Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article. This is a very interesting and necessary topic. To publish the article in a scientific journal, some parts need to be fundamentally revised or supplemented:
1. Introduction
Here, it would be appropriate to mention art therapy and the clay field method briefly. Separate the "area of artistic activities" - working with clay (ceramics) and using art for personality development, as well as the use of art from the point of view of therapy.
2. From this, it would be good to state what the case was about. I am not clear whether it is just an art club or art therapy... actually, for what reason is clay used for people with visual impairments
3. Description of the "research"
- Basic methodological data is missing, e.g., what method was chosen for the analysis, what the assignment looked like, and what the goal was, so it would be possible to identify how the individual participants dealt with the work.
- The description of the results: Here, it is necessary to determine how the particular areas or codes were created, how they are manifested in the participants, and what follows from them.

The article does not clarify the authors' intention, what they wanted to show, and whether they succeeded.

Author Response

Comments 1: Introduction
Here, it would be appropriate to mention art therapy and the clay field method briefly. Separate the "area of artistic activities" - working with clay (ceramics) and using art for personality development, as well as the use of art from the point of view of therapy.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with these comments. Therefore, we have revised the introduction to briefly address art therapy and the clay field method. I also reorganized the section to clearly separate the three areas of artistic activity: (1) working with clay as a form of ceramics and creative practice, (2) the use of art for personality development, and (3) the therapeutic perspective on art. This structure highlights the multifaceted role of clay, both as an artistic medium and as a therapeutic tool, in line with the reviewer’s recommendation. 

Comments 2: From this, it would be good to state what the case was about. I am not clear whether it is just an art club or art therapy... actually, for what reason is clay used for people with visual impairments

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. To clarify, the case refers to the use of clay as part of an art therapy–oriented activity, rather than simply an art club. The change can be found on page number 2, paragraph 4, lines 70 to 71.

Clay was chosen because of its strong tactile qualities, which make it particularly suitable for individuals with visual impairments. Unlike purely visual media, clay allows participants to explore form, texture, and spatial relationships directly through touch. This process not only supports creative expression but also contributes to the development of spatial perception, imagination, and unique aesthetic experiences that are not dependent on visual input. Thus, clay serves both as a medium for artistic activity and as a therapeutic tool to enhance sensory, cognitive, and emotional development in individuals with visual impairments. 

Comments 3: Description of the "research"
- Basic methodological data is missing, e.g., what method was chosen for the analysis, what the assignment looked like, and what the goal was, so it would be possible to identify how the individual participants dealt with the work.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and agree that further methodological clarification is needed. In this study, a qualitative descriptive-exploratory approach was applied, with data analyzed using thematic analysis to capture recurring patterns and meanings in the participants’ narratives and creative processes. Participants were given the assignment to create simple clay forms—such as basic shapes, symbolic figures, or freely chosen objects—using clay as the primary medium. This task was designed to encourage tactile exploration and allow participants to engage their sensory perception and imagination. The main goal of the assignment was to understand how individuals with low vision experienced, interpreted, and assigned meaning to their creative process through clay art. This enabled us to identify how each participant dealt with the work, both in terms of their strategies for handling the material and the personal significance they attached to the process and outcomes. 

- The description of the results: Here, it is necessary to determine how the particular areas or codes were created, how they are manifested in the participants, and what follows from them. The article does not clarify the authors' intention, what they wanted to show, and whether they succeeded.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The thematic areas described in the results—exploratory tactility, adaptive strategies, and emotional expression—were created through an inductive coding process in which transcripts and observation notes were repeatedly reviewed to identify recurring patterns of behavior and verbal reflection. These codes manifested clearly in the participants’ actions and narratives: exploratory tactility appeared in their instinctive pressing, rolling, and squeezing of clay to ground themselves and plan possible forms; adaptive strategies emerged in their use of repetitive motions, slab-flattening, and tactile comparison with earlier works to overcome visual limitations; and emotional expression was observed in the joy, curiosity, pride, and occasional frustration they described and displayed while working. From these manifestations, it follows that clay art not only provided a medium for creation but also functioned as a means of tactile exploration, a strategy-building process, and an avenue for emotional expression and self-reflection. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

I have read with much interest your paper titled “Artistic Experience of the Visually Impaired: A Qualitative Study on the Process of Creating Clay Media Artworks for Low Vision in Indonesia”.

The paper explores the artistic experiences of individuals with low vision in creating clay based artworks at the Pandawa Social Home for Blind Sensory Disabilities in Kudus Regency, Indonesia.

However, the article required important revisions before it could be considered for publication.

Please find below few points which needs clarification / reanalysis / rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the paper.

Introduction

1. A clearer formulation of the research purpose and objectives so that there is an explicit link between the overall research purpose and each specific objective. This can provide a clearer indication of the specific dimensions that have been investigated and the anticipated scientific contribution.

Methodology

2. The methodology section is presented in a predominantly narrative manner, which makes it difficult to follow the specific steps of the research. I recommend organizing the methodology into distinct subsections (e.g., research design, participants, research methods, data collection tools, analysis procedures), systematically presenting each element. In addition, it would be useful to describe the framework and conditions in which the activities took place, as well as the rationale for choosing the data collection methods.

Results

3. To increase the rigor and credibility of the study, the results should be presented through evidence-based reasoning. For example, statements about the impact of artistic activities, such as the development of fine motor skills, perseverance, discipline, and the strengthening of social interactions, are valuable observations, but they would gain in rigor if they were supported by empirical evidence drawn from the collected data. I recommend that these descriptions be supported more explicitly by the data obtained. These could be, for example, excerpts from interviews capturing participants' perceptions, field notes on how they approach the material, or detailed images/descriptions of the objects created, which directly illustrate how these benefits manifested themselves.
4. In addition, a thematic organization of the results (e.g., techniques used, emotional experiences, development of skills and autonomy) would facilitate understanding of the artistic journey and highlight the transformative dimensions emphasized by the authors.

Conclusions

5. I recommend formulating the conclusions in a more profound and specific manner, by highlighting the major contributions of the study and correlating them directly with the initial objectives.

 

6. An important aspect missing from the structure of the article is the presentation of the limitations of the research. These may include, for example, the relatively small sample size, the specific nature of the institutional context in which the study was conducted, or the possible influences of subjectivity in the interpretation of qualitative data, etc.

Author Response

Comments 1: A clearer formulation of the research purpose and objectives so that there is an explicit link between the overall research purpose and each specific objective. This can provide a clearer indication of the specific dimensions that have been investigated and the anticipated scientific contribution”.

Response 1:  The overall purpose of this study has been clarified as understanding how low vision beneficiaries perceive, experience, and express themselves artistically through clay media at the “Pandawa” Kudus Regency Center. Each objective has been explicitly linked to this purpose: “exploring” their perceptions of clay as an artistic medium, “exploring” the creative process they undertake, and “describing” the resulting artistic experiences and outcomes. This clearer alignment highlights the specific dimensions investigated and emphasizes the anticipated contribution of demonstrating clay as both an inclusive artistic and educational medium for individuals with low vision. The change can be found on paragraph 2.

“Methodology; The methodology section is presented in a predominantly narrative manner, which makes it difficult to follow the specific steps of the research. I recommend organizing the methodology into distinct subsections (e.g., research design, participants, research methods, data collection tools, analysis procedures), systematically presenting each element. In addition, it would be useful to describe the framework and conditions in which the activities took place, as well as the rationale for choosing the data collection methods.”

Agree. We have accordingly changed the methodology to emphasize this point. The change can be found on paragraph 3 and 4, paragraph 1, paragraph 1, and paragraph 2.

To increase the rigor and credibility of the study, the results should be presented through evidence-based reasoning. For example, statements about the impact of artistic activities, such as the development of fine motor skills, perseverance, discipline, and the strengthening of social interactions, are valuable observations, but they would gain in rigor if they were supported by empirical evidence drawn from the collected data. I recommend that these descriptions be supported more explicitly by the data obtained. These could be, for example, excerpts from interviews capturing participants' perceptions, field notes on how they approach the material, or detailed images/descriptions of the objects created, which directly illustrate how these benefits manifested themselves. In addition, a thematic organization of the results (e.g., techniques used, emotional experiences, development of skills and autonomy) would facilitate understanding of the artistic journey and highlight the transformative dimensions emphasized by the authors”.

We have revised the results by explicitly linking our observations to the empirical data collected.

“Conclusions; I recommend formulating the conclusions in a more profound and specific manner, by highlighting the major contributions of the study and correlating them directly with the initial objectives. An important aspect missing from the structure of the article is the presentation of the limitations of the research. These may include, for example, the relatively small sample size, the specific nature of the institutional context in which the study was conducted, or the possible influences of subjectivity in the interpretation of qualitative data, etc”.

In line with the recommendation, we have revised the conclusion section to articulate the contributions of this study more profoundly and to correlate them explicitly with the initial objectives. Specifically, the revised conclusion emphasizes how clay art enabled individuals with low vision to perceive, experience, and create artwork through tactile exploration, imagination, and adaptive strategies, aligning directly with the study’s aim of understanding their creative processes. Furthermore, we highlighted the broader contributions of clay as both an artistic and therapeutic medium that supports creativity, fine motor development, self-confidence, emotional well-being, and inclusive arts practices, particularly within the Indonesian context. Additionally, as recommended, we have expanded the conclusion to include a clear acknowledgment of the study’s limitations. These include the small sample size, the single-institution setting, and the exclusive focus on clay as the chosen medium. We also noted the potential influence of subjectivity inherent in qualitative interpretation. To address these constraints, we outlined directions for future research, such as broadening the participant pool, incorporating other accessible art media, and investigating long-term psychosocial impacts. The change can be found in paragraph 1.

The revised form was attached

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a significant area, and the abstract is strong and promising. The introduction is well-written, clearly sets the context, and draws on relevant references. The study also involves the collection of valuable qualitative data, which has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the literature on inclusive art experiences for individuals with visual impairments.

That said, several areas require major revision:

1. Research Questions
   The wording of the research questions is somewhat awkward. The repeated use of the verb “analyze” is not typical in qualitative studies. More appropriate terms would include “explore,” “examine,” or “describe.”
2. Materials and Methods
   While Section 2 contains useful information, it needs to be restructured with clearer subheadings after Figure 1. I suggest the following:
   • Sample: Keep the information already provided.
   • Research Tools: Interviews, observation, and document analysis should be described in more detail. The interview schedule, observation guide, and document analysis template should also be added to the appendix (create one) for transparency.
   • Validity and Reliability: This is a major omission. Although inter-rater reliability for the artwork rubric is mentioned briefly, there is no systematic discussion of validity and reliability (e.g., credibility, dependability, confirmability) for all research tools. This must be addressed.
   • Data Collection Procedure: Some information is provided, but it remains too general. Please add more detail about the process, duration, and the researcher’s role.
   • Data Analysis Procedure: This is a serious omission. Although Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is mentioned, there is no explanation of how coding was performed, how themes were developed, or how triangulation of data sources was achieved.
3. Results
   There are also significant shortcomings in the results section:
   • The results are structured under the research questions rather than around thematic categories. This is not a common or effective way of presenting qualitative data.
   • The process by which results were derived from the data is not clear. No explanation is given on how concepts were identified, prioritized, or developed into findings (this could be here or in the previous section).
   • It is unclear whether the results represent all participants and all three research tools.
   • The third subsection reads more like a literature review than a presentation of results.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
   Because of the weaknesses in how the data are presented and analyzed, the discussion and conclusion cannot be properly evaluated at this stage. Although relevant literature is cited, the discussion does not convincingly connect these sources with the study’s actual findings.

This is a very important research area, and the study clearly has potential given the breadth of qualitative data collected. However, without a fuller and more systematic presentation of the methodology and the findings, the manuscript remains significantly underdeveloped. A major revision is needed before it can be considered for publication. I encourage the authors to consider proceeding with the revisions. 

Author Response

The wording of the research questions is somewhat awkward. The repeated use of the verb “analyze” is not typical in qualitative studies. More appropriate terms would include “explore,” “examine,” or “describe.”

Agree. We have accordingly revised the verb “analyze” to “explore” and “describe”. The change can be found on paragraph 3.

Sample: Keep the information already provided.
We have restructured with clearer subheadings for sample/participants.

Research Tools: Interviews, observation, and document analysis should be described in more detail. The interview schedule, observation guide, and document analysis template should also be added to the appendix (create one) for transparency.

We have restructured with clearer subheadings for research tools.

Validity and Reliability: This is a major omission. Although inter-rater reliability for the artwork rubric is mentioned briefly, there is no systematic discussion of validity and reliability (e.g., credibility, dependability, confirmability) for all research tools. This must be addressed.

We have provided the reliability and validity instruments of the study.

Data Collection Procedure: Some information is provided, but it remains too general. Please add more detail about the process, duration, and the researcher’s role.

We have restructured with clearer subheadings for data collection procedure.

Data Analysis Procedure: This is a serious omission. Although Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is mentioned, there is no explanation of how coding was performed, how themes were developed, or how triangulation of data sources was achieved.

We have revised the methodology section by providing a more detailed description of the interviews, observation, and document analysis procedures.

There are also significant shortcomings in the results section:

• The results are structured under the research questions rather than around thematic categories. This is not a common or effective way of presenting qualitative data.
• The process by which results were derived from the data is not clear. No explanation is given on how concepts were identified, prioritized, or developed into findings (this could be here or in the previous section).
• It is unclear whether the results represent all participants and all three research tools.
• The third subsection reads more like a literature review than a presentation of results.
  

  We have revised the thematic categories.
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thought the researchers did a very nice job, and it is an interesting topic.

I like the opening passages, the abstract and the introduction.

However, I feel there could be a bit more tightening somewhere in the middle, especially as we start to get into the methods.

For example, the flow chart (fig 1) is interesting, but the space could have been used to create more specific references to the actual study.

Instead of "Foundation of Research Question", I would have liked to have known what the research question actually was. And were there sub-questions? What were the general statements leading to specific findings exactly? The authors could take each of these 'labels' and address them/tailor them specifically to the study. 

So I wanted to know much more about the methods, so they could be replicated by other researchers. And I wanted to know whether the participants were specifically guided by the researchers in their art making - what did the researchers specifically ask them to do and why? How long were they given to do these things? So what exactly was the procedure, and what were the activities exactly? While some things were mentioned, it seemed a bit hazy, and it would have been really nice to hear more about how it was all set up.

Also, more tangible results, what exactly was gathered up and how, and how were observations made? Interviews and recorded? 

I got the impression that some of the results were in the discussion section, so maybe just clarify what goes where, tell us about the implications of these results, what the limitations of the study are, and what future research will do? 

I don't know much about art access for the blind and low vision in Indonesia, but I think the research project was good and it is needed ed so it would be great to see more from these researchers, and I do agree that there are so many benefits for people with blindness and low vision participating in art so thanks you for writing the paper. I think with just a little. More clarification and tightening (and being specific in the details, while still brief), it will make for a nice paper. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Comments: For example, the flow chart (fig 1) is interesting, but the space could have been used to create more specific references to the actual study.

Response 1: 

We have revised Figure 1 (the flow chart) to include more specific references directly related to the present study. The updated version now reflects the actual stages of the research process, highlighting the participants’ engagement, data collection methods, and analysis procedures. This modification ensures that the figure is more contextually relevant and enhances the reader’s understanding of the study’s structure. Page 4.

Comment 2: Instead of "Foundation of Research Question", I would have liked to have known what the research question actually was. And were there sub-questions? What were the general statements leading to specific findings exactly? The authors could take each of these 'labels' and address them/tailor them specifically to the study. 

Response 2: 

We have revised the section previously labelled “Foundation of Research Question” to explicitly state the main research question and its sub-questions. Furthermore, we have clarified how the general guiding statements logically progress toward the specific findings of the study. Each label has been refined and tailored to align more closely with the context and objectives of the research, thereby improving the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Page 3, lines 118-124.

Comment 3: I wanted to know much more about the methods, so they could be replicated by other researchers. And I wanted to know whether the participants were specifically guided by the researchers in their art making - what did the researchers specifically ask them to do and why? How long were they given to do these things? So, what exactly was the procedure, and what were the activities exactly? While some things were mentioned, it seemed a bit hazy, and it would have been really nice to hear more about how it was all set up. Also, regarding more tangible results, what exactly was gathered, how was it collected, and how were observations made? Interviews and recorded? 

Response 3: 

We have added the data collection information. Page 5, lines 183-184.

Comment 4: I got the impression that some of the results were in the discussion section, so maybe just clarify what goes where, tell us about the implications of these results, what the limitations of the study are, and what future research will do?

Response 4:
We have revised and added more information about the implications and limitations of the study. Page 12, lines 416-420 and 454-458. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a revised version of the article.
The authors have incorporated comments. A theoretical introduction has been added. The research questions are clearly stated, and the research design has been incorporated. The authors have improved the discussion.

I recommend the article for publication in this form.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors have incorporated comments. A theoretical introduction has been added. The research questions are clearly stated, and the research design has been incorporated. The authors have improved the discussion.

I recommend the article for publication in this form.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive and encouraging feedback. We are pleased that the revisions, including the addition of a theoretical introduction, clarification of the research questions, enhancement of the research design, and improvement of the discussion, have met the reviewer’s expectations. We greatly appreciate the recommendation for publication and the valuable insights that have contributed to strengthening our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

I have read with much interest your revised paper titled “Artistic Experience of the Visually Impaired: A Qualitative Study on the Process of Creating Clay Media Artworks for Low Vision in Indonesia”.

I would like to thank the authors for the careful revisions made in response to the first round of revision. The manuscript has improved in terms of provided recommendations. At the same time, there are still minor aspects that would benefit from further refinement. The following comments are intended to support the authors in enhancing the manuscript for publication.

1. The original suggestion referred to the “formulation of a general research purpose” stated in a concise and integrative manner, from which the writed specific objectives naturally derive (for example “to understand/explore how beneficiaries/individuals with low vision perceive, experience, and express themselves artistically through clay media at the “Pandawa” Kudus Regency Center”)
2. The suggestion regarding evidence-based reasoning referred to an extended / explicit use of evidences (e.g., direct quotes from participants, detailed descriptions of specific creative processes, or illustrative examples of the produced artworks) in order to substantiate the statements. If you agree, I encourage you to reinforce the statements (e.g.: regarding the impact of artistic activities, such as the development of fine motor skills, perseverance, discipline, and the strengthening of social interactions) with some evidence that you find relevant.
3. I recommend that the limitations of the study be presented in a separate section, so that readers can clearly identify the contextual and methodological boundaries within which the findings should be interpreted.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

“The suggestion regarding evidence-based reasoning referred to an extended/explicit use of evidence (e.g., direct quotes from participants, detailed descriptions of specific creative processes, or illustrative examples of the produced artworks) in order to substantiate the statements. If you agree, I encourage you to reinforce the statements (e.g.: regarding the impact of artistic activities, such as the development of fine motor skills, perseverance, discipline, and the strengthening of social interactions) with some evidence that you find relevant”.

Response 1: 

We agree with the suggestion and have reinforced the statements regarding the impact of artistic activities—particularly in relation to the development of fine motor skills, perseverance, discipline, and social interaction—by integrating relevant empirical evidence and supporting literature. Page 12 Line 417-433.

Comment 2: 
“I recommend that the limitations of the study be presented in a separate section, so that readers can clearly identify the contextual and methodological boundaries within which the findings should be interpreted”.

Response 2: 

We have created a separate “Limitations of the Study” section to clearly outline the contextual and methodological boundaries of our research. This section highlights key constraints such as sample size, single-institution scope, and focus on clay media, thereby providing readers with a transparent understanding of the parameters within which the findings should be interpreted. Page 12 Lines 444-449.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a very important area, and the abstract is strong and promising. The introduction is well-written, clearly sets the context, and draws on relevant references. The study also involves the collection of valuable qualitative data, which has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the literature on inclusive art experiences for individuals with visual impairments.

The authors have clearly made an effort to improve the manuscript, and this is appreciated. The research questions are now phrased more appropriately, the methods section has been broken down into clearer subsections, and there is more detail provided on the analysis and on validity/reliability. These changes definitely help with readability and give the paper a better structure than before.

That said, there remain several areas where further revision is needed:

1. Research Tools and Appendix: While interviews, observations, and document analysis are described, there is no dedicated subsection on the research tools themselves (having a research methods subsection is not the same as having a research tools subsection). More importantly, the actual tools (interview schedule, observation guide, document analysis template) have not been presented in detail or included in an appendix, despite this being previously suggested. This remains a weakness in terms of transparency and replicability.

2. Validity and Reliability: The inclusion of a validity/reliability table is noted, but the metrics used (CVR, KMO, factor analysis) are more typical of quantitative studies and not well aligned with IPA. A more suitable approach would be to discuss qualitative trustworthiness (such as, credibility, dependability, transferability, confirmability).

3. Results Section: The revised results section is somewhat clearer, and I can see the attempt to introduce thematic labels. However, the way the findings are presented still feels more descriptive than analytical. Long quotes and process descriptions dominate, but it remains unclear how these examples were coded and how they led to the broader themes. At times, the subsections read more like a running account of participants’ activities rather than a presentation of well-formed categories.

4. Discussion: The discussion is stronger than in the earlier version, and it now brings in a wider range of literature. Still, the integration of these sources with the actual findings is limited. The section sometimes reads as a literature review with added commentary, rather than a genuine dialogue between the data and existing scholarship. What is missing is a clearer demonstration of how the study’s results confirm, challenge, or extend previous research. A couple of paragraphs could be added to address this point. 

Overall, this is a better version of the manuscript, and the authors’ efforts to restructure and expand it are acknowledged. However, several important issues remain, especially the absence of detail on research tools, the lack of an appendix, and the limited analytical depth. A further revision is needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. I encourage the authors to continue developing this promising work.

Author Response

Comment: 

1. Research Tools and Appendix: While interviews, observations, and document analysis are described, there is no dedicated subsection on the research tools themselves (having a research methods subsection is not the same as having a research tools subsection). More importantly, the actual tools (interview schedule, observation guide, document analysis template) have not been presented in detail or included in an appendix, despite this being previously suggested. This remains a weakness in terms of transparency and replicability.
2. Validity and Reliability: The inclusion of a validity/reliability table is noted, but the metrics used (CVR, KMO, factor analysis) are more typical of quantitative studies and not well aligned with IPA. A more suitable approach would be to discuss qualitative trustworthiness (such as, credibility, dependability, transferability, confirmability).
3. Results Section: The revised results section is somewhat clearer, and I can see the attempt to introduce thematic labels. However, the way the findings are presented still feels more descriptive than analytical. Long quotes and process descriptions dominate, but it remains unclear how these examples were coded and how they led to the broader themes. At times, the subsections read more like a running account of participants’ activities rather than a presentation of well-formed categories.
4. Discussion: The discussion is stronger than in the earlier version, and it now brings in a wider range of literature. Still, the integration of these sources with the actual findings is limited. The section sometimes reads as a literature review with added commentary, rather than a genuine dialogue between the data and existing scholarship. What is missing is a clearer demonstration of how the study’s results confirm, challenge, or extend previous research. A couple of paragraphs could be added to address this point.
   
   Response 
   1. Research tools and appendices: We have added a research instrument section and appendices for each research instrument. Page 5, Lines 160-175, and appendices on page 17.
   2. Validity and reliability: We have revised the validity and reliability of the instrument. Page 6 lines 197-207.
   3. Results sections: 

   - We have revised the Results section 3.1 to enhance analytical clarity and ensure a stronger connection between raw data, coding, and the resulting themes. Specifically, we have reduced overly descriptive passages and long quotations, retaining only excerpts that directly support the analytical categories. Page 8 lines 280-300.

   - We have revised the Results section 3.2. Page 8-9, lines 303-320 and 326-324.
   - We have revised the Results section 3.3. Page 10-11. lines 364-384.
   
   4. Discussion: We have revised the Discussion section to more clearly integrate the study’s findings with relevant literature. In the revised version, we explicitly relate the participants’ experiences and emerging themes to prior empirical and theoretical studies, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence. Page 12, lines 427-443.
   
   .
   
   

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the manuscript, and I'm very pleased with the latest revisions. I would like to accept it in its current form.