Work Opportunities for Youth with Intellectual Disabilities Through Sports Events: Hidden Treasures in a Disabling Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study reported is interesting, the focus is important, and the evidence in the context of broader findings of this study, are relevant to the field. 

The manuscript requires further development, however, and the following aspects may assist with this:

Title

The title should be reconsidered if reflection of the sports participation component is not explicated more clearly, as this would shift the focus of the title.

Introduction and literature review

The introductory section, including literature review, should be developed further to explicate the relationship between sports participation and work preparation or work transitions for youth with disabilities. As it stands, these concepts are presented quite separately and do not create a clear understanding of the relationship and relevance to one another. 

Methodology

Further details are required in this section for the report to be more specific about the research process followed, and to illustrate rigour and application of ethical principles effectively. A method reflected in the findings section, namely journalling, for example, is not described in this section.

Findings

The findings section reflect mainly evidence from the researcher's journal entries, and should be strengthened by presenting from other data sources. Data sources are not always identified.

It is not clear how sport and/or sport participation is related or connected to the evidence presented, which focus on work participation or non-participation. 

Discussion

There is much repetition of the findings in the discussion, and the author sometimes appears to present interpretations without findings having been reported earlier. In this section too, it is unclear how sports and sports participation was investigated or viewed in relation to work participation. 

General

It is not clear how sports participation was viewed, regarded, or investigated as part of this study. In the discussion mention is made of sports events as opportunities to market the work potential/skills of youth with disabilities, and this seems to be substantiated by literature, but apart from limited evidence in the findings section, it is unclear how sport participation, or non-participation, of the participants influenced the answering of the research question.

Align the format of in-text citations with the journal's guidelines, e.g. using et al. in stead of writing all the authors' surnames.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have completed my review for the article entitled 'Work opportunities for youth with intellectual disabilities through sports participation: Hidden treasures in a disabling environment'- Manuscript ID disabilities-3413148. The title is promising, and the research takes place in urban Zimbabwe, a country in Africa with limited research data on people with disabilities. However, the present research lacks clarity and, in my opinion, has many severe methodological problems with the research design.

In particular:

• The research questions are not clearly stated or wholly aligned with the study's title. For example, the researchers state the term 'environmental factors.' Is that term among the research aims? Then, it should be clearly stated and perhaps included in the research title.
• The extensive analysis of the social model of disability appears unnecessary, as we are all aware of that model. 
• The necessity of the present research and the research questions should be stated at the end of the introduction section, above the materials and methods.
• In line 89, the authors refer to a study in Poland, whereas above, they talk only about African countries. If they try to show studies from other studies, they should also expand it to other countries apart from Poland.
• Line 148. The authors should clearly state the inclusion criteria.
• The major problem of the present research appears to be the research design. The number of the sample is also very low. Still, apart from that, it is unclear why the researchers have mixed in one data analysis of the results from people with intellectual disabilities, their parents, two vocational trainers, two sports coaches, and two golf managers. They could raise the number of people with disabilities, stay in that sample, or recruit more participants from the other groups and analyze the results separately or comparably.
• The authors should explain what critical ethnographic study is and why they have chosen it.
• The discussion section is very extended and needs to be shortened and to the point. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the changes and improvements to the article. You have addressed some of the comments from the previous review, although still further clarity may be needed on some aspects to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Specifically, it remains unclear how the thread of sport/sport participation/sport engagement pulls through to the discussion and, importantly, the conclusion. Very little to no evidence in the findings section point to the relationship you create earlier in the article, between sport events and livelihood development/participation/opportunity for youth with intellectual disabilities. The concept of sport feature prominently in the title of the article as well, but the ensuing report focuses much more strongly on environmental, social, and economic factors that impact employment participation/opportunity for these youth. There is presentation of sport participation very early in the findings section in the table gives information about the youth participants, but then no further evidence of analysis that was done to relate sport participation to employment/livelihoods of the participants. I'm noting this in particular because it seems that initially this was what the study was going to do, or was questioning.

I've left further questions and comments in the manuscript to the effect of the above feedback for you to consider.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions again, and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

The manuscript is significantly improved. However, in the Discussion Section there are no limitations, proposals for future research nor practical implications. These are significant elements that should be added.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions again, and please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your article for a further round of review and incorporating changes as suggested. With this round of changes, I think the manuscript can now be published as you've adequately addressed the queries, and clarified points that were previously unclear. 

Very few, minor comments/changes have been left in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I appreciate the authors’ revisions to the manuscript, “Work opportunities for youth with intellectual disabilities through sports events: Hidden treasures in a disabling environment.” The revised version demonstrates clear improvement in clarity, focus, and structure, and it responds to the majority of concerns raised in my initial review.

• The research aims are now more clearly stated.
• The previously lengthy discussion of the Social Model of Disability has been concisely reframed with stronger relevance to the study.
• The research questions and study rationale are now appropriately placed and explained.
• International literature has been expanded to provide broader comparative insight.
• Methodological clarifications regarding inclusion criteria and critical ethnography now strengthen the article’s objectives.
• The discussion section has been shortened to enhance clarity and impact.

However, I would like a deeper and clearer explanation of how participant categories were triangulated in the analysis, and how the synthesis of these diverse perspectives may influence results’ interpretation.

 

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf