Relational Pathways to Sociopolitical Control: A Mixed-Methods Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong paper addressing an important topic in adolescent development! With some moderate revisions, it is well-positioned to make a significant contribution to the literature base. Please see suggested revisions below.

Introduction

This section could be strengthened by expanding the literature review and citations included. In particular, I recommend including more articles that focus on out-of-school activities generally, as community involvement in these broader spaces are a major focus of the study. Scholars to consider reading and citing include Tom Akiva, Reed Larson, and Sandra Simpkins. In the section on peer networks, I also suggest reading some of Chris Wegemer's more recent work in this area, as it relates to socio-political development. 

Method

Some scholars have pushed back against the use of "other" as a racial category in research. If possible, I recommend providing more information about what was included in this category and why "other" was used, rather than something more descriptive.

Results

There were some errors in the quotes that made them somewhat hard to follow (e.g., missing words). My guess is that these errors were present in participants' verbatim statements, so I understand the desire to leave them unchanged. However, it can make the quotes somewhat hard to follow. I recommend addressing this via the use of brackets to add in missing words, as well as revisiting the punctuation in the quotes (e.g., use of commas, periods), to improve ease of reading comprehension.

As this is a mixed-methods study, I was expecting to see more integration of analysis across qualitative and quantitative sources. While I understand analysis was conducted separately, the manuscript would be strengthened by additional merged analysis.

Discussion

Like the introduction, the discussion would benefit from expanding the literature referenced and included. This may be something that was intended, but missed, prior to submitting the manuscript, as next to one statement is the word "CITE" in parentheses on page 19. I recommend integrating more literature throughout this section to strengthen your claims, especially in the area of belonging, which has been well-researched in adolescence.

The discussion would also benefit from more integration of findings across qualitative and quantitative data sources, to showcase the unique utility of a mixed-methods approach for exploring this topic. Right now, the findings feel somewhat disjointed across the two.

Overall, this is a well-written paper with a strong focus and only moderate revisions needed.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent article that has a tight focus and provides compelling findings.

Your literature review is appropriate and robust. I was impressed with the mix of old, foundational sources with fresher examples of research. The frame of SPC is nicely explained and developed. That tight focus makes the ensuing paper easy to read. 

The methods are strong as well and intricately described. If you were worried about length or readability, this section could perhaps be trimmed or revised to be more succinct. 

The quantitative results are shared very well and are easy to isolate and understand using the tables. As a reader, I was hungry for something similar with the qualitative results. While that section was well written, a table isolating the key themes and perhaps even examples along the low, mid, and high levels would be helpful. That qualitative section, especially, gets a bit long. A table or similar might provide an anchor to remind the reader of the key qualitative themes in the long section. There may also be an argument to present the mix methods findings in a more intersectional or combined way (like a shared table or similar in section 3 or 4). 

The discussion section is nicely done. While it gets a nit formulaic the quant/qual cadence there nicely and clearly supports the findings. I appreciate you isolating the tension around highly involved youth in the existing research in the limitations. The connections to schools (my field of study) is clear and well argued. 

All in all, this is a compelling, well-written piece that plants the seeds for future research. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel the authors have adequately addressed my comments and the manuscript is significantly strengthened. At this time, I have now further feedback and recommend the paper be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on our revised manuscript.