How Informal Approaches and Terminology Can Influence the Formal Training of Professionals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The question of professionalism is very important for fields like youth work, which have a disciplinary foundation and established fields of operation, but still lack a fully unified recognition of professionalism both internationally and often nationally. 

The question of professionalism is closely linked to the establishment and unification of the field’s terminology in training/education, administration, and regulations, as well as in work practices. 

Thirdly, the manuscript recognizes well that these themes are fundamentally related to the boundaries between formal and informal activities. (And, one might add, also so-called non-formal: when the talk is about terminology and conceptual development, I sometimes wonder whether it might be worth considering if the youth field could also in some ways benefit from adopting the third term ‘non-formal’, as in education, especially adult education.) 

In the most clearly recognized and established fields of professionalism (e.g., medicine and healthcare), these boundaries are the sharpest and are strictly maintained and defended at the regulatory level. In a bit more open professional fields (e.g., teaching and education), there is more boundary negotiation, but the profession has still strictly established formal qualification requirements so that their international transferability is relatively clear. As noted in the article, the situation in social work is more established, but in youth work, more work is needed to clarify the situation. Therefore, the topic of the article is undoubtedly worth addressing and significant.

However, as the manuscript rightly brings to attention, there are problems related to the establishment of professionalism. Emphasizing formal professionalism is not separate from themes of power and control. Socio-cultural practices and fields of operation have often developed through informal traditions and social movements, and there is a risk of losing the strengths associated with these traditions and models when emphasizing the importance of professionalism. The article thematizes this appropriately and accurately in light of bottom-up and top-down perspectives (drawing on previous discussions).

I also find the main argumentation of the manuscript justified, concluding that conceptual clarity and consistency would benefit the field of youth work from both formal and informal perspectives, both professionally trained practitioners and those whose practical work stems from grassroots civic activities.

The manuscript’s referencing is good and, in my opinion, quite comprehensive. The reader gains an understanding of both the background of the research problem and the discussion field in which the article operates.

I do not see any significant deficiencies or corrections needed in the manuscript. I believe it is publishable with only minor modifications. Content-wise, I would find it useful for the authors to work on the article a bit more in the following two respects: 

- Although the article makes it clear that its starting point is to examine the implications that previous research data generated when considering the problems of professional language and professionalism, and thus data-driven analysis is not the key issue, I would still like to see a bit more data examples in the text. Currently, the data is quoted from the comments of eight participants. (Note: the first quote is presented in normal font, the following ones in italics and bold.) This does not mean that quotes should be added extensively, but rather that the authors should consider the balance of different sections and sub-questions when using data quotes.

- Secondly, I would recommend that the authors try to further concretize in their conclusions the means and pathways through which the desired development could proceed. The recommendations currently presented remain entirely abstract: ‘there needs to be greater awareness and application’, ‘require a clear and consistent approach to language’, ‘require a skill set’, ‘unless practitioners recognize, reflect and respond’. More specifically (and even speculatively): who, in what context, and in what practices should act to actually take these steps forward? This type of (visionary) concretization would increase the impact and usability of the article.

In addition, more attention should be paid to the language used in the text, and efforts should be made to make it clearer. Some sentences are unnecessarily complex, even though the same content could be expressed more concisely and clearly. 

For instance: “Youth work training is diverse in forming a professional identity because workers are largely developed on contextual factors in both informal and formal environments and contexts.”

-> alternative: “Youth work training is diverse in shaping a professional identity, as it is influenced by contextual factors in informal and formal environments.”

While some sentences would benefit from more concise and straightforward expression, elsewhere there is sometimes a need to ensure the content’s comprehensibility by supplementing or splitting the sentence. For example: 

“This article, therefore, seeks to explore the utilisation of language in the training and practice of professional youth workers and potential implications for practice.”

The implications of what? The utilisation of language? Or the utilisation of language in training? What practice? The practice of training or the practice of youth workers (tautologically)?

And thirdly, there is also occasional sloppiness in proofreading, for example, in the first line in Introduction (line no. 20): United Kingdon -> United Kingdom 

Or apparently a broken sentence (line 103): “Academically, professionalism is widely discussed, a Professional is defined by Trevithick (2012) as an…” 

Even some instructions from the file template seem to have been left in the manuscript (line 147-149): “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.”

There are also a few errors in the alphabetization of the reference list.

Overall, I can reiterate my previous assessment: the topic of the article is important, and its content is a valuable addition to the discussion on the subject and to advancing the situation. I consider the article publishable with minor modifications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above

Author Response

Firstly thank you for your kind words about the relevant of the article, and for your comments.  It was very much appreciated.  Please see responses to comments below

Comment 1: Although the article makes it clear that its starting point is to examine the implications that previous research data generated when considering the problems of professional language and professionalism, and thus data-driven analysis is not the key issue, I would still like to see a bit more data examples in the text. Currently, the data is quoted from the comments of eight participants. (Note: the first quote is presented in normal font, the following ones in italics and bold.) This does not mean that quotes should be added extensively, but rather that the authors should consider the balance of different sections and sub-questions when using data quotes

Response:  We have reviewed the use of quotation marks throughout for consistency.  We have reviewed the opportunity for more direct data, we did have several smaller quotes that were included in the text.  We have added more signposting to the original article and the data included, we have also added some direct quotes throughout.

Comment 2 - 

• Secondly, I would recommend that the authors try to further concretize in their conclusions the means and pathways through which the desired development could proceed. The recommendations currently presented remain entirely abstract: ‘there needs to be greater awareness and application’, ‘require a clear and consistent approach to language’, ‘require a skill set’, ‘unless practitioners recognize, reflect and respond’. More specifically (and even speculatively): who, in what context, and in what practices should act to actually take these steps forward? This type of (visionary) concretization would increase the impact and usability of the article.
• Response - This was a really useful challenge for us as authors and we really appreciated this, we have added specific targeted recommendations in the conclusion.
• Comment 3 - Around proof reading.
• Response - We have engaged in a more detailed proof read, specifically fixed the errors you mentioned and also amended other aspects of the article that needed polishing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment: This manuscript presents an interesting and relevant contribution to the field. The study builds upon the authors’ previous work and addresses an important topic. With some revisions, particularly in terms of theoretical framing and engagement with existing literature, this manuscript has the potential to make a meaningful impact in the literature.

Major Comments:

1. Theoretical Framework: While the manuscript includes a brief introduction to relevant literature, incorporating a theoretical framework around the professional use of language would enhance the structure and argument. I recommend considering Norman Fairclough’s (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language as a guiding framework. Fairclough’s work on CDA, particularly its discussion of ideology and power in language, aligns well with the manuscript’s focus on terminology and meaning-making. Importantly, this recommendation is not to suggest a re-analysis using CDA, but rather to use CDA as a theoretical lens to support the existing themes, literature, and findings.

2. Integration with Learning Sciences Literature: The manuscript would benefit from a stronger connection to learning sciences literature. Specific areas where additional citations could be useful are noted in the minor recommendations below. Incorporating these references would provide a more robust foundation for claims about learning, expertise, and knowledge transfer.

Minor Recommended Line Revisions:

• Line 30: Remove “for example,” and revise to: “… with other professionals (e.g., social workers; citations…).”

• Line 46: Delete the first “on” so that it reads: “impact the profession.”

• Line 79: Change “where there were five” to “comprised of five.”

• Lines 94-101: This section serves as an introduction to the results and discussion; consider moving it under 3. Results and Discussion.

• Line 122: Change “is” to “it” so that it reads: “where it has….”

• Lines 147-149: These sentences seem out of place. Are they placeholder text, or do they need to be integrated more clearly into the argument?

• Line 239: Consider revising “learning journey,” as it is a loaded phrase without theoretical backing. Reframing it through an expert-novice lens could strengthen the argument.

  • Petrosino, (1996). Content Domain Expertise in the Learning Community 

  • National Research Council, (1999). How People Learn, Chapter 2, How Experts Differ from Novices

• Lines 301-302: The sentence “Youth work has been… critical thinking…” appears out of place. Adding a transition sentence would improve flow.

• Line 314: Additional references are recommended for youth work and youth organizing:

  • Kirshner (2008) Guided Participation in Three Youth Activism Organizations: Facilitation, Apprenticeship, and Joint Work.

  • Uttamchandani (2021) Educational Intimacy: Learning, Prefiguration, and Relationships in an LGBTQ+ Youth Group’s Advocacy Efforts.

• Section 3.4 (Power): This section could be strengthened by incorporating the proposed theoretical framework of CDA (Fairclough, 2010). Additional reference:

  • Tivaringe & Kirshner (2021) Learning to Claim Power in a Contentious Public Sphere: A Study of Youth Movement Formation in South Africa.

• Paragraph beginning at Line 496: The claim that “learning for youth work does not purely happen in the classroom” is strong but could be further substantiated with literature on informal learning, such as:

  • Rogoff et al. (2016) The Organization of Informal Learning.

• Line 504: The term “professional transference” is mentioned but not supported with relevant literature on transfer. Recommended citations:

  • Schwartz et al. (2005) Efficiency and Innovation in Transfer.

  • NRC (1999), Chapter 3, Learning and Transfer.

Conclusion: With closer attention to theoretical framing and incorporation of existing literature, this manuscript will be significantly strengthened. The recommendations above aim to provide constructive guidance to enhance the clarity and impact of the work. The manuscript is well-positioned to contribute to the field, and I encourage the authors to consider these revisions for a more compelling and theoretically grounded discussion.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the article and your really useful comments that have helped us develop the article.  Please see specific responses to your comments.

Comment 1 - 

1. Theoretical Framework: While the manuscript includes a brief introduction to relevant literature, incorporating a theoretical framework around the professional use of language would enhance the structure and argument. I recommend considering Norman Fairclough’s (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language as a guiding framework. Fairclough’s work on CDA, particularly its discussion of ideology and power in language, aligns well with the manuscript’s focus on terminology and meaning-making. Importantly, this recommendation is not to suggest a re-analysis using CDA, but rather to use CDA as a theoretical lens to support the existing themes, literature, and findings.

Response - Thank you for this it was really helpful, we have applied Fairclough's framework throughout the article.

Comment 2 - Integration with Learning Sciences Literature: The manuscript would benefit from a stronger connection to learning sciences literature. Specific areas where additional citations could be useful are noted in the minor recommendations below. Incorporating these references would provide a more robust foundation for claims about learning, expertise, and knowledge transfer

Response - Thank you again for this useful signposting, we have applied the recommendations given.  

Minor Recommendations - We have actioned all of these, apart from 

• Line 504: The term “professional transference” is mentioned but not supported with relevant literature on transfer. 
• We have signposted back to our original article which discussed this in more detail and debated from a wider perspective, however we have had added a reference you recommended to the text.