Constructing Layered Identity Through Music Education in Post-Handover Hong Kong

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong and potentially publishable manuscript on a timely and important topic. Its central argument is clear, the article is well structured, and the concept of “calibrated layering” is analytically useful. The move from policy discourse to textbook mediation is especially productive, and the thematic organization of the findings makes the paper readable and persuasive.

My main recommendation is to strengthen the methodological transparency. The paper clearly specifies the textbook corpus, but it is less explicit about the policy-document corpus: which policy texts were selected, by what criteria, over what exact time span, and how they were analyzed in relation to the textbook corpus. Because the first research question depends on that policy corpus, the paper should make that part of the design as visible as the textbook sampling and thematic analysis procedure.

A second issue is temporal alignment. The paper frames itself around the period leading up to the 30th anniversary in 2027 and discusses policy developments through 2024–2025, yet the textbook corpus consists of series published in 2011–2015. Even if those books were still on the recommended list and in circulation, the manuscript should explain more explicitly why they remain the appropriate evidence base for claims about the current curricular hierarchy, especially after the post-2020 political and policy shifts described in the article.

I also recommend slightly moderating some causal language in the discussion and conclusion. The documentary and textbook evidence supports claims about representation, prioritization, and institutional framing. It supports claims about pedagogical invitation and symbolic ordering more strongly than claims about actual enactment in classrooms or the normalization of student civic orientation in practice. The manuscript itself recognizes this limitation, so aligning the strongest claims with that stated limit would improve the paper’s precision.

Finally, the manuscript needs a careful editorial pass. There are several visible language and reference problems that should be corrected before publication: the keyword placeholder on page 1; the duplicated/broken sentence on page 7; the malformed parenthetical citation around the Wen Wei Po example; inconsistent naming of “Hong Kong Music Publisher/Publishers”; and what appears to be an irrelevant reference, “Lung & Chak (2025), Corporate governance and compliance in Hong Kong,” cited in support of a claim about textbooks and cultural governance. That item in particular should be checked carefully.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your careful and generous evaluation of my manuscript. I deeply appreciate your thoughtful and constructive suggestions. Your comments have helped me to improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and precision of the argument. I am grateful for your constructive suggestions, which have significantly strengthened the clarity and rigor of the study. I have provided a response to each point below.

Comment 1: My main recommendation is to strengthen the methodological transparency. The paper clearly specifies the textbook corpus, but it is less explicit about the policy-document corpus: which policy texts were selected, by what criteria, over what exact time span, and how they were analyzed in relation to the textbook corpus. Because the first research question depends on that policy corpus, the paper should make that part of the design as visible as the textbook sampling and thematic analysis procedure.

Response 1: Thank you for noting that the policy corpus required clearer specification.

In the revised manuscript, I added a dedicated clarification of:

• The types of policy documents included (Music Curriculum Guides, Education Commission and Curriculum Development Council documents, relevant legislative texts, and official curriculum exemplars);
• The criteria for selection (documents directly shaping music education and identity-related curricular aims); and
• The analytical procedure used to examine how policy discourse has been recontextualized in the textbook corpus.

This addition makes the policy-document design as explicit as the textbook sampling and thematic coding procedure.

Comment 2: A second issue is temporal alignment. The paper frames itself around the period leading up to the 30th anniversary in 2027 and discusses policy developments through 2024–2025, yet the textbook corpus consists of series published in 2011–2015. Even if those books were still on the recommended list and in circulation, the manuscript should explain more explicitly why they remain the appropriate evidence base for claims about the current curricular hierarchy, especially after the post-2020 political and policy shifts described in the article.

Response 2: Thank you for raising this important issue.

The textbook series analyzed were published between 2011 and 2015. In the revised manuscript, I clarified why they remain an appropriate evidence base:

• These series continue to appear on the government’s recommended textbook list and remain in circulation;
• No substantially revised junior secondary music textbook series has replaced the current 2011 and 2015 series; and
• The analysis, therefore, examined how more recent policy developments (including those after 2015 and up to 2024) have interacted with the existing textbook structure, which continues to mediate curricular representation.

I also clarified that the study did not claim that the textbooks directly reflected every subsequent policy shift, but rather that they provided a stable medium-sized layer through which evolving policy priorities are filtered and interpreted.

This revision strengthened the temporal coherence of the study.

Comment 3: I also recommend slightly moderating some causal language in the discussion and conclusion. The documentary and textbook evidence supports claims about representation, prioritization, and institutional framing. It supports claims about pedagogical invitation and symbolic ordering more strongly than claims about actual enactment in classrooms or the normalization of student civic orientation in practice. The manuscript itself recognizes this limitation, so aligning the strongest claims with that stated limit would improve the paper’s precision.

Response 3: Thank you for this very precise suggestion.

In the revised Discussion and Conclusion sections, I moderated causal language to align more closely with the documentary and textbook evidence. Specifically:

• Claims about identity “stabilization” have been reframed in terms of representation and symbolic organization;
• Assertions about classroom enactment and normalization of civic orientation have been softened;
• Greater emphasis has been placed on institutional framing, prioritization, and pedagogical invitation; and
• The limitation regarding classroom practice has been more consistently integrated into the Conclusion section.

These revisions improved the manuscript’s analytical precision while remaining faithful to its theoretical framework.

Comment 4: Finally, the manuscript needs a careful editorial pass. There are several visible language and reference problems that should be corrected before publication: the keyword placeholder on page 1; the duplicated/broken sentence on page 7; the malformed parenthetical citation around the Wen Wei Po example; inconsistent naming of “Hong Kong Music Publisher/Publishers”; and what appears to be an irrelevant reference, “Lung & Chak (2025), Corporate governance and compliance in Hong Kong,” cited in support of a claim about textbooks and cultural governance. That item in particular should be checked carefully.

Response 4: Thank you for identifying the editorial issues. All have been addressed:

1. The keyword placeholder on page 1 has been corrected.
2. The duplicated/broken sentence on page 7 has been amended. I also identified similar instances on other pages. Therefore, I disabled hyphenation throughout the manuscript to address the issue.
3. The malformed parenthetical citation in the Wen Wei Po example has been corrected.
4. The naming of “Hong Kong Music Publisher” has been standardized throughout the manuscript.
5. The reference to Lung & Chak (2025), Corporate governance and compliance in Hong Kong, has been removed, as it was not conceptually aligned with the claim regarding textbooks and cultural governance.

The manuscript has undergone a careful editorial review to ensure clarity and consistency. It was also reviewed by an experienced English-language professional editor.

 

Thank you, again, for your constructive and generous review. Your suggestions have significantly strengthened the methodological clarity and analytical precision of the paper.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is comprehensive, literature-based, clearly defines identity concepts (local, national, global), and presents the political/social context effectively.
It offers clear content specific to music education and connected to current political developments.
It details how themes are coded by comprehensively examining repertoire selections, language usage, and imagery in textbooks.
It reveals that local identity is based on emotional and cultural foundations, national identity is reinforced by formal, legal, and ritual mechanisms, and global identity is built on multicultural and universal values.
It concludes that policies and textbooks consistently create layered identities.
In terms of Consistency
The article provides clear answers to questions and ensures a strong harmony between the theoretical framework and the analysis.
Theoretical themes are used consistently in policy analysis and textbook review.
The arguments and findings in the article are supported by both theoretical perspectives and data.
Structurally, the introduction, theoretical framework, data analysis, findings, and discussion sections flow logically. 
The article is a methodologically sound but a case study would make this study develope, in-depth and comprehensive, and coherent academic work. It presents the role of music education on identity politics in the Hong Kong context in a multifaceted and well-structured manner.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2          

Comment 1: The article is a methodologically sound but a case study would make this study develop, in-depth and comprehensive, and coherent academic work. It presents the role of music education on identity politics in the Hong Kong context in a multifaceted and well-structured manner.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your generous and thoughtful evaluation. I sincerely appreciate your recognition of the study’s conceptual clarity, methodological coherence, and structural organization. Your summary accurately captured the article’s core contribution, and I am grateful for your positive assessment.

Thank you for suggesting that the study could be further strengthened through the inclusion of a case study component. I agree that an in-depth case study—such as classroom observations, teacher interviews, or a focused school-level analysis—would enrich the empirical dimension and provide valuable insights into how identity orientations are enacted and negotiated in practice.

The present study, however, was intentionally designed as a document and textbook analysis, focusing on:

• Policy discourse;
• Curricular framing;
• Textbook mediation; and
• Institutional structuring of identity representations.

Its analytical scope was therefore confined to representation, prioritization, and symbolic ordering at the policy and curricular levels, rather than classroom enactment.

In response to both reviewers’ comments, I clarified this scope more explicitly in the Discussion and Conclusion sections, emphasizing that identity formation ultimately unfolds in classroom practice, and that future research should explore how teachers and students interpret, negotiate, and reconfigure the curricular orientations identified in this study.

I fully agree that a case-based extension would deepen and expand this line of inquiry, and I see this as a promising direction for future research building on the present findings.

Thank you, again, for your generous and encouraging evaluation of the manuscript.