they claim they will focus on “parent involvement” – as per the paper title.

However, at the end of the Introduction, they state that the paper aims to “suggest a lens through which parent engagement can be re-theorised…”. Similarly, at p. 3, lines 127-128, they mention again “parent engagement” as the focus of the paper. This switch from “involvement” to “engagement" creates some confusion in the reader. We suggest being more consistent with the chosen terms.

b) School cultures

At p. 7, lines 283-287, the Author(s) state that “school cultures form a significant part of the architecture around parental involvement”. We certainly agree with that; however, this statement appears to downplay the relevance of other aspects intervening in parental involvement dynamics, namely family culture – which is also mentioned at p. 8, line 353. Therefore, we suggest that the Author(s) phrase this sentence differently.

c) Typos

There are various typos throughout the paper. E.g., in the title: “Practice theory lend” (vs lens); p. 1, line 37 “the process of bring” (vs of bringing); p. 5, line 214 “we should o and how” (remove the o).

Sometimes these typos make it hard for the redear to understand what is meant, e.g., p. 4, line 175 “deficit views of teachers” (you mean parents?); p. 5, line 231 “these actions” – what actions? It’s unclear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typos

There are various typos throughout the paper. E.g., in the title: “Practice theory lend” (vs lens); p. 1, line 37 “the process of bring” (vs of bringing); p. 5, line 214 “we should o and how” (remove the o).

Sometimes these typos make it hard for the redear to understand what is meant, e.g., p. 4, line 175 “deficit views of teachers” (you mean parents?); p. 5, line 231 “these actions” – what actions? It’s unclear.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Practice theory offers a framework for understanding how social and behavioral change occurs. It provides valuable insights into complex social dynamics.

- However, it also has limitations, which could be presented more in the article.

- In the abstract “Spear et al” is mentioned without year reference.

- Section 3 (‘Practice theory”) is divided in subsections, helping the reader. But there is a mistake about the number of this part. It is not part 3 but part 2. Be more careful to the subtitles and their number.

- Many references are given throughout the text, but most of them are not so current. Use much more updated references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment which covers both reviewers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author introduces a relevant research gap by stating that parent involvement remains “undertheorized” and that practice theory has not been applied to general parent–school relations. While this implies a research gap, the claim is not well-scaffolded: there's no detailed review of how other theoretical lenses have failed. The introduction misses an opportunity to formulate a clear research question. It merely offers an abstract aim to “re-theorise” parent involvement through a new lens.

There is a lack of conceptual clarity in the use of “parent involvement” and “parent engagement.” For instance, the manuscript initially explains the preference for “parent involvement” based on a focus on interactions and practices (lines 30–32), but later shifts back to framing the work around “parent engagement” as the subject of re-theorization (lines 51–53). This shift creates confusion for the reader and undermines conceptual coherence.

Structural aspects of the manuscript also present challenges. Subsections would benefit from clearer headings and stronger transitions, as the current version demands considerable effort from the reader to follow the line of reasoning.

Minor language and citation issues remain:

1. “Spear et all suggested its use in relation to parent engagement in special schools...” (lines 128–129) – note the incorrect form “et all.”
2. “We know what we should o and how we should do it...” (lines 213–214) – contains a typographical error.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Reveiwer 3
The author introduces a relevant research gap by stating that parent involvement remains “undertheorized” and that practice theory has not been applied to general parent–school relations. While this implies a research gap, the claim is not well-scaffolded: there's no detailed review of how other theoretical lenses have failed. The introduction misses an opportunity to formulate a clear research question. It merely offers an abstract aim to “re-theorise” parent involvement through a new lens.	Changes have been made in the early parts of the paper, (pg 3 -4) to address this issue.  There isn’t a research question, per se, so one has not been created.  Rather, the paper suggests new ways of working.
There is a lack of conceptual clarity in the use of “parent involvement” and “parent engagement.” For instance, the manuscript initially explains the preference for “parent involvement” based on a focus on interactions and practices (lines 30–32), but later shifts back to framing the work around “parent engagement” as the subject of re-theorization (lines 51–53). This shift creates confusion for the reader and undermines conceptual coherence.	This has been addressed, please see above
Structural aspects of the manuscript also present challenges. Subsections would benefit from clearer headings and stronger transitions, as the current version demands considerable effort from the reader to follow the line of reasoning.	Some headings have been changed  - Heading 1 has been expanded and the original heading 2 removed.  A definition of culture has been added on page 4, leading into the next section, and the following h heading has been changed to more accurately reflect the section’s content.
Minor language and citation issues remain:
“Spear et all suggested its use in relation to parent engagement in special schools...” (lines 128–129) – note the incorrect form “et all.”	This has been corrected
“We know what we should o and how we should do it...” (lines 213–214) – contains a typographical error.	This has been corrected

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The text has been improved and is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I have revised accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text has been improved and is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I have revised accordingly.