Confronting Colonial Narratives: How Destination Museum Exhibits Can Sustainably Engage with Social Justices Issues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review such an interesting manuscript with a current, but also very specific theme. I would like to suggest some corrections in order to improve the quality of the manuscript. The title is very clear. The abstract contains all the structural elements necessary for the manuscript and the presentation of everything important for the readers. The introductory part of the manuscript contains the research questions, so I suggest that they are not numbered, but in the form of P.Q1 and P.Q .2. I also suggest that the introduction should more clearly emphasize how this work contributes to the existing literature.
We suggest that the chapters Background and Theoretical Framework be linked. Moral licensing is an interesting concept, but its use in this context requires a deeper discussion. In the methodology section, it is desirable to explain how the keywords were selected and how the validation of the content analysis was carried out. Their long-term effect on the results should be better explained, more precisely whether these changes are temporary or there are indicators of permanent changes.
I suggest that in the conclusion, the recommendations for museums to permanently integrate critical perspectives into their exhibitions be emphasized a little more, but also to indicate future directions for research. Very few references were used; it is necessary to expand the range of references, not below 50.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to review such an interesting manuscript with a current, but also very specific theme. I would like to suggest some corrections in order to improve the quality of the manuscript. The title is very clear. The abstract contains all the structural elements necessary for the manuscript and the presentation of everything important for the readers. The introductory part of the manuscript contains the research questions, so I suggest that they are not numbered, but in the form of P.Q1 and P.Q .2. I also suggest that the introduction should more clearly emphasize how this work contributes to the existing literature.

• Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We appreciated your positive remarks on the clarity of the title and the structure of the abstract. Regarding your suggestion about the research questions, we revised them to be presented in the format of P.Q1 and P.Q2, as you recommended. Additionally, we agreed that the introduction could benefit from a clearer emphasis on how this work contributes to the existing literature, and we made sure to highlight this more explicitly in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: We suggest that the chapters Background and Theoretical Framework be linked.

• Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We agreed that linking the chapters "Background" and "Theoretical Framework" would improve the flow and coherence of the manuscript. We revised these sections to establish clearer connections between the background information and the theoretical concepts, ensuring a more seamless integration between the two.

 

Comment 3: Moral licensing is an interesting concept, but its use in this context requires a deeper discussion.

• Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We recognized that moral licensing is an interesting concept and agreed that its use in this context required a deeper discussion. In response, we expanded on its relevance within the specific context of our study. While we kept the discussion concise, we believe this addition strengthens the manuscript and enhances the clarity of our argument. Thank you again for your helpful suggestion!

 

Comment 4: In the methodology section, it is desirable to explain how the keywords were selected and how the validation of the content analysis was carried out.

• Response 4: Thank you for you constructive feedback: in the revised manuscript we have expanded our statement “To enhance objectivity, different team members independently coded the museum labels, and the results were triangulated to ensure consistency and minimize bias in the coding process “ to read as follows: To enhance objectivity, different team members independently coded the museum labels using a systematic content analysis approach. The content analysis involved identifying recurring themes, concepts, and keywords within the labels that were relevant to the research objectives. Keywords were selected based on their frequency, relevance to the core themes of the study, and their ability to capture the main ideas expressed in the museum labels. Each team member was assigned a subset of labels and applied a predefined coding scheme to categorize the content. After the initial coding process, the results were triangulated by comparing and contrasting the codes assigned by each team member. This triangulation process helped ensure consistency and minimize bias in the coding. To validate the content analysis, we conducted inter-coder reliability checks, calculating agreement levels between team members, and resolved any discrepancies through discussion and consensus. This thorough process helped to ensure the robustness and accuracy of the findings.

 

Comment 5: Their long-term effect on the results should be better explained, more precisely whether these changes are temporary or there are indicators of permanent changes.

• Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We have made efforts to clarify that the intervention was temporary in nature. In the revised manuscript, we have explicitly addressed the short-term nature of the changes and emphasized that there are no indicators of permanent effects on the results. We hope this clarification helps to provide a clearer understanding of the intervention’s impact. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comment 6: I suggest that in the conclusion, the recommendations for museums to permanently integrate critical perspectives into their exhibitions be emphasized a little more, but also to indicate future directions for research. Very few references were used; it is necessary to expand the range of references, not below 50.

• We have added several new citations to support our paper and the new edits we made to it. The total citations are now 51. While balancing our review comments, we tried to emphasize the need for changes to permanent exhibits and spoke of future research. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your research makes a significant contribution to the understanding of how museums can engage with colonial legacies and promote social justice. With some revisions and expansions, it has the potential to serve as a valuable resource for both academics and practitioners in the field. Thank you for your important work, and I look forward to seeing the revised version.

The discussion on Sustainability needs to be improved.

Discussion on Sustainability:
The discussion on the temporary nature of the exhibit raises important questions about sustainability. It would be beneficial to expand on potential long-term strategies that museums could implement to continue engaging with social justice issues beyond temporary interventions.

Author Response

 

Comment 1: The discussion on Sustainability needs to be improved.

Response 1:

• We appreciate your recognition of the significance of this research and your suggestion to strengthen the discussion on sustainability.

  To address your concern, we have added Section 6.3, which explicitly expands on sustainable and practical strategies for museums engaging with social justice issues beyond temporary interventions. This section outlines actionable approaches that museums can adopt to ensure that efforts to include marginalized voices are integrated into long-term institutional practices.

• We also added several new citations (now 51 total citations) to ensure the paper is adequately referenced. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find the 25 comments in the attachment as well in comments box:

1. Abstract need to be corrected greatly. It should contain goal or subject, methodology, findings and contribution. In this form, abstract is no well written. 
2. Subheading are no well connected with text, data and data explanation.
3. When writing, authors need to stay neutral at all times. This is not the case in this article.
4. Methodology is poorly presented and explained.
5. There are a lot of statements without references to back up this statements. 
6. Conclusion is not connected with text above. 
7. Some references do have DOI number and some do have only link. There need to be standards, and journal instructions needs to be followed.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

English language can be improved.

Please check all article.

Major improvement is needed.

Best regards

Author Response

Comment 1: The 25 Comments in the Attachment

 

Response 1: Thank you for your thorough review and detailed feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing such specific and constructive comments. Your insights were invaluable in refining our manuscript, and we have carefully addressed each of the 25 points you raised in the document you attached. Specifically, we:

• Revised the abstract to ensure that the study’s objectives, methods, findings, and contributions are clearly articulated without unnecessary subheadings.
• Edited all section titles to ensure alignment with the corresponding text and maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.
• Maintained a neutral tone throughout the text to enhance clarity and objectivity.
• Expanded and clarified the methods section to provide greater detail on the procedures used in this study.
• Refined the conclusion to ensure coherence with the preceding discussions and findings presented in the paper.
• Reviewed all references to confirm adherence to journal citation standards, incorporating DOI numbers where applicable.

We sincerely appreciate your exceptionally thoughtful review and the impact it has had on strengthening our work. Thank you again for your careful reading and valuable suggestions.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the submission. The manuscript is interesting and well writtern. Please kindly find my comments below:

In the abstract's background, the authors should indicate the research gap explicitly, so to show the importance of this research. 

The authors specific that they adopted two theories:  theory of hegemon and theory of moral licensing, however, there was little discussion why these two theories are integrated? 

The authors revealed word count of keywords used in labels, what is the rational of using word count? or what does lower or higher word counts contribute? In other words, why study word count over contents of the label? 

The authors shall discuss the theoretical and practical implication of the research which is lacking now. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript is interesting and well writtern. Please kindly find my comments below:

 

Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind words and thoughtful feedback. We truly appreciate your time and attention to the manuscript.

 

Comment 2: In the abstract's background, the authors should indicate the research gap explicitly, so to show the importance of this research.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. To address your suggestion, we have added a sentence to the abstract highlighting how our study fills existing gaps in the literature.

"By comparing the original and supplementary museum labels, this study sheds light on how the inclusion and subsequent removal of supplementary materials can address gaps in representation related to colonial legacies. We believe this addition clarifies the unique contribution of our research to the field."

 

Comment 3: The authors specific that they adopted two theories:  theory of hegemon and theory of moral licensing, however, there was little discussion why these two theories are integrated?

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the integration of Gramsci's theory of hegemony and the concept of moral licensing in our study. We added new text in the theory section to directly address how and why we use the theory of hegemony and moral licensing. Speciffically we added:

"By applying Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, the methodological approach used in this research systematically examines the extent to which museum narratives reinforce or disrupt hegemonic structures through content analysis of exhibit labels.

In addition to Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, the theory of moral licensing is applied as an interpretive tool to examine the unintended consequences of temporary museum interventions. This dual-theoretical framework directly informs the coding and analysis of museum labels and allows this study to assess not only how subaltern voices are introduced but also how the removal of the exhibit contributes to the reinforcement of hegemonic narratives."

We also made edits throughout the paper to help clarify this connection.

 

Comment 4: The authors revealed word count of keywords used in labels, what is the rational of using word count? or what does lower or higher word counts contribute? In other words, why study word count over contents of the label?

 

Response 4: New text was added to clarify that we use both word count and content in the overall analysis and that word count helps to highlight overall themes and changes in these theme between the original and new museum labels.

“Because the exhibit included 154 labels, word count is used and presented below to highlight the major themes and experiences that tourists encounter in the museum. A lower word count of a term means that tourists are less likely to engage with a topic, while higher word counts increase the probability of tourist engagement and a sustained engagement with that concept. It also helps to illustrate how the overall narratives change with the addition and removal of museum labels. In addition to counting occurrences, qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the depth of engagement with each theme. This was done to ensure that the text qualitatively for align with hegemonic and subaltern ideas.”

 

Comment 5: The authors shall discuss the theoretical and practical implication of the research which is lacking now.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the manuscript to include a discussion on the theoretical and practical implications of our research. This addition highlights how our study contributes to existing theories and offers real-world applications, thereby addressing the gaps you identified.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article. It deals with an interesting topic, and it differs from usual papers dealing with museums. 

The abstract and introduction are informative enough, reader gets acknowledged with the theme, research approach and most important findings. The issue of Eurocentricity and the attitude towards the half-past colonial past must be raised and treated from a critical distance. The role of museums is extremely important here, as educating visitors is part of their mission.

The literature review is comprehensive but not too long, the sources are relevant and up-to-date. 

Methods are well explained, the merging of Gramsci's theory of hegemony and the theory of moral licensing is well-established and appropriate for such kind of study.

The interpretation of results in discussion is not comprehensive, as this is understandable due to the limitations of the scope of such an article, but comprehensible enough that the reader can follow and understand the main findings.

Conclusions are presented in a fair manner, but they could be supported a little bit through the secondary literature. The limitations of the study are not mentioned, and a hint or two regarding the potential future research would also be beneficial.

Author Response

Comment 1: The limitations of the study are not mentioned, and a hint or two regarding the potential future research would also be beneficial.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and positive review of our manuscript. Your comments on the paper’s originality, clarity, and theoretical grounding were encouraging, and we are grateful for your engagement with our work. We have now explicitly included a discussion of the study’s limitations and potential directions for future research in the conclusion. This addition acknowledges the constraints of a case study focused on a single temporary exhibit and highlights the need for further research across multiple institutions and cultural contexts.

Comment 2: They could be supported a little bit through the secondary literature.

Response: 2 In response to your comment about integrating more secondary literature, we have added several new citations throughout the paper to strengthen the discussion and contextualize our findings. These references further support our analysis of museum narratives, social justice engagement, and the challenges of sustainability in destination museums.

While we carefully considered your suggestion to incorporate secondary literature in the conclusion, another reviewer specifically requested the removal of all citations from that section. To balance these differing recommendations, we opted to enhance our engagement with secondary literature throughout the body of the paper while keeping the conclusion reference-free. We hope that these additional citations throughout the manuscript address your concern.

 

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It is a very interesting topic. However, I find that the submitted paper has limited alignment with the thematic scope of the Special Issue, "Destination Resilience and Innovation for Advanced Sustainable Tourism Management."

While the manuscript presents an insightful case study on how a museum engages with colonial legacies through exhibit labels, its primary focus is on museum narratives, social justice, and visitor interpretation. The Special Issue emphasizes destination resilience, innovation, and sustainable tourism management, particularly in response to crises, disasters, and socio-political challenges. The manuscript does not sufficiently address core aspects of resilience-building, adaptive strategies, or innovative practices that contribute to the sustainability and competitiveness of tourism destinations.

Given this misalignment, I recommend the authors either (1) explicitly frame their study within the context of destination resilience and sustainable tourism management, demonstrating how their findings contribute to the Special Issue’s objectives, or (2) consider submitting to a journal or issue with a closer thematic fit.

Author Response

Comment 1:I recommend the authors either (1) explicitly frame their study within the context of destination resilience and sustainable tourism management, demonstrating how their findings contribute to the Special Issue’s objectives.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your time and engagement with our manuscript. Your comments to more explicitly frame the paper within the special issue’s theme challenged us to articulate more clearly how our study aligns with the themes of destination resilience and sustainable tourism management, and we have taken significant steps to address this concern.

The most notably change is that we added a new section titled “Museums, Tourism, and the Challenge of Destination Resilience,” which explicitly situates our paper within a broader discussion on how destination museums navigate crises, adapt to shifting cultural expectations, and contribute to sustainable tourism management. This section draws connections between our findings and key themes in the special issue, particularly the ways in which museums serve as sites of resilience by adapting their narratives in response to social and political challenges.

Additionally, we revised the framing of our findings to emphasize their relevance to sustainable tourism management. We now highlight how temporary exhibits addressing colonial legacies represent both a vulnerability and an opportunity for destination resilience offering critical engagement with social justice issues while also posing challenges in terms of long-term sustainability.

We hope that these revisions clearly demonstrate how our study contributes to the goals of the special issue. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to review our work, and we thank you for pushing us to improve our argument in ways that enhance its relevance and impact.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors did all corrections. Recommend publication

Author Response

Comment 1: Authors did all corrections. Recommend publication

Response 1: We are thrilled you recommend publishing our paper. Thank you for your help in improving our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are no comments. 

Author Response

Comment 1: No comments.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your recommendation for publication and are grateful for your insightful review and guidance in strengthening our paper.

.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Figures are not that relevant to this paper. 

Limitation and recommendation for future studies should been separate subheading.

Best regards.

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Limitation and recommendation for future studies should been separate subheading.

Response 1: Thank you for your continued help and suggestions. The limitations and recommendations are now a new subsection (6.4 Limitations and Future Research)

Comment 2: Figures are not that relevant to this paper. 

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback on the figures. We have carefully considered it alongside other reviewers' comments. Since multiple reviewers who recommended publication found the figures helpful, we have opted to retain them in this draft. However, we are open to removing them at the editor’s discretion.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no comments

Author Response

Comment 1: No comments.

Response 1: We appreciate your recommendation for publication and your helpful review.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I confirm that the manuscript has been sufficiently improved. Recommending it's publication.

Author Response

Comment 1 : I confirm that the manuscript has been sufficiently improved. Recommending it's publication.

Response 1: Thank you for your recommendation for publication and the time you took to help us refine our work.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your efforts to refine your manuscript and align your research frame with the themes of destination resilience and sustainable tourism management (special issue).

I would like to offer the following suggestions for improvement:

1. Clarification of Objectives in the Abstract: The study's objectives could be stated more clearly and specifically in the abstract. This would enhance the reader’s understanding of the study’s purpose from the outset.

2. Revision of Keywords: I suggest revising the keywords to better reflect the main topics covered in the manuscript. This would improve the article's visibility in academic searches and ensure that it reaches the most relevant readership.

1. Reorganization of the Theoretical Framework: I suggest consolidating Sections 2, 3, and 4 into a single section titled Theoretical Framework. This section should begin with the broadest topic, Museums, Tourism, and the Challenge of Destination Resilience, followed by Colonial Legacies, and conclude with the Theory of Hegemony. Additionally, an effort should be made to create a coherent narrative that logically connects these subsections, ensuring a smooth transition between topics.
2. Alignment of the Discussion with Research Questions: The discussion of results should be more explicitly aligned with the study’s two research questions:

P.Q. 1: What new stories and narratives related to colonialism did visitors encounter through the addition of museum labels addressing colonial legacies?

P.Q. 2: What lessons can be drawn from the addition and subsequent removal of these labels to guide future efforts in helping tourists critically engage with social justice issues like colonial histories?

Additionally, I recommend integrating the findings with the academic literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript to strengthen this section. Currently, Sections 6.1 and 6.2 do not include references to the scholarly sources used in the literature review, which would help situate the findings within the broader academic discourse.

I hope these suggestions are helpful in refining your manuscript. I look forward to seeing how the paper develops.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The study's objectives could be stated more clearly and specifically in the abstract. This would enhance the reader’s understanding of the study’s purpose from the outset.

Response 1: The abstract was revised to articulate the objective of the paper more clearly.

Comment 2: I suggest revising the keywords to better reflect the main topics covered in the manuscript. This would improve the article's visibility in academic searches and ensure that it reaches the most relevant readership.

Response 2: New keywords were added to the paper: Social Justice in Tourism, Sustainability, Decolonizing Museums, Hegemony, and Cultural Narratives.

Comment 3: I suggest consolidating Sections 2, 3, and 4 into a single section titled Theoretical Framework. This section should begin with the broadest topic, Museums, Tourism, and the Challenge of Destination Resilience, followed by Colonial Legacies, and conclude with the Theory of Hegemony. Additionally, an effort should be made to create a coherent narrative that logically connects these subsections, ensuring a smooth transition between topics.

Response 3: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We have carefully edited Sections 2 and 3 into a single, cohesive section titled "Colonial Legacies and the Challenge of Destination Resilience." Particular attention was given to ensuring smooth and natural transitions between the ideas presented in this section.

We also carefully considered incorporating Section 4 (Theoretical Framework, now Section 3) into this newly merged section. However, after reviewing feedback from four other reviewers who have now recommended the paper for publication, we found that their specific comments and requested edits emphasized the importance of keeping the theoretical framework as a distinct section for clarity. In an effort to balance the valuable input from multiple reviewers, we have opted to maintain it as a separate section. However, we are open to further edits at the editor’s discretion.

We sincerely appreciate your recommendation and recognize its merit. We believe that your suggestion to combine sections 2 and 3 has significantly improved the readability of our paper.

Comment 4: The discussion of results should be more explicitly aligned with the study’s two research questions

Response 4: New text was added throughout the discussion section that directly ties the text to the research questions.

Comment 5: I recommend integrating the findings with the academic literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript to strengthen this section. 

Response 5: Citations in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 were added to help situation the finding with the current literature.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Paper has been improved but not at it should. 

It was suggested that lecturer for text should be involved to improve text in general. This was not the case in the new submitted paper. It as just added text and deleted text. Some of the added text, do not bring valued to this paper. 

As previously stated, abstract is bit improved but not as it should. If you mention research question the they should be marked RQ1 and RQ2 not :1) and 2). Also, where is the goal of this study? Also,, only once research gap was mentioned and never again in whole paper. Why is that? This needs to be mentioned later on as well in text and to connect with research.  This was not the case here!

Again, there are mistakes with references in text. 

Presented figures are not sufficiently improved as in this present form, they lamely contribute to this paper.

Best regards

References are missing where there are statements in text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear authors,

English language can be improved immensely in this paper.

It is not relevant just to delete and add text but added text needs to have meaning and to compliment to this paper. However, sentences are not connected and some of them are repeated in text constantly.

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and acknowledge the importance of addressing all reviewer concerns. Our previous revisions were based on the comments of multiple reviewers, and we have worked carefully to balance competing perspectives. Now that five other reviewers have recommended publication, we have taken additional steps to address your remaining comments. Particular attention was made to enhance the overall readability of the paper, and the manuscript was professional edited before resubmission.

We now believe that we have fully addressed all of your concerns, with the exception of your perspective on the figures. On this point, we respectfully hold a differing view, as do five other reviewers who endorsed the paper with the figures. However, we have incorporated new text and additional references to further substantiate the broad acceptance and utility of word clouds as a valid method for visualizing textual data. Below, we provide specific responses to your comments:

 

Comment 1: Text Quality and Readability

Response 1: We have undertaken a thorough revision of the manuscript to improve the clarity and coherence of the writing. As part of this effort, we had a professional editor help improve the text. We strived to enhance the overall readability and logical flow of the paper while ensuring that all content contributes meaningfully to the study.

Comment 2: Abstract and Research Questions

Response 2: We have revised the abstract to explicitly label the research questions as "RQ1" and "RQ2" for clarity. Additionally, we have ensured that the goal of the study is clearly articulated. The research gap is now referenced beyond its initial mention in the introduction, with connections made throughout the text to reinforce its relevance to our findings and contributions.

Comment 3: References and Citation Accuracy

Response 3: With the help of a professional editor, we have conducted a thorough review of all references and citations within the manuscript, correcting any errors and ensuring that appropriate references are provided for all claims.

Comment 4: Figures

Response 4: We recognize that there is a difference of opinion regarding the figures. We tried to take steps to strengthen their justification. We have added new supporting references and explanatory text to clarify the role of word clouds in visualizing text. We believe this additional context demonstrates their relevance and utility in our study.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I confirm that this new version of the paper has conditions to be accepted for publication.

Congratulations to the authors for their commitment and meticulous work.

Best regards

Author Response

Comment 1: I confirm that this new version of the paper has conditions to be accepted for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for your commendation for publication and help with our paper.