Sharenting of Portuguese Male and Female Celebrities on Instagram
Charlotte Dann
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Topic of the article is interesting and quite well elaborated. However I have some recomendations:
1. Some references must be improved, e.g. number 1-3 and 6 have many shortcomings, what make them impossible to recognise.
2. Description in Graph 1 in not given in English.
3. Minor spell check required, e.g in line 54 it seems that a word "according" is missing.
4.The term "influencers" appears in line 100 and the article is about celebrities. These two concepts are not identical - the celebrity is known to the public, the influencer creates communities around him (in short). When writing about an influencer, this concept should be defined.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate the comments. We believe to have improved the article in revisions, as per the table below.
|
Review |
Actions in the revision |
|
Reviewer |
|
|
Some references must be improved, e.g. number 1-3 and 6 have many shortcomings, what make them impossible to recognise. |
Done |
|
Description in Graph 1 in not given in English. |
We could not find a non-English description. |
|
Minor spell check required, e.g in line 54 it seems that a word "according" is missing. |
Done |
|
The term "influencers" appears in line 100 and the article is about celebrities. These two concepts are not identical - the celebrity is known to the public, the influencer creates communities around him (in short). When writing about an influencer, this concept should be defined. |
We have elaborated on the concept of influencer. |
We hope this meets the reviewers’ and editors’ expectations, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
The Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, this is a good and interesting paper to add to the growing field of Sharenting. More specifically, to focus on celebrity culture and consumerism brings together a group of research that adds value to this field.
The most urgent issue that needs addressing is the Methods section. Upon reading, it is not clear how discourse analysis has been applied here (no citation for how this is used, given the breadth of this area). Discourse in this paper appears to relate to gendered differences, but this still isn't entirely clear. In addition, the Bardin reference cited in text does not appear in the reference list. I could only find reference to a kind of Thematic Content Analysis online (rather than Thematic Analysis, as associated with Braun & Clarke) so it would be good to get clarity on what has been used here, to be able to fully understand the results. Linked to this - it is not clear how the themes were produced (eg. in true Thematic Analysis, the themes are created organically from the data, rather than created beforehand) - this reads as though the authors may have decided what the themes should be and linked material to this (I am not sure this was what was intended, which is why I wanted to flag it). To strengthen this paper, the methods need clear citation and application.
A couple of other points that I had noted:
- It is not clear how Francisco Garcia was selected. It appears that the other celebrities were chosen from a survey, which provides good justification. Did the authors feel this person would be a good fit? How so? More justification is needed than the individual being a parent, as this would account for many celebrities.
- The section around celebrity culture is really well sourced and well written. Upon reading the entire paper though, it seems as though it would be appropriate to also provide a definition for 'influencer', as this is not encapsulated within the definition for celebrity. It is important as influencers are then mentioned throughout the paper, and one of the included celebrities is considered an influencer (though not sure who came up with the definition of megainfluencer?)
- Clarity is needed on the timeframes for the different kinds of Instagram content (eg. there is justification for why Reels were only used from August, as this is when the feature became available - but why is there a difference between data captured for Stories and IGTV?)
- As a critical point, it might be beneficial to think about bringing the discussion of ethics of posting children online in the discussion, in relation to consumerism. This is a huge point at the moment in Internet research and how we share our children - it is good to see it mentioned earlier in the paper, and would benefit from coming back to at the end to bring home the importance of this. Some recent research/info on ethics of sharing children online:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44153754
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/youtube-family-vloggings-dark-side.html
Thank you again for your interesting paper - I look forward to seeing how the revisions help to strengthen the argument overall.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate the comments made by the reviewers. We believe to have improved the article in revisions, as per the table below.
|
Reviewer 2 |
|
|
The most urgent issue that needs addressing is the Methods section. Upon reading, it is not clear how discourse analysis has been applied here (no citation for how this is used, given the breadth of this area). Discourse in this paper appears to relate to gendered differences, but this still isn't entirely clear. |
We clarified that we perform a content analysis conducted through thematic analysis coding on text and visual dimensions of the Instagram content, and identified as one of the dimensions of the codebook the discursive themes as something that frames the representation of children by the parents. |
|
In addition, the Bardin reference cited in text does not appear in the reference list. I could only find reference to a kind of Thematic Content Analysis online (rather than Thematic Analysis, as associated with Braun & Clarke) so it would be good to get clarity on what has been used here, to be able to fully understand the results. |
Bardin reference has been added, thanks to the reviewer for pointing that out. |
|
Linked to this - it is not clear how the themes were produced (eg. in true Thematic Analysis, the themes are created organically from the data, rather than created beforehand) - this reads as though the authors may have decided what the themes should be and linked material to this (I am not sure this was what was intended, which is why I wanted to flag it) |
We reorganized the paragraph where content analysis and thematic content analysis are described so as to make it clearer how the themes were produced. They were created inductively as well as deductively. |
|
It is not clear how Francisco Garcia was selected. It appears that the other celebrities were chosen from a survey, which provides good justification. Did the authors feel this person would be a good fit? How so? More justification is needed than the individual being a parent, as this would account for many celebrities. |
We justified more explicitly why Francisco Garcia was chose for the sample. |
|
Clarity is needed on the timeframes for the different kinds of Instagram content (eg. there is justification for why Reels were only used from August, as this is when the feature became available - but why is there a difference between data captured for Stories and IGTV?) |
We have justified why there were different timeframes for the different types of Instagram content. |
|
As a critical point, it might be beneficial to think about bringing the discussion of ethics of posting children online in the discussion, in relation to consumerism. This is a huge point at the moment in Internet research and how we share our children - it is good to see it mentioned earlier in the paper, and would benefit from coming back to at the end to bring home the importance of this. Some recent research/info on ethics of sharing children online: |
We added a paragraph on consumerism in the final section. |
We hope this meets the reviewers’ and editors’ expectations, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
The Authors
