Because I’m a Person of Color? Stories of Well-Being, Challenges, and Strengths Among Early Childhood Leaders of Color

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author (s), thank you for the opportunity to review this study. I have shared the strengths and improvable aspects of this research below.

Strengths:

• The title is engaging. Within the context of the topic, it appeals to a broad audience because it supports quality indicators in early childhood education centers. Additionally, global factors such as migration and war make this topic even more important and strategic.
• The “Introduction” section convincingly articulates the rationale for the research and the benefits it will provide.
• Current statistics from the United States are included.
• Examples of standards and guidelines from relevant organizations are provided.
• The references used are both current (many sources from 2024, 2025, and 2026 are cited) and sufficient in number. However, since some sources have been masked, I cannot comment on all of them.
• The research questions are appropriate for the study’s theme.
• Ethics committee approval has been obtained.
• The date, method, and duration of data collection are explained.
• Examples of dialogues are provided.
• The discussion includes references from current sources. The arguments presented are supported by scientific sources, and significant conclusions have been drawn.
• A sufficient number and quality of actionable recommendations have been included.
• The limitations of the research have been clearly stated.
• Tables have been included in the supplementary materials.

 

Weaknesses or questions to be answered:

• I recommend giving greater emphasis to keywords relevant to the study’s focus.
• The demographic data of the participants is insufficiently described. Their length of service in their profession should be specified. Their ages should be stated. The age range of the children with whom they have experience should be indicated.
• There are significant shortcomings in the research methodology. What is the research design, approach, method, and underlying paradigm? These should be explained. Which analysis methods were used during which time period?
• How were reliability and inter-rater agreement in coding among researchers assessed? Were techniques such as Cohen’s Kappa or Miles and Huberman’s methods used?
• The discussion section could include examples of quality indicators for early childhood education established in various countries or institutions. This would allow the research findings to be interpreted in a broader context. For example, OECD data could be considered.
• An ethical statement regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence must be provided, and questions such as which tools were used and whether copyrights were obtained must be addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Opening Statement

The manuscript addresses a timely and socially significant topic by exploring the well-being, challenges, strengths, and professional experiences of early childhood education (ECE) leaders of color. This is an under-researched area with important implications for equity, leadership development, and organizational practices in early childhood education. The study is grounded in a relevant theoretical framework and employs a qualitative approach that is appropriate for capturing participants’ lived experiences. The manuscript is well-organized, clearly written, and supported by illustrative excerpts that provide valuable insights into the realities faced by ECE leaders of color. Overall, the topic is meaningful, and the study has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature.

However, several conceptual, methodological, and analytical issues require further clarification and refinement to enhance the rigor, coherence, and theoretical contribution of the manuscript. The following comments are offered to support the authors in strengthening the quality and scholarly impact of their work.

 

1. Theoretical Grounding and Integration

Insufficient Integration of the Theoretical Framework
Although the study is grounded in Critical Race Theory (CRT), the manuscript does not clearly demonstrate how this framework informed the research design and interpretation of findings. CRT appears primarily as a legitimizing lens rather than as an analytical tool guiding the study. The authors are encouraged to more explicitly connect key CRT concepts (structural inequities, racialized experiences, counter-narratives) with the empirical findings.

Insufficient Integration of Intersectionality
Intersectionality is introduced in the literature review but is not systematically integrated into the analysis or discussion. The authors should more explicitly demonstrate how this framework informs the interpretation of findings.

 

2. Analytical Depth and Contribution of the Study

Limited Analytical Depth of Findings
The primary limitation of the manuscript lies in the level of analysis. The four overarching themes—well-being, challenges, strengths, and suggestions—closely mirror the research questions. While this alignment is methodologically permissible within applied thematic analysis, it results in findings that appear as reorganized responses to interview questions rather than as interpretative insights derived from rigorous qualitative inquiry. The authors should provide deeper analytical synthesis that reveals underlying patterns, tensions, and theoretical implications.

Limited Originality and Analytical Depth of the Discussion
The discussion section is coherent and well-structured; however, it remains largely confirmatory – it reiterates existing literature by emphasizing the need for support systems, professional development as well as inclusive workplace climates. The manuscript would benefit from a deeper analytical exploration of key tensions emerging from the findings—such as the interplay between strength and burden, representation and emotional labor, and resilience and systemic inequities.

Coping Strategies Lack Explicit Theoretical Grounding
The manuscript refers to coping strategies such as emotional awareness and peer support; however, these are not explicitly identified or theoretically framed. These strategies align with established psychological frameworks (e.g., Lazarus and Folkman’s theory of coping).

Ambiguities within Specific Subthemes
Certain subthemes require further clarification:

• Subtheme 3.3: It is unclear whether the reported strengths stem primarily from participants’ prior professional experience (e.g., former educators) or from their racial and cultural identities.
• Subtheme 2.4: Some challenges described appear to reflect general leadership difficulties rather than issues specific to leaders of color. The authors should clarify which findings are uniquely shaped by racialized experiences and which are characteristic of ECE leadership more broadly.

Integration with Broader Leadership and Educational Literature

The discussion should engage broader leadership and educational literature that conceptualizes personal agency, resilience, and reflective practice. A more explicit connection to this body of research would help position the findings within established theoretical frameworks.

Moreover, the findings suggest that participants’ strengths were shaped not only by personal qualities but also by their experiences of navigating adversity and demanding professional contexts. This is an important point. However, the authors should explicitly engage with the literature on resilience, professional agency, and growth through adversity to enhance the interpretative depth and theoretical contribution of this finding.

 

3. Methodological Rigor and Transparency

Methodological Transparency in the Qualitative Design
Although the methodological framework is generally appropriate, several aspects require further elaboration, including:

• sampling procedures and inclusion criteria,
• the structure and implementation of the interviews,
• the analytic process and development of themes.

Incomplete Acknowledgment of Methodological Limitations
Although the authors acknowledge several limitations—such as the small sample size, self-selection bias, reliance on self-reported data, and the cross-sectional nature of the study—other important issues remain unaddressed. These include:

• the heterogeneity of leadership roles within the sample,
• the close alignment between research questions and thematic structure,
• and the uneven nature of data sources, given that one interview was not recorded.

 

4. Conceptual Clarity of the Sample

Ambiguity Regarding Leadership Positions in the Sample
The manuscript includes participants with diverse job titles (e.g., program directors, managers, coaches, consultants, and specialists). However, it is unclear whether these roles are conceptually equivalent within the framework of early childhood education (ECE) leadership. The authors should clarify the criteria used to define “leaders” and explain whether all listed positions align with the study’s focus on leadership.

Conceptual Ambiguity of the Category “Leaders of Color”
The classification of “leaders of color” requires further clarification. In the demographic table, one participant is described as “White, Spanish, Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Chicano/a/x origin.” While this categorization may reflect U.S. conventions distinguishing race from ethnicity, the manuscript does not explain how these constructs are operationalized. Given that racial identity is central to the study, the authors should clarify their inclusion criteria and explain how they conceptualize and distinguish race, ethnicity, and Hispanic identity.

 

5. Transparency and Technical Accuracy

Limited Transparency in the Supplementary Materials
The Supplementary Materials include the interview protocol and coding structure but do not provide anonymized excerpts or illustrative data segments. While ethical considerations justify withholding full transcripts, the inclusion of additional anonymized examples or coded extracts would enhance transparency, credibility, and replicability.

Inconsistency in Participant Identification
A technical inconsistency appears in the results section, where a quotation is attributed to participant “(0018).” This identifier does not appear in the demographic table. This discrepancy should be corrected to ensure accuracy and transparency in data reporting.

 

Closing Statement

In conclusion, this manuscript addresses an important and underexplored topic and demonstrates clear potential to contribute to the literature on educational leadership, equity, and well-being in early childhood education. The study offers meaningful insights into the experiences of ECE leaders of color and highlights issues of both scholarly and practical relevance. With revisions that strengthen the theoretical integration, analytical depth, methodological transparency, and conceptual clarity, the manuscript can make a valuable contribution to the field.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this paper. I was eager to review it, as I find the experiences of leaders of color to be a vital area of study. However, after reading, I found it challenging to distinguish between the perspectives of leaders in general and those of leaders of color, which diminishes the perceived significance of the research. Additionally, the paper does not clearly demonstrate how critical race theory (CRT) was employed to enhance the analysis. Therefore, I would recommend a major revision.

Incorporating a comparative analysis of perspectives and experiences between leaders in general and leaders of color would have naturally strengthened the application of CRT. Since the study focuses solely on leaders of color, it is important to then emphasize the distinctive aspects of their experiences and perspectives, such as in line 707 (and this aspect could be discussed in the limitations and future research opportunities section if it is indeed further investigated). To effectively do so, CRT should be more prominently integrated into the analysis or discussion, highlighting the unique dimensions of leaders of color that set their experiences apart from those of leaders in general. If

Furthermore, a few minor changes are required:

• I would reframe the first sentence of the abstract: Generally, leaders play a critical role in promoting… maybe start more general and narrow it down to the importance of leaders of colour based on Gershenson et al´s statement.
• CRT could be added as a keyword, especially if it will be strengthened in the findings and/or discussion.
• “LeeKeenan &Ponte” in line 33 needs a space.
• 3 in the introduction could be moved up to give context to why this study is important.
• Explain where and when exactly you applied CRT; data collection instruments, analysis of interpretations.
• Line 162 “Latinx”.
• You stated in Line 274 that there are no references on the strengths of leaders of color. Here are a few links:
  • https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_44
  • https://www.proquest.com/openview/03ec914dcb56c1176143d808b61d511a/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar
  • https://ideas.repec.org/a/cvr/ijisrt/202601ijisrt26jan341.html
• What type of interviews were used, for example, structured?
• I had to figure out that you applied thematic analysis. Please state it earlier in the methodology section.
• In the findings, there is a reference to “holistic” and “multidimensional” well-being. Perhaps select one of these terms and explain what it means.
• Make sure the DOI´s are hyperlinks.

Thank you for your work and I hope this review will support you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), thank you for revising your work. I believe your research paper will be more effective and powerful from a scientific perspective. I wish you continued success.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback on our revised manuscript!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the revised manuscript and the detailed response letter. I appreciate the authors’ efforts to address the comments from the previous review. The manuscript has been improved in several respects. In particular, the theoretical framework has been made more visible, Critical Race Theory and intersectionality are now more explicitly referenced in the methods and discussion, some ambiguities in the subthemes have been clarified, and the discussion now engages more directly with concepts such as emotional labor, resilience, and coping.

However, the main concern from the previous review remains insufficiently resolved: the analytical depth of the findings is still limited.

Although the authors have introduced important interpretative ideas — for example, the tension between strength and burden, representation and emotional labor, and resilience and structural inequity — these elements remain largely added in the discussion rather than integrated into the structure and logic of the analysis itself. In other words, the manuscript now names several relevant analytical tensions, but the findings section still does not use these tensions as organizing principles for interpretation.

The four main themes continue to closely mirror the research questions: well-being, challenges, strengths, and suggestions. This structure still gives the impression that the findings are organized around the interview/research questions rather than around deeper patterns that emerged from the data. As a result, the results section remains primarily descriptive. It presents what participants reported, but it does not yet sufficiently explain how these experiences are connected, how they form broader patterns, or what mechanisms link racialized experiences, leadership responsibilities, well-being, strengths, and burden.

For example, the manuscript now discusses the relationship between strength and burden, but this relationship needs to be developed within the findings themselves. If participants’ cultural knowledge, advocacy, and relational leadership are also sources of additional emotional labor, this should be shown analytically in the results, not only stated later in the discussion. Similarly, if resilience is understood as an adaptive response to structural inequity, the analysis should demonstrate how this process appears across participants’ accounts.

At present, the manuscript provides a valuable descriptive account of the experiences of ECE leaders of color, but it still needs a stronger second-level analytical synthesis in order to make a more substantial scholarly contribution. The paper should move beyond separate categories of “well-being,” “challenges,” “strengths,” and “suggestions” and develop a more interpretative structure that reveals relationships, tensions, and underlying mechanisms across these categories.

I therefore recommend further major revisions. In particular, the authors should:

1. Reconsider the structure of the findings so that it is not organized primarily as a direct reflection of the research questions.
2. Integrate the key tensions identified in the discussion into the findings section itself. These tensions should function as analytical categories, not only as interpretative comments after the results.
3. Show more clearly how strengths and burdens are interconnected. For instance, the same qualities that enable leaders of color to support families, staff, and communities may also expose them to additional emotional labor and expectations.
4. Clarify the mechanisms linking racialized experiences, leadership responsibilities, well-being, and coping. The analysis should explain not only what participants experienced, but how these experiences shaped their professional and emotional lives.
5. Strengthen the use of CRT and intersectionality as analytical tools. These frameworks should not only be cited in the methods and discussion, but should help shape the interpretation of empirical material throughout the results.
6. Provide more cross-theme synthesis. The manuscript would benefit from short integrative passages that connect subthemes and explain how they work together, rather than presenting them as separate descriptive categories.

7. Ensure that the analytical insights (e.g., tensions or other patterns) are explicitly grounded in the empirical material, including through illustrative excerpts.

The manuscript has potential and addresses an important and under-researched topic. However, without a stronger analytical restructuring of the findings, the study remains closer to a descriptive thematic report than to a fully developed qualitative analysis with clear theoretical contribution. Further revision is therefore necessary before the manuscript can be considered ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I am content with this paper as is; however, there are links in the reference list that are not hyperlinked.

Author Response

Comment: Thank you for addressing my concerns. I am content with this paper as is; however, there are links in the reference list that are not hyperlinked.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed all links in the reference list to ensure that they are hyperlinked. For book reference, hyperlinks have now been added where e-versions are available. We appreciate your positive feedback on our revised manuscript.