Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall an interesting subject to write a paper on, however, there are several issues with the paper that should be addressed. Thus, a major revision is proposed. It is necessary to carry out a comprehensive improvement of the paper with the following objectives;

 

1) The abstract needs revision to present the argument clearly. A structured abstract should be included purpose/ methodology, findings and originality of the paper, if applicable.

 

2) In the opening paragraph, there could be greater parsing and exploration of the history and relationship of previous creative methods, particularly in relation to playful probes that have a potential role in the approach set out here.

 

3) The theoretical background needs expanding, to include more references. It is arguable whether focusing on the university campus case, though well chosen and generally well elaborated, is sufficient to provide a meaningful contribution to contemporary debates about semi-public restrooms. The term “semi-public” in this study is unclear. Please, explain with adding more recent references. Likewise, the links with community and Participatory Design (PD) activities in semi-public restrooms require further exploration.

 

4) The authors should articulate the analytical methodologies that evidence the examples of playfulness provided by participants in the manner expected.  Figure 1. is difficult to understand. Authors need to explain Fig 1. more clear sense in the article.

 

5) In section 3. Results could be clearer in terms of communicating the format of those responses you received from participants. Would suggest including tables for clarity to read.

 

6) The Conclusions section is not optimal. It would be useful to think more about how observations found from participations could be utilised in the architectural design, especially in public/semi-public spaces. Also, thoughts on how the approach can be codified and applied in other contexts would be welcome.

 

Plus, please check Line 154. Numbering (Figure 2) appears incorrect.

 

The authors are encouraged to correct these deficiencies for a high-quality paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your feedback; the following edits have been made.

1. 1. Figure 1 has been more clearly referenced in the text of the article. The descriptive paragraph has been reorganized to better demonstrate the intent of our positionality through the Figure and in reference to Sanders and Stapper's work.
2. The abstract was edits to better summarize the originality, contributions, and findings of the research.
3. Reviewer comments asking for a clearer stating of research application in design research methods were addressed. Paragraphs in the conclusion have been reorganized and portions rewritten to better state the applications and consequence of the research findings.
4. Line 154 was updated to correct referencing and numbering pointing to Figure 3.

Some comments were not acted upon for the reasons outlined below. We considered including in the introduction a “parsing and exploration of the history and relationship to other creative methods”. The researchers feel that the literature shared throughout the introduction in combination with the positionality subsection under the material and methods heading suffice as a parsing and exploration. The researchers defer to the editor in the decision to rename some of the section to better reflect this. Another suggestion was to change visual style of participant responses to a table was not convincing. A table was visually more cumbersome and difficult to navigate compared to the numbered and bulleted lists currently utilized. Again, we defer to the editor in the final formatting decision. A reviewer comment on the need to further define the applications of the research in “architectural design, especially in public/semi-public spaces”, was not taken on in this work. The researchers hope for this application to be fully explored in further research and writing.

Best,

Murteza, Noor (MFA)

Sabatelli, Madison (MFA)

Sander, Elizabeth B. N. (PhD)

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents in a fresh way the research developed, with clear aims, methodology and outcomes.

I cannot raise major issues, maybe only the theoretical framework could be improved with a wider discussion and sources.

Check line 124.

Fig. 12 could also include values as in previous graphs, to help readibility.

Conclusions could reflect on how to better drive probes towards participatory design useful info.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your comments; the following edits have been made.

1. Figure 1 has been more clearly referenced in the text of the article. The descriptive paragraph has been reorganized to better demonstrate the intent of our positionality through the Figure and in reference to Sanders and Stapper's work.
2. Line 124 was edited for language error.

Some reviewer comments were not acted upon for the reasons outlined below. To further define "conclusions could reflect on how to better drive probes towards participatory design useful info," we offer some suggestions at the end of the paper. The researchers hope for this application to be fully explored in further research and writing.

Best,

Murteza, Noor (MFA)

Sabatelli, Madison (MFA)

Sander, Elizabeth B. N. (PhD)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes made by the authors are acceptable. 

 

best,