Exploring Conceptualizations of Disability Using Story-Completion Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I enjoyed reading a novel application of a promising new method that has implications for how we can understand and explain social perceptions of disability. Overall I think there are a few things that could be strengthened.
Line 36: what does "in line with geographical terminology" mean? I don't think you need this, just say you are using the biopsychosocial model-I see a bit later you describe the Canadian context, that's fine, I would remove this clause as it's a bit distracting.
Para that begins on line 47: I think there needs to be some content added to your lit review. you describe social isolation among PWD, but I think you need to distinguish among disability type here. Your study story stems only reference physical disability. I think it is important to discuss the "disability hierarchy" here (for instance, this article discusses how views toward intellectual disabilities were more negative: Barr, J. J., & Bracchitta, K. (2015). Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: The effects of contact with different disability types. Current Psychology, 34, 223-238.)
So the way I would address this is to start off generally acknowledging avoidance/stigma related to disability more generally (you might even consider introducing the concept of ableism here), then have a paragraph that more specifically acknowledges that different disability types have different attitudes/associations, then talk about physical disabilities specifically (in terms of attitudes, social isolation, whatever the literature says here). I think ending with a paragraph that shows the significance and/or gap would be great. Why do we NEED this study?
Line 100: I understand why you are using the word "comparative" here, but I'm not sure it's the best choice. First, my first thought when I read this was that you were using a "control" story without describing a person as disabled (which would be a cool follow up study, I think!). Then I noticed you contrasting between peer/romantic context. Yet when you present results, the themes are presented across stories. In line 112, you describe the study's purpose as exploring differences in disability conceptualizations of peer vs romantic. I would either stick with this and change how you present the results (I would section them as Stem A: Theme 1, 2 and 3 and Stem A: Theme 1, 2 and 3) or describe the study's purpose/research question differently. In addition, it's not a true comparison because it's 2 different disabilities in different contexts. For instance, you note the "environmental barriers" emphasis in the story stem with the wheelchair user-which is unsurprising given that it would likely be less of an issue for an amputee. If that was prominent in the data, makes sense to include it, but I would perhaps just make it less "comparative" as I'm not sure that's the most convincing way to present the data.
Methods: overall, specific and transparent description of methods. however, I would love to see perhaps an example of how you coded the stories. Perhaps providing an example of a quote from "start to finish" that shows the initial codes, any adjustments made during "critical friend" sessions, etc. Did you code it the same way as an interview transcript? Any snags or challenges you had to account for?
Throughout the results, I had trouble distinguishing between direct quotes and when the authors were paraphrasing. this might be just a formatting issue, but i recommend quotation marks, indenting or another way to very clearly show when you are presenting direct quotes from participants and when you are explaining/describing in a more contextualized way. Both are great, for sure, I just had trouble telling them apart.
line 393-just missing the subheading number, may be just a formatting issue.
Re: the results, I want to push you in terms of how you are presenting the themes. I'm wondering if there are descriptive phrases for your themes that are a bit richer and help give the reader more of a picture. for instance, "perceptions of disability" is pretty general. Can you identify a descriptor that would help the reader more clearly understand specifically HOW perceptions of disability appeared in the data? Here I'm appealing to the work of writing as a continuation of analytical coding. I think there's another step to take here.
Finally, in considering the implications and significance of your findings, I think using the work that's been done on disability and rhetoric would be really helpful and interesting here. See for instance: Cherney, J. L. (2019). Ableist rhetoric: How we know, value, and see disability. Penn State Press.
--
Author Response
Disabilities-2999362
Reviewer reports – July 2024
REVIEWER 1
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I enjoyed reading a novel application of a promising new method that has implications for how we can understand and explain social perceptions of disability. Overall I think there are a few things that could be strengthened.
>>>Thank you for your positive feedback and thoughtful comments about our paper. We have addressed your comments below and appreciate the opportunity to strengthen our work based on your input.
Line 36: what does "in line with geographical terminology" mean? I don't think you need this, just say you are using the biopsychosocial model-I see a bit later you describe the Canadian context, that's fine, I would remove this clause as it's a bit distracting.
>>> We have removed “in line with geographical terminology” (line 36) as per your suggestion.
Para that begins on line 47: I think there needs to be some content added to your lit review. you describe social isolation among PWD, but I think you need to distinguish among disability type here. Your study story stems only reference physical disability. I think it is important to discuss the "disability hierarchy" here (for instance, this article discusses how views toward intellectual disabilities were more negative: Barr, J. J., & Bracchitta, K. (2015). Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: The effects of contact with different disability types. Current Psychology, 34, 223-238.)
So the way I would address this is to start off generally acknowledging avoidance/stigma related to disability more generally (you might even consider introducing the concept of ableism here), then have a paragraph that more specifically acknowledges that different disability types have different attitudes/associations, then talk about physical disabilities specifically (in terms of attitudes, social isolation, whatever the literature says here). I think ending with a paragraph that shows the significance and/or gap would be great. Why do we NEED this study?
>>> Thank you for this suggestion. We have restructured this paragraph in line with your suggestion (lines 47-60).
Line 100: I understand why you are using the word "comparative" here, but I'm not sure it's the best choice. First, my first thought when I read this was that you were using a "control" story without describing a person as disabled (which would be a cool follow up study, I think!). Then I noticed you contrasting between peer/romantic context. Yet when you present results, the themes are presented across stories. In line 112, you describe the study's purpose as exploring differences in disability conceptualizations of peer vs romantic. I would either stick with this and change how you present the results (I would section them as Stem A: Theme 1, 2 and 3 and Stem B: Theme 1, 2 and 3) or describe the study's purpose/research question differently. In addition, it's not a true comparison because it's 2 different disabilities in different contexts. For instance, you note the "environmental barriers" emphasis in the story stem with the wheelchair user-which is unsurprising given that it would likely be less of an issue for an amputee. If that was prominent in the data, makes sense to include it, but I would perhaps just make it less "comparative" as I'm not sure that's the most convincing way to present the data.
>>>Thank you for identifying this issue. We agree with you that there was no control story stem (indeed a neat idea for a follow up study!) so referring to comparative does not align with our stems and design. To address your comment, we have:
- Removed all reference to “comparative story design” (e.g., removed the keyword (line 23)
- Removed the framing of comparing the stories (e.g., in the introduction of story completion methods (lines 95-116, 497, 537, 549)
- Confirmed that the purpose statements do not reflect a comparative design (e.g., abstract (lines 10-11); end of introduction (lines 114-117); opening sentence of discussion (lines 490-492).
Methods: overall, specific and transparent description of methods. however, I would love to see perhaps an example of how you coded the stories. Perhaps providing an example of a quote from "start to finish" that shows the initial codes, any adjustments made during "critical friend" sessions, etc. Did you code it the same way as an interview transcript? Any snags or challenges you had to account for?
>>>In the second paragraph of the data analysis section (lines 185-202), we have added an example of how the authorship team went from initial codes, to collapsed codes, to themes during each set of critical friend sessions. In response to reviewer 2, we have also elaborated on the process used for the critical friend sessions.
In terms of challenges encountered: There is a paragraph in our discussion (lines 625-640) which outline some of the challenges that we encountered in conducting the study overall, including the presence of fantasy stories which made coding challenging. We have elaborated in this section how coding was challenging when faced with fantasy stories (line 632-633).
Throughout the results, I had trouble distinguishing between direct quotes and when the authors were paraphrasing. this might be just a formatting issue, but i recommend quotation marks, indenting or another way to very clearly show when you are presenting direct quotes from participants and when you are explaining/describing in a more contextualized way. Both are great, for sure, I just had trouble telling them apart.
>>>Throughout the results section, we have added quotation marks around segments of text that were direct quotes from the stories to make it clearer to readers where the authors have used participants’ words vs. where the authors are paraphrasing.
line 393-just missing the subheading number, may be just a formatting issue.
>>>Thank you for catching the omission. The subheading number has been added for the third theme (line 413).
Re: the results, I want to push you in terms of how you are presenting the themes. I'm wondering if there are descriptive phrases for your themes that are a bit richer and help give the reader more of a picture. for instance, "perceptions of disability" is pretty general. Can you identify a descriptor that would help the reader more clearly understand specifically HOW perceptions of disability appeared in the data? Here I'm appealing to the work of writing as a continuation of analytical coding. I think there's another step to take here.
>>>Thank you for the suggestion to add clarity to our theme names. We agree with you that the writing process continues the analytical process; we have pointed to this notion at the end of the paragraph about data analysis (line 212). In responding to authors’ feedback, we have reconsidered the theme names and have altered them as follows:
- Assumptions about disability present from first glance
- Uncertainty in navigating negative assumptions of disability
- From discomfort to acceptance of disability through social connection.
In addition, to guide the reader to understanding the theme names, we have made some wording changes throughout the results section as well as in the discussion when highlighting the connection of the themes to the broader literature.
Finally, in considering the implications and significance of your findings, I think using the work that's been done on disability and rhetoric would be really helpful and interesting here. See for instance: Cherney, J. L. (2019). Ableist rhetoric: How we know, value, and see disability. Penn State Press.
>>>Thank you for suggesting this book to us. It is indeed an interesting read. We have included it in our discussion where we discuss how negative perceptions of disability are socially constructed and the narratives (or rhetoric) that circulates in society perpetuates ableism (line 518).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors,
Thank you for your time and the efforts demonstrated in your manuscript. The topic of your work is interesting and I appreciated your use of story completion in this way, particularly through the use of gender neutral names in both story stems. Your introduction and review of literature were well written and clearly organized.
I have made some suggestions in the Methods section to clarify the process between the use of critical friends, first & third authors for coding rounds/constant comparative analysis, and the eventual joining of all authors. Each of these distinct roles could use further detailing and explanation in order to solidify the iterative approaches invoked by the Braun & Clark citations. I would also recommend consulting Sarah Tracy's full book, Qualitative Research Methods (2019) for increased citational support alongside the work you've already cited.
As you will see reflected in my comments within the document, the sections that need the greatest attention are the Results & Discussion sections. I want to be clear that I do think you have said important things within the paper. At present, however, the organization of the themes as presented in the Results section are unclear. The clarity of each of your three themes could be improved with 1) stronger support for each theme's rationale, 2) greater elaboration of the connective writing between quotations, and 3) varied quotation lengths providing greater story contexts/evidence.
The support of the Results impacts the Discussion section as well. I'd like to see more connection between the front half of the paper with the arguments introduced in the Review of Lit reemerging in the Discussion. The themes, as written in the Results, do not setup the distinctions between romantic vs. peer partnerships that you establish in the front half of the paper. You do return to this in the Discussion, but the Results did not read as clearly in the organizational pattern. Focus on streamlining the arguments so that they are clearly represented in each of the paper's major sections.
More detailed comments and suggestions can be found throughout the pdf document attached and I hope they prove helpful to you as you move forward with this manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
--
Author Response
Disabilities-2999362
Reviewer reports – July 2024
REVIEWER 2
|
YES |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
|
|
|
N/AIs the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors,
Thank you for your time and the efforts demonstrated in your manuscript. The topic of your work is interesting and I appreciated your use of story completion in this way, particularly through the use of gender neutral names in both story stems. Your introduction and review of literature were well written and clearly organized.
>>>Thank you very much for taking time to review our manuscript and for your positive feedback.
I have made some suggestions in the Methods section to clarify the process between the use of critical friends, first & third authors for coding rounds/constant comparative analysis, and the eventual joining of all authors. Each of these distinct roles could use further detailing and explanation in order to solidify the iterative approaches invoked by the Braun & Clark citations. I would also recommend consulting Sarah Tracy's full book, Qualitative Research Methods (2019) for increased citational support alongside the work you've already cited.
>>>Unfortunately, we were unable to access Tracy’s full book in the time given to us for addressing the revisions. In response to Reviewer 1, we have added some clarity in second paragraph of the thematic analysis section (lines 187-204). Also in response to one of your comments in the PDF, we have elaborated on the process used when all authors came together for a critical friend session (lines 203-209).
As you will see reflected in my comments within the document, the sections that need the greatest attention are the Results & Discussion sections. I want to be clear that I do think you have said important things within the paper. At present, however, the organization of the themes as presented in the Results section are unclear. The clarity of each of your three themes could be improved with 1) stronger support for each theme's rationale, 2) greater elaboration of the connective writing between quotations, and 3) varied quotation lengths providing greater story contexts/evidence.
>>>Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions within the paper. We have copied them here and articulated how we have addressed each:
|
Reviewer’s comment |
Authors’ response |
|
Line 100 - I appreciate your review of story stem design here. This section would be greatly strengthened by defining for your audience your use of the term "story". This ties to my comment below on justifying (through more writing elaboration vs. citational support) what constituted a "story" from your participants for inclusion. Below I challenge the authors to defend the use of all participants' stories and defining your use of story is critical to bridging your Review of Lit with your Methods. This will serve to enhance your overall arguments presented later in your Discussion section as well. |
>>>We have added a definition of what we mean by a “story” with respect to data analysis (lines 166-167. >>>We have justified our use of including all stories/participant responses (lines 173-175) in our analysis in line with the story completion literature. >>>We have expanded our discussion of the use of fantasy stories and how/why they were included (lines 635-639). |
|
Line 107 - I believe you wanted to use "different" here in line 107. |
>>>Thank you for catching the typo. We have adjusted the term to “different” (line 110). |
|
Line 137 - ...before speaking to each other "in person" would be a helpful addition here as the first scenario does indicate that Alex and Taylor messaged for over a week prior to meeting in person. |
>>>We have added “in person” as suggested (line 141). |
|
Line 141 - I'm curious regarding this argument for the authors' choice for a mobility based in two different needs. Are we to assume that an amputee would not have use of a wheelchair in certain context or situations? If the argument is that these two story stems are distinct from one another in regard to their expression of a mobility based disability, the argument calls a stronger explanation and rationale on this detail. |
>>>Thank you for asking us to clarify. Our intention was to have the story stems differ in that the person with a disability may potentially use a mobility aid (Stem A: amputated leg) versus overt use of a mobility aid (Stem B: wheelchair user). We have clarified this detail in text (lines 144-145). |
|
Line 146 - This was smart and well-considered. |
>>>Thank you for your positive feedback. |
|
Line 155 - If space allows, I recommend 1-2 additional sentences on the pilot testings process and evidence of the claim that was successful. How and in what ways? |
>>>We have removed the wording that the pilot testing process was “successful” and have elaborated on the responses that were produced and how they suited the aims of the study (lines 159-164) |
|
Line 165 - What is the justification for analyzing all stories? Particularly when one sample was six words. This is not to discount a powerful 6 word reply, but methodologically, the rationale for including all responses needs further elaboration. |
>>>We have justified our use of including all stories/participant responses (lines 173-175) in our analysis in line with the story completion literature.
|
|
Line 174 - The authors' transparency is well articulated here and appreciated in aligning their work with rigorous qualitative methodology requirements. |
>>>Thank you for your positive feedback. |
|
Line 188 - Across one session or multiple session with all authors? Did the other authors engage with the dataset/stories and then learn of your themes or were they exposed to the themes alongside the data?
The detail provided for the first and third author constant comparative approach is clear, but the details diminish when all authors join in thematic coding. |
>>>We have provided additional clarity around the process used during the critical friend session that engaged all authors (lines 203-209). |
|
Line 202 - Were any "critical friends" not authors on the paper? Did you perform any external validity checks with coders who were not authors or with the participants themselves? |
>>>Thank you for your question. We did not include any critical friends who were not authors on the paper. We have been explicit in the data analysis section about who the critical friends were (Authors 2, 3, and 4) and at which points they assisted Author 1 during data analysis. As such, we are not making a change to the manuscript based on this question. |
|
Line 205 - How so? What was this process? |
>>> We have elaborated in this section that researchers were careful to examine their subjective values, beliefs and inclinations during the critical friend session with all authors (line 226-230). |
|
Line 226 - Consider reworking this paragraph from an organization standpoint. Moving between Stem B to Stem A, then providing a shared quality between Stem A & B, followed by the brief preview of the shift in narratives can read a bit unclear. I acknowledge the need for a preview paragraph to lead of Results, but consider organizing by concepts vs. Stem A & Stem B. |
>>>The opening paragraph of the Results section has been rewritten in response to the renaming of themes (lines 240-256). The paragraph is now organized by theme/concepts rather than by story stems. |
|
Line 231 - Insert "their" ...upon their first interaction. |
>>>Inserted as suggested (line 262). |
|
Lines 246-247 -Flip this sentence so that the action comes first. |
>>>Edited as suggested (lines 279-281). |
|
Lines 312-314 - The formatting and connective writing of this section can be improved to strengthen your argument. At present, the presentation of your participant's stories reads closer to a list vs. in paragraph form with connective writing from the authors. The Results section is all about showcasing the voices of your participants, and you are doing so here. However, the connective writing needs more elaboration to lead your readers from sub-theme to sub-theme more seamlessly.
At present it is unclear how/why the authors are presenting these examples within this theme. The logic is there, but argument must work through writing vs. inference from the audience. |
>>>We have made adjustments to the connective writing throughout the results section to help guide readers from sub-theme to sub-theme and to more adequately introduce the quotes (rather than offering a list). |
|
Lines 312-323 - Rework so that this is 1-2 sentences vs. one. |
>>>The sentence highlighted has been separated into two sentences (lines 356-360). |
|
Line 323 - insert "as" ...described as an individual... |
>>> Inserted as suggested (line 368). |
|
Line 357 - Define "many" here. It will strengthen your argument to be very specific throughout the results section by replacing terms such as "several" or "many" with the exact numbers from the dataset. |
>>>As suggested, we have gone through the results section and replaced the ambiguous terms like “several”, “many” etc. with the exact number of stories from the dataset. |
|
Line 375 - How common? |
>>>Following from your last suggestion, we have indicated in how many stories the assumption was referenced (line 423). |
|
Line 393 - This is an unclear transition as written. Needs punctuation or formatting if it is a heading. |
>>>Apologies for the error in formatting which resulted when our Word document was formatted into the PDF. We have since added the subheading number and formatted accordingly. |
|
Line 394 - How many? |
>>>Following from your earlier suggestion, we have indicated in how many stories the narrative shift was mentioned (line 445). |
|
Line 467 - My comment at the end of the first theme should be applied to each one. At present, there are some interesting moments occurring here within the Results section. However, the organization and presentation of each theme is unclear. Snippets of stories are presented throughout with a need for further contextualization.
Be specific with numbers from the dataset. Group your sub-themes together to write through their connections prior to offering evidence from the data. Can you provide longer supporting quotations from the data? Support from the stories within the data should range more in length depending on relevance to the theme. |
>>>Thank you for your thorough feedback on the Results section. Your suggestions throughout have enabled us to strengthen the results section. |
|
Line 489-490 - Does this add to or complicate the existing literature? Write through this claim more. |
>>>As suggested, we have gone through and added more to this claim (lines 487-492). |
|
Lines 497-500 - Consider breaking this down into 1-2 sentences to strengthen your argument here. Write more about this claim as well. Expand here. |
>>> As suggested, this has been broken into two sentences (lines 497-501). |
|
Lines 548-549 - Further expand this sentence into a larger part of the Discussion. This is where you are beginning to illustrate the extension of the literature, and we need to see more of that in the Discussion section. |
>>> Thank you for your comment. This idea has been expanded on (lines 557-561). |
|
Lines 571-573 - More evidence is needed to support this claim. |
>>> As suggested, more evidence has been added to support this claim (line 572). |
|
Line 574-575 - Provide that data here. Longer in word count, page length? Longer by how much on average? You can choose the metric to provide, but readers will need to have the information from the dataset for full support. |
>>>> Thank you for this suggestion. This has been updated in the manuscript (line 575). |
|
Line 593 - Provide further justification the inclusion of all stories and/or all parts of the story for analysis. |
>>>We have justified our use of including all stories/participant responses (line 594-596) in our analysis in line with the story completion literature. |
The support of the Results impacts the Discussion section as well. I'd like to see more connection between the front half of the paper with the arguments introduced in the Review of Lit reemerging in the Discussion. The themes, as written in the Results, do not setup the distinctions between romantic vs. peer partnerships that you establish in the front half of the paper. You do return to this in the Discussion, but the Results did not read as clearly in the organizational pattern. Focus on streamlining the arguments so that they are clearly represented in each of the paper's major sections.
>>> Thank you for taking the time to review our work and provide in depth feedback. We have addressed your comments left in the PDF in the table above and look forward to your review.
More detailed comments and suggestions can be found throughout the pdf document attached and I hope they prove helpful to you as you move forward with this manuscript.
>>> Thank you very much for your review and we look forward to the next steps.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I find this version much improved, with a clearer and more persuasive focus.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors' attention to detail in their revision process is clear. The edits and additions that have been made elevated the paper and it now reads as a well organized, easy to follow, strong argument for the use of their method (story completion) and their themes pertaining to perceptions of disability. I applaud the authors on their quick turnaround of these edits and overall the merit and importance of their manuscript as presented here. The exploration of perceptions of disability in interpersonal relationships is needed in the ongoing advocacy work within disability studies.
