Digital Empowerment for Older Women: Addressing Inequality Through Competence Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This qualitative case study explores how a Digital Competence Training Program (DCTP) shaped the digital capital of older women in Türkiye and how these changes influenced their empowerment, autonomy, and social participation. Using interviews with thirteen older women, two policymakers, and an educator, the authors provide a multi‑actor perspective on digital ownership, competence, motivations, outcomes, and barriers. The study contributes to the literature by offering one of the few in‑depth qualitative analyses of older women's digital experiences in Türkiye, demonstrating that digital capital extends beyond technical skill to encompass confidence, visibility, and social connectedness. Its strengths include conceptual grounding in digital capital theory, rich qualitative data, and multi‑actor triangulation.

Introduction

Strengths

• Provides excellent contextualization of ageing, gender inequality, and digital inclusion.
• Clearly articulates the rationale for using digital capital theory.
• Establishes a genuine research gap focused on older women in Türkiye and qualitative exploration.
• Integrates global and Turkish literature effectively, with a largely up‑to‑date reference list (2023–2025).
• Presents the issue of digital autonomy, social participation, and well‑being in later life clearly and convincingly.

Areas for Improvement

• Specify the exact indicators of Türkiye’s gendered digital divide (e.g., device ownership, Internet use rates).
• Clarify how the study advances digital capital theory more explicitly.
• Add stronger justification for why older women constitute a uniquely under‑researched group in the local context.
• Consider providing brief quantitative evidence illustrating the magnitude of the gender gap.

Methods

Strengths

• The qualitative, semi‑structured interview design fits the exploratory aim.
• Multi‑actor sampling (learners, educators, policymakers) increases depth.
• Ethical procedures are clearly described and appropriate.
• Thematic analysis is transparently conducted through iterative manual coding.

Areas for Improvement

• The study relies solely on self‑reported data, without observational or pre/post competency measures, limiting testability.
• No triangulation or reliability checks (e.g., intercoder agreement) are reported.
• Recruitment from a single geographic and institutional setting may bias results toward more active older adults.
• Provide more methodological details:
• screening criteria (e.g., cognitive status, previous digital exposure),
• socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., income, neighborhoods),
• interview guide structure and sample questions,
• participant flow (numbers invited, refusals).
• Consider using structured digital literacy assessments in future studies.

Results

Strengths

• Presents rich, nuanced themes that progress logically from baseline barriers to motivations, learning gains, and persistent challenges.
• Effectively incorporates insights from older learners, instructors, and municipal staff.
• Aligns empirical themes with the research questions and theoretical framing.
• Clearly identifies digital ownership barriers, motivation dynamics, and areas of empowerment.

Areas for Improvement

• Some findings remain anecdotal; quantification would strengthen the narrative (e.g., “7 out of 13 participants adopted online banking”).
• Provide counts of device ownership types for clarity.
• Include additional verbatim quotations for underrepresented themes such as symbolic capital or social visibility.
• Discuss how heterogeneity among women (age, prior experience, socioeconomic background) may influence reported outcomes.
• Explicitly connect reported learning outcomes to training components for better explanatory power.

Discussion

Strengths

• Strong theoretical integration showing how digital capital can operate as symbolic and relational capital.
• Insightful explanation of how digital skills enhance autonomy, social belonging, and visibility.
• Situates findings well within international research on ageing and digital inclusion.
• Provides a credible reflection on structural challenges such as limited access, ongoing fear, and security concerns.

Areas for Improvement

• Expand policy implications with more concrete proposals (e.g., municipal program frequency, cybersecurity modules).
• Discuss adaptations for groups with lower literacy, rural backgrounds, or higher anxiety toward technology.
• Explore emotional and psychological processes in greater depth (fear, shame, confidence building).
• Provide illustrative excerpts to highlight theoretical claims about symbolic capital.
• Acknowledge more explicitly how reliance on self‑report data shapes interpretations.

Conclusion

Strengths

• Provides a strong summary of theoretical and applied contributions.
• Emphasizes the need for structural and gender‑sensitive digital inclusion policies.
• Highlights broader social implications such as empowerment, visibility, and improved digital autonomy.

Areas for Improvement

• Offer clearer actionable recommendations (e.g., recurring training cycles, staffing needs, digital safety modules).
• Suggest scalable models such as blended or intergenerational learning formats.
• Identify next steps for research, including mixed‑methods designs, larger samples, or comparative groups.
• Briefly restate the unique contribution to digital capital and gender studies for greater impact.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work focuses on examining the development of digital capital and empowerment among older women learners through a structured digital competence training program, addressing an important and underexplored intersection of aging, gender, and digital inequality. The qualitative approach and theoretical grounding offer valuable insights; but following aspects related to conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and analytical depth require further refinement to strengthen the manuscript.

1. The study objectives should be articulated more explicitly at the outset, clearly linking digital capital theory to the specific research questions addressed.
2. The conceptualization of digital capital would benefit from clearer differentiation between its technical, social, and psychological dimensions as applied in this study.
3. The rationale for focusing specifically on older women learners should be strengthened by situating the study more clearly within existing gender and aging literature.
4. The description of the Digital Competence Training Program should be expanded to include its structure, duration, pedagogical approach, and core learning outcomes.
5. The sampling strategy and inclusion criteria for participants should be described in greater detail to support transparency and credibility.
6. The role and perspectives of policymakers and the educator should be more clearly integrated into the analytical framework.
7. The qualitative analysis process, including coding procedures and strategies to ensure trustworthiness, should be described more explicitly.
8. Findings related to empowerment should be supported with clearer thematic organization and representative participant quotations.
9. The manuscript should more clearly distinguish between skill acquisition and broader empowerment outcomes to avoid conceptual overlap.
10. Structural and technical barriers encountered by participants should be analyzed more critically in relation to broader digital inequality frameworks.
11. The discussion would benefit from stronger engagement with recent empirical studies on digital inclusion and lifelong learning.
12. Policy implications should be elaborated further, specifying how community-based digital education initiatives can be designed to address intersectional disadvantages.
13. Limitations of the study, including sample size and contextual specificity, should be explicitly acknowledged.
14. The conclusion should be refined to more clearly separate evidence-based findings from normative recommendations.
15. The following recent studies are suggested to evaluate and add to the literature review of the manuscript: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01221-1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2025.102204, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081121

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your careful and comprehensive revision. I am pleased to recommend acceptance of your manuscript in its current form. The revised version substantively addresses all prior comments and now presents a clear, rigorous, and policy‑relevant qualitative case study.

Reasons for Acceptance:

• Substantive responsiveness to review: You provided a complete, point‑by‑point response with precise pointer edits (pages/lines) and concrete additions (e.g., national indicators, methodological clarifications, and expanded policy guidance). The responses are specific and implemented in the manuscript.
• Strengthened introduction and theoretical positioning: You incorporated up‑to‑date TurkStat indicators of the gendered digital divide and clearly articulated the study’s theoretical contribution to digital capital (symbolic/relational dimensions in later life).
• Methodological transparency: The revision clarifies eligibility, sampling, interview procedures, coding workflow, and credibility checks, while acknowledging the qualitative design’s reliance on self‑reported narratives and associated limitations.
• Results enriched and made more verifiable: You added selective quantification (e.g., device ownership counts; domain‑specific competence changes) and clearer links between training components and outcomes, improving interpretability without sacrificing qualitative depth.
• Expanded discussion and policy implications: The manuscript now provides concrete, actionable program design recommendations (recurring cycles, blended delivery, digital safety modules, peer/mentoring structures) and a nuanced account of structural constraints, firmly tying findings to practice.
• Compliance statements: Ethics approval, informed consent, and data availability are stated clearly and appropriately for a qualitative study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments address and suggestions incorporated in manuscript

 

No more comments.