Belonging in Early Childhood and Social Education Program—Belonging as Spatial and Affective Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well crafted paper and an ambitious research that makes a valuable contribution to the emerging field of the post- qualitative inquiry. The vignettes presented are analytically rich. Some aspects of the manuscript would benefit from further clarification and development to enhance empirical grounding.

1. The theoretical background is strong, but the linkage between prior empirical studies and the current topic is less explicit, making it harder for readers outside the field to situate the contribution.

2. While it is methodologically valid in post-qualitative inquiry to use partial or momentary data to highlight emergent phenomena, the disconnect between the range of data collection methods described (3 methodological approaches in the research process)  and the narrow slice presented in the analysis raises some concerns. Why were the other methods not included in the presented analysis?  How do the omitted methods (e.g. mapping and walking interviews) inform, challenge, or supplement the presented classroom-based vignettes?  You could probably describe whether these moments were chosen for intensity, typicality, or divergence, without violating the post-qualitative ethic of emergence.

3. While the analysis is rich, at times, it risks over-relying on theoretical abstraction  without sufficient anchoring in empirical detail.  Could some conceptual terms be grounded further in the data (especially students voice: more narratives, reflections, discussions, drawings, mapping etc) during the analysis so we can secure the participatory verification ?

    

 

Author Response

1. The theoretical background is strong, but the linkage between prior empirical studies and the current topic is less explicit, making it harder for readers outside the field to situate the contribution. Response: I have added selected studies that this research connects to (lines 190–199) and included references to empirical work that this study relates to (lines 202–204).

2. While it is methodologically valid in post-qualitative inquiry to use partial or momentary data to highlight emergent phenomena, the disconnect between the range of data collection methods described (3 methodological approaches in the research process)  and the narrow slice presented in the analysis raises some concerns. Why were the other methods not included in the presented analysis?  How do the omitted methods (e.g. mapping and walking interviews) inform, challenge, or supplement the presented classroom-based vignettes?  You could probably describe whether these moments were chosen for intensity, typicality, or divergence, without violating the post-qualitative ethic of emergence.

Response:  

I have briefly expanded the descriptions of other analytical themes that were developed but only mentioned in passing (lines 274–286), in order to make clear that the dataset underpins a much broader analytical effort that, due to space constraints, is not included in this article.

I have also included a sentence (lines 238–241) indicating that Method 2 contributes to thickening the initial analytical work developed on the basis of Method 1, thereby clarifying that all methods are integrated into the analysis.

3. While the analysis is rich, at times, it risks over-relying on theoretical abstraction  without sufficient anchoring in empirical detail.  Could some conceptual terms be grounded further in the data (especially students voice: more narratives, reflections, discussions, drawings, mapping etc) during the analysis so we can secure the participatory verification ?

Response: 

Three student-produced drawings have been included (lines 366, 414, and 500). The text specifies that students used green to indicate preferred locations and red or orange to denote places they dislike (lines 211–213).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a compelling and theoretically rich exploration of "educational belonging" through the lens of posthumanism and affect theory. The focus on the interplay between classroom architecture, peer gazes, and student positioning offers a novel contribution to the field of Early Childhood and Social Education. As a researcher focused on peer relations and social adjustment, I find the conceptualization of the classroom as an "affective landscape" particularly insightful. 

The use of "architectural plan interviews" combined with "walking interviews" is a significant strength. It allows for capturing the embodied and spatial dimensions of student experiences that traditional interviews might miss.

The application of Sara Ahmed’s concept of "stickiness" to explain how certain identities ("nerd" vs. "slacker") attach to specific spatial zones (front vs. back) is brilliantly executed.,The study effectively links abstract theoretical concepts to practical pedagogical issues, such as classroom management and student retention in diverse cohorts.

You mention a sample of 120 students utilized in group interviews. In qualitative research, this is a large number. Could you briefly elaborate in the methodology section on how you ensured individual depth was not lost in such large group settings? Were there dominant voices in the groups that might have skewed the "consensus" on spatial meanings?

Since the participants are future Early Childhood educators, it would be valuable to add a brief reflection in the discussion: How might their own experiences of "spatial disciplining" in higher education affect how they might design environments for children in their future profession? This would tie the study back even more strongly to the specific degree program.

Author Response

1. You mention a sample of 120 students utilized in group interviews. In qualitative research, this is a large number. Could you briefly elaborate in the methodology section on how you ensured individual depth was not lost in such large group settings? Were there dominant voices in the groups that might have skewed the "consensus" on spatial meanings?

response: I have elaborated on the interviewer’s role as facilitator and our considerations regarding the composition of the groups (lines 215–224).

Since the participants are future Early Childhood educators, it would be valuable to add a brief reflection in the discussion: How might their own experiences of "spatial disciplining" in higher education affect how they might design environments for children in their future profession? This would tie the study back even more strongly to the specific degree program.

Response: That is quite an interesting consideration. I know that some instructors have initiated teaching modules in which students have worked with the method in daycare centers. In addition, I have conducted several workshops for early childhood educators and introduced the method as a way of exploring children’s lives in daycare centers. However, I do not have systematic knowledge of how the method is taken up in practice and have therefore not included this point in the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers an ambitious and theoretically rich exploration of educational belonging in an Early Childhood and Social Education program, drawing on posthuman, sociomaterial, and affect theory. The contribution is significant: the article deepens existing discussions of belonging by foregrounding how spatial arrangements, affects, architectural features, and embodied practices shape students’ positioning, participation, and sense of inclusion. The innovative use of architectural plan interviews, freehand drawings, and walking interviews represents a creative methodological approach that aligns well with the theoretical framework and successfully elicits sensory, spatial, and embodied aspects of classroom life. The empirical analysis is vivid and compelling, particularly the identification of distinct “zones” in the classroom—the front, middle, and back areas—and the affective, relational, and identity-based meanings students attribute to them. As the article shows, categories such as “overachiever,” “nerd,” or “slacker” become affectively and spatially “sticky,” shaping how students navigate teaching spaces, manage gazes, form social alignments, and negotiate their sense of belonging. These findings are particularly relevant considering the program’s diverse student population and the growing pedagogical focus on creating inclusive and equitable learning environments. The study thus offers meaningful insights for educators, administrators, and designers of higher education spaces.

Despite these strengths, the manuscript would benefit from several important revisions. First, the text is conceptually dense. While the authors demonstrate deep engagement with posthuman and affect theory, the discussion introduces many interconnected concepts (affect, atmosphere, sociomateriality, embodiment, non-representational theory, agentic architecture, etc.) in rapid succession. This density risks overwhelming readers and weakens the clarity of the argument. The paper would be strengthened by a more streamlined theoretical section that explicitly clarifies how the chosen concepts operate within the analysis. A clear conceptual map or synthesis would help situate the theoretical contributions more effectively.

Second, although the introduction highlights the increasing diversity of the student population, the study does not explore how demographic factors (e.g., socioeconomic background, mental health, prior educational experience) may interact with spatial-affective belonging. This is a missed opportunity, particularly because diversity is used to justify the research. The reader does not learn enough about who the participants are beyond their enrollment stage. Greater demographic contextualization would also help clarify to what extent the findings can be generalized or how they may apply differently to subgroups.

Third, while the methodological approach is original, it requires more transparency. The manuscript does not explain how participants were selected, how many took part in each stage of the data collection, or how the researchers accounted for their own influence during interviews and walking interactions. Given the multisensory and affect-oriented nature of the methodology, researcher positionality, bodily presence, and interpretive decisions are especially relevant. The description of the analytical process is also limited: the authors mention thematic analysis, but provide little detail about coding procedures, team collaboration, or how theory informed the development of themes. Expanding this section would enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.

Additionally, while the empirical themes are strong, the manuscript sometimes risks overgeneralizing the meaning of spatial categories. Statements such as the “slacker category sticks to the back” or the “nerd category sticks to the front” (pp. 381–408) may be empirically grounded but are also socially powerful claims. Acknowledging variability, counterexamples, or situational differences would add nuance and avoid unintentional reification of these categories. In the same vein, the discussion would benefit from deeper reflection on how structural factors (teaching style, classroom design policies, institutional norms) may amplify or mitigate these spatial-affective dynamics.

The final part of the manuscript begins to address pedagogical implications, yet these remain underdeveloped. The authors mention several experimental interventions—such as assigned seating, collaborative redesign of classrooms, and peer-to-peer mapping—but the discussion stops short of elaborating what these interventions achieve, how they were received, or how they might guide broader institutional change. Given the practical relevance of the study, the article would benefit from more concrete recommendations for educators and campus designers.

Author Response

1.Despite these strengths, the manuscript would benefit from several important revisions. First, the text is conceptually dense. While the authors demonstrate deep engagement with posthuman and affect theory, the discussion introduces many interconnected concepts (affect, atmosphere, sociomateriality, embodiment, non-representational theory, agentic architecture, etc.) in rapid succession. This density risks overwhelming readers and weakens the clarity of the argument. The paper would be strengthened by a more streamlined theoretical section that explicitly clarifies how the chosen concepts operate within the analysis. A clear conceptual map or synthesis would help situate the theoretical contributions more effectively.

Response: I acknowledge this; however, since the theoretical section is intended to support the development of belonging as a spatial and affective practice, it is difficult to shorten the passage. I have attempted to make the section less dense by moving some sentences to footnotes (2 and 3).

2.Second, although the introduction highlights the increasing diversity of the student population, the study does not explore how demographic factors (e.g., socioeconomic background, mental health, prior educational experience) may interact with spatial-affective belonging. This is a missed opportunity, particularly because diversity is used to justify the research. The reader does not learn enough about who the participants are beyond their enrollment stage. Greater demographic contextualization would also help clarify to what extent the findings can be generalized or how they may apply differently to subgroups.

Response: 

I do not have data on the individual students’ social backgrounds - it would have been interesting to analyze potential correlations between seating choices, positioning, and social background. As I note in the introduction, there is a relatively high proportion of students from lower economic backgrounds and students whose parents have low levels of education. In addition, the proportion of students with psychological or mental health challenges has increased. I have added a sentence on the importance of developing inclusive learning environments, given the characteristics of this student group (line 563).

3. Third, while the methodological approach is original, it requires more transparency. The manuscript does not explain how participants were selected, how many took part in each stage of the data collection, or how the researchers accounted for their own influence during interviews and walking interactions. Given the multisensory and affect-oriented nature of the methodology, researcher positionality, bodily presence, and interpretive decisions are especially relevant. The description of the analytical process is also limited: the authors mention thematic analysis, but provide little detail about coding procedures, team collaboration, or how theory informed the development of themes. Expanding this section would enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.

response: I have described how participants were selected and clarified that the same students took part in both rounds of group interviews (lines 178–182). I have also added a sentence noting that conducting two rounds of group interviews can help minimize the interviewer’s influence (lines 221–224). In addition, I have briefly outlined the collaborative analytical process and expanded on the other themes. 

4. Additionally, while the empirical themes are strong, the manuscript sometimes risks overgeneralizing the meaning of spatial categories. Statements such as the “slacker category sticks to the back” or the “nerd category sticks to the front” (pp. 381–408) may be empirically grounded but are also socially powerful claims. Acknowledging variability, counterexamples, or situational differences would add nuance and avoid unintentional reification of these categories. In the same vein, the discussion would benefit from deeper reflection on how structural factors (teaching style, classroom design policies, institutional norms) may amplify or mitigate these spatial-affective dynamics.

Response: I have added a paragraph noting that some students do not associate the back row with the “slacker row”—highlighting how students negotiate the meanings of seating and positioning, and that these associations are not unequivocal (line 457).

5. The final part of the manuscript begins to address pedagogical implications, yet these remain underdeveloped. The authors mention several experimental interventions—such as assigned seating, collaborative redesign of classrooms, and peer-to-peer mapping—but the discussion stops short of elaborating what these interventions achieve, how they were received, or how they might guide broader institutional change. Given the practical relevance of the study, the article would benefit from more concrete recommendations for educators and campus designers.

Response: I have elaborated on the impacts of the interventions (lines 563–569).

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) have responded constructively to the reviewers’ comments from the first round, and the revised manuscript demonstrates several clear improvements .

Most notably, the methodological section has been strengthened. Participant selection, continuity across interview rounds, and the collaborative analytical process are now described with greater clarity, enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of the study. Given the multisensory and affect-oriented methodology, these additions represent a meaningful improvement.

The author(s) have also appropriately addressed concerns regarding diversity and demographics by clarifying the limits of the available data and situating the study within a broader context of socioeconomic and mental health diversity. While the analysis does not extend to subgroup differentiation, the revised framing is cautious and methodologically sound.

Concerns about overgeneralization of spatial categories have been partially resolved. The added discussion acknowledging variability and student negotiation of seating meanings introduces important nuance and reduces the risk of reifying social categories.

The pedagogical implications section has been expanded and now more clearly articulates how the empirical findings informed concrete educational interventions. This significantly enhances the practical relevance of the article.

However, the issue of theoretical density remains only partially addressed. While relocating material to footnotes marginally improves readability, the theoretical framework is still conceptually heavy. A more explicit synthesis or conceptual structuring within the main text would further strengthen accessibility, though this is not a fundamental flaw.

Author Response

I have now tried to simplify the theoretical section. I have deleted lines 117–119 and shortened the sentences in lines 121, 129, and 139–141. I believe it is difficult to reduce the section further, as it needs to explain both theoretically that architecture has an agentive force and can function as a machine of differentiation, and that affect plays a role and interacts with materiality and architecture.