Thinking with Maria Puig de la Bellacasa’s Matters of Care: Concerns, Care, and Justice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall I found this manuscript to bring up some very interesting points, and it’s clearly presented in a provocative way. That said, I equally found it relatively hard to follow, and as a result, believe that it loses some of its impact. The special issue this article is intended for specifically talked about making social justice more applied and practical as a concept. I feel that this commentary goes in the opposite direction. I believe what is presented are important concepts for us to be considering, but it was so theoretical that I found myself wondering where the applicability lies. Maybe the applicability is just making people think, but I wish there had been a stronger connection to what this means in practice. I found very little of that in here.

 

If the editors are looking for a really thought-provoking, theoretical piece to supplement the special issue, then this might be it. But as someone who reads a ton of academic literature myself, I found this to be hard to follow and worry that you will lose readers because of the grappling with extremely high level/abstract concepts. I wonder if you could add some more practical examples to reinforce what you mean throughout (I’ve noted a few places in my notes below).

 

• Abstract: When you say Trumphism, do you mean Trumpism?

 

• You say “I only know that I want to care and live with care-care for” What is care-care?

 

• APA formatting notes you alphabetize when several references are in the same parenthesis (in intro, for instance, should read (Haraway, 2007; Latour, 2004)).

 

• What do you mean by ‘knowledge politics’? This should be defined.

 

• You note “Such knowledge politics have objectified and tokenized social justice ignoring the complexities and intricate nature of today’s world.” Can you provide an example or explain this further?

 

• Page 2 you say ‘steaming’ but I think you mean stemming?

 

• You say “Moreover, social jus-tice associated research (i.e., research explicitly grounded on social justice tenets) has in some cases failed to disrupt the status quo and inherently perpetuated normative notions concerning vulnerable populations.” Again, can you provide some examples? I’m not disagreeing, but I don’t think you want your reader making assumptions about what you mean here. Explain more explicitly.

 

• A good example of what I was asking for in the comments above is where you say “Equity, diversity and inclusion, amongst other social justice-related concerns have been subject to an erasure attempt through politics. Thus, sport is not immune to the impacts of these politics of erasure (Agyemang et al., 2020; Darnell & Millington, 2018). For instance, in 2025, President Trump mandated that all equity, diversity and inclusion associated funding be terminated and directly targeted trans athletes by stating the need to develop sport programs that are for men and women only.” You state the issue, then provide an example. I’d love to see that done more!

 

• You need to indent your long quote on page 2 (per APA guidelines)

 

• In some instances you write ‘Trumpism’ and in some ‘Trumphism’ (with an H). Make sure you are consistent. When I search the term online, there is no ‘h’ in it.

 

• I’m assuming that Trumpism is a relatively new term? If so, I’d perhaps rethink this statement: “Youth sport scholars, in many cases, have stayed in the sidelines and have given scant attention to the (inter)penetrating influences and forces of Trumphism and other isms (e.g., neoliberalism, capitalism; Karlsson et al., 2022; Stemhagen & Hytten, 2025).” Perhaps what you say here is true; however, just as likely is that people are paying attention and starting to do work on/focus on this, but have not had time to complete and publish the work yet? Think about the publication timeline…are we sure this is not happening yet we have not seen published work yet?

 

• In general this is presented as a provocative piece that asks scholars to look closely at themselves and how they are approaching their work. I applaud the way it’s done that. I also feel that it’s making many assumptions about what youth sport scholars are or are not doing in their work, and some of the generalizations worry me. Here are some examples:
  • “Therefore, should we, as youth sport scholars, be contented and accept the current status quo concerning athlete development, youth sport coaching and ultimately sport-social justice? Should we, as youth sport scholars, stay numb towards damage to the world and erase, through dis-course-practice-research, the needs of some of its inhabitants? And should we continue to live our lives in our academic bubble and continue to think only at the methodological level?”
  • Some may be doing this but have not written it yet, or have not had luck publishing it, or are still struggling with it themselves. You seem to be making a very generalized assumption that I’m not sure is the case.

 

• You do a lot of ‘think-do-live’ where you hyphenate words, I think when you mean it can be any/many of those. I’ve never really seen this strategy used in the way you did it. If it’s common, it’s just not been in what I’ve read. It was confusing at first since it’s new to me (maybe others as well?)

 

• A few times you just write (reference) where a reference should be (page 5). What is that representing?

 

• On page 5 you say ‘good” (is it one or two quotation marks?)

 

• Page 6 you note “Maria Puig de la Bellacasa's (2012) conceptualization of care goes beyond 'looking out for another' and is deeply rooted on a relational ontology (i.e., looking out for me is looking out for you).” I understand this different theoretically, but what does this difference look like in practice? And how can you tell? And does it matter? My guess is yes, but what’s the differentiated impact if a coach is caring, regardless?

 

• Page 6 you say “erased non-human and more-than-human issues (i.e., limited caring responsibilities) from youth sport inquiry” – what do you mean by non-human and more-than-human issues?

 

• Page 6 where you say “fourth” I think you mean forth?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors obviously have a very strong grasp on the English language. Almost so much so that I wish at times they had written it in a more basic way. I worry some of your readers will give up because parts of it are so compliated/difficulty to follow.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Overall, I found this manuscript to bring up some very interesting points, and it’s clearly presented in a provocative way. That said, I equally found it relatively hard to follow, and as a result, believe that it loses some of its impact. The special issue this article is intended for specifically talked about making social justice more applied and practical as a concept. I feel that this commentary goes in the opposite direction. I believe what is presented are important concepts for us to be considering, but it was so theoretical that I found myself wondering where the applicability lies. Maybe the applicability is just making people think, but I wish there had been a stronger connection to what this means in practice. I found very little of that in here.

If the editors are looking for a really thought-provoking, theoretical piece to supplement the special issue, then this might be it. But as someone who reads a ton of academic literature myself, I found this to be hard to follow and worry that you will lose readers because of the grappling with extremely high level/abstract concepts. I wonder if you could add some more practical examples to reinforce what you mean throughout (I’ve noted a few places in my notes below).

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Considering that our arguments imply an ontological shift in the way social justice is positioned, the very essence of ‘application’ changes as well. ‘Application’ becomes ‘thinking-with’ to avoid prescribing (it longer becomes possible through a relational ontology) what should matter for practice and inquiry. Nonetheless, efforts have been made throughout the manuscript to provide further implications and potential pathways moving forward.

 

• Abstract: When you say Trumphism, do you mean Trumpism?

• Response: This change has been made in the abstract and throughout the manuscript.

• You say “I only know that I want to care and live with care-care for” What is care-care?

• Response: This section has been revised.

• APA formatting notes you alphabetize when several references are in the same parenthesis (in intro, for instance, should read (Haraway, 2007; Latour, 2004)).

• Response: This change has been made (page 1 line 36).

• What do you mean by ‘knowledge politics’? This should be defined.

• Response: This concept has been further expanded and described (page 2 lines 47-48).

• You note “Such knowledge politics have objectified and tokenized social justice ignoring the complexities and intricate nature of today’s world.” Can you provide an example or explain this further?

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. An example has now been added (page 2 lines 57-59).

• Page 2 you say ‘steaming’ but I think you mean stemming?

• Response: This change has been made (page 2 line 51).

• You say “Moreover, social jus-tice associated research (i.e., research explicitly grounded on social justice tenets) has in some cases failed to disrupt the status quo and inherently perpetuated normative notions concerning vulnerable populations.” Again, can you provide some examples? I’m not disagreeing, but I don’t think you want your reader making assumptions about what you mean here. Explain more explicitly.

• Response: An example has now been added (page 2 lines 57-59).

• A good example of what I was asking for in the comments above is where you say “Equity, diversity and inclusion, amongst other social justice-related concerns have been subject to an erasure attempt through politics. Thus, sport is not immune to the impacts of these politics of erasure (Agyemang et al., 2020; Darnell & Millington, 2018). For instance, in 2025, President Trump mandated that all equity, diversity and inclusion associated funding be terminated and directly targeted trans athletes by stating the need to develop sport programs that are for men and women only.” You state the issue, then provide an example. I’d love to see that done more!

• You need to indent your long quote on page 2 (per APA guidelines) 

• Response: This change has been made (pages 2-3).

• In some instances you write ‘Trumpism’ and in some ‘Trumphism’ (with an H). Make sure you are consistent. When I search the term online, there is no ‘h’ in it. 

• Response: This change has been made throughout the manuscript.

• I’m assuming that Trumpism is a relatively new term? If so, I’d perhaps rethink this statement: “Youth sport scholars, in many cases, have stayed in the sidelines and have given scant attention to the (inter)penetrating influences and forces of Trumphism and other isms (e.g., neoliberalism, capitalism; Karlsson et al., 2022; Stemhagen & Hytten, 2025).” Perhaps what you say here is true; however, just as likely is that people are paying attention and starting to do work on/focus on this, but have not had time to complete and publish the work yet? Think about the publication timeline…are we sure this is not happening yet we have not seen published work yet? 

• Response: In light of the comment, this section has now been revised (page 3 lines 110-117).

• In general this is presented as a provocative piece that asks scholars to look closely at themselves and how they are approaching their work. I applaud the way it’s done that. I also feel that it’s making many assumptions about what youth sport scholars are or are not doing in their work, and some of the generalizations worry me. Here are some examples:
• “Therefore, should we, as youth sport scholars, be contented and accept the current status quo concerning athlete development, youth sport coaching and ultimately sport-social justice? Should we, as youth sport scholars, stay numb towards damage to the world and erase, through dis-course-practice-research, the needs of some of its inhabitants? And should we continue to live our lives in our academic bubble and continue to think only at the methodological level?”
• Some may be doing this but have not written it yet, or have not had luck publishing it, or are still struggling with it themselves. You seem to be making a very generalized assumption that I’m not sure is the case. 

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Changes have been made throughout the manuscript to temper the statements made and avoid generalizations.

• You do a lot of ‘think-do-live’ where you hyphenate words, I think when you mean it can be any/many of those. I’ve never really seen this strategy used in the way you did it. If it’s common, it’s just not been in what I’ve read. It was confusing at first since it’s new to me (maybe others as well?) 

• Response: We have attempted to remove, in some cases, the use of hyphenated words. When this occurs, the purpose is to stress the entanglement between concepts.

• A few times you just write (reference) where a reference should be (page 5). What is that representing?

• Response: These instances represent typos. Therefore, these have been removed.

• On page 5 you say ‘good” (is it one or two quotation marks?)

• Response: This has been revised (page 6 line 240).

• Page 6 you note “Maria Puig de la Bellacasa's (2012) conceptualization of care goes beyond 'looking out for another' and is deeply rooted on a relational ontology (i.e., looking out for me is looking out for you).” I understand this different theoretically, but what does this difference look like in practice? And how can you tell? And does it matter? My guess is yes, but what’s the differentiated impact if a coach is caring, regardless? 

• Response: Examples have now been added on page 6.

 

• Page 6 you say “erased non-human and more-than-human issues (i.e., limited caring responsibilities) from youth sport inquiry” – what do you mean by non-human and more-than-human issues?

• Response: Examples have now been added on page 6.

• Page 6 where you say “fourth” I think you mean forth?

• Response: This change has been made (page 7 line 299).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this work. It is thought provoking.

I admit it's quite challenging to provide a critique. The paper does not seek to provide tangible outcomes, it is an exploration, which is neither right nor wrong. I can only provide my perspective on the aims of the paper. I feel the paper has asked me as an academic to rethink my ontological approach to youth sport and justice in the context of neoliberalism, Trumpism and others. I think this is a valid point, and I like the framework of care. Perhaps some of the points need expansion to give some more direction around how a care framework can strengthen research in youth sport and justice? Although I know this is not the author's intention.

I found the writing style quite unique and appropriate for the overall feel of the paper, but my only concern would be that it may not be very accessible beyond academia. The points made have relevance beyond academia, and I think it's worth considering how you might account for this, perhaps in a separate publication/format.

A minor point - are citations missing from pg 5? - "(i.e., a set of caring responsibilities and relationalities; references)."

The final three references are blank (wasn't sure if this was to ensure anonymity).

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for submitting this work. It is thought provoking.

I admit it's quite challenging to provide a critique. The paper does not seek to provide tangible outcomes, it is an exploration, which is neither right nor wrong. I can only provide my perspective on the aims of the paper. I feel the paper has asked me as an academic to rethink my ontological approach to youth sport and justice in the context of neoliberalism, Trumpism and others. I think this is a valid point, and I like the framework of care. Perhaps some of the points need expansion to give some more direction around how a care framework can strengthen research in youth sport and justice? Although I know this is not the author's intention.

I found the writing style quite unique and appropriate for the overall feel of the paper, but my only concern would be that it may not be very accessible beyond academia. The points made have relevance beyond academia, and I think it's worth considering how you might account for this, perhaps in a separate publication/format.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Efforts have been made throughout the manuscript to provide further implications and potential pathways moving forward to make the ideas more accessible to a broader audience.

A minor point - are citations missing from pg 5? - "(i.e., a set of caring responsibilities and relationalities; references)."

• Response: This change has been made (page 5 line 218).

The final three references are blank (wasn't sure if this was to ensure anonymity).

• Response: This section has been revised.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can see where the authors attempted to thoughtfully respond to original requests for edits. I still find the article to be relatively difficult to follow, given many broad statements without examples to support what you mean. However, this is a much more abstract/theoretical piece than I personally am used to writing, so I am trying to give the authors the benefit of the doubt here and not let my own biases impact my review.