Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Mapping the Journey: Exploring Youth Purpose Using a Visual Qualitative Method

 Description: This study introduces an innovative qualitative approach that combines semi-

structured interviews with visual mapping to help adolescent participants articulate their

journey toward purpose development.

The article fits the scope of the journal by addressing the topic of youth purpose. This topic is relevant in light of the recent focus on college and career readiness in the youth development field. It is well-written and easy to follow. I found the article interesting, and I believe the topic would appeal to the journal’s readership. The authors build on the work of Hill & Burrow (2021), who argue that adolescents are more purposeful than current research suggests. It follows qualitative research procedures; the combination of verbal and visual methods is novel. I could envision using this technique in a non-research context.

Suggestion:

As the article used a visual method, it would be helpful to include a sample road map as a figure. A recent article published in Youth did so.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Newman, T., Williams, E. (2025). Empowering youth through the power of reflective journaling: Understanding life skills from the reflections of youth. Youth, 5(2), Article 60.  https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5020060

Clarification:

Lines 244–245: “This study used an exemplar sampling method to recruit 38 purposeful youth for rich discussions about the development of their purpose.” Should it be that the sampling method is described as purposeful? The youth are discussing purpose, but should they be described as “purposeful youth”? Is there a better way to state this to avoid confusion?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have strengthened the paper, particularly by encouraging us to more clearly present our methodological approach and by clarifying our use of terminology. In response, we have made targeted revisions to improve clarity and accessibility for readers. Below, we address your comments point-by-point and describe the corresponding changes, which are also marked in bold in the revised manuscript.

1. Sample road map figure.

Reviewer Comment:
As the article used a visual method, it would be helpful to include a sample road map as a figure. A recent article published in Youth did so.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Newman, T., & Williams, E. (2025). Empowering youth through the power of reflective journaling: Understanding life skills from the reflections of youth. Youth, 5(2), Article 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth5020060

Author Response:
Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We agree that including visual examples of participant road maps enhances clarity and accessibility for readers. In response, we added one illustrative sample map to the Methods section (Figure 1) to demonstrate the mapping procedure. In addition, we included three representative sample maps in the Results section: a straight path (Figure 2), a winding path (Figure 3), and a split path (Figure 4) (pp 7, 12, 13, 14). Together, these figures provide concrete illustrations of the visual method and align with your helpful reference to recent work in Youth.

2. Clarification of sampling description.

Reviewer Comment:
 Lines 244–245: “This study used an exemplar sampling method to recruit 38 purposeful youth for rich discussions about the development of their purpose.” Should it be that the sampling method is described as purposeful? The youth are discussing purpose, but should they be described as “purposeful youth”? Is there a better way to state this to avoid confusion?

Author Response:
 Thank you for pointing out this ambiguity. We clarified the sentence to avoid confusion between the sampling method and the participants. It now reads: “This study used an exemplar sampling method to recruit 38 youth identified by school counselors as having a strong sense of purpose for rich discussions about the development of their purpose.” This revision makes it clear that the sampling method is exemplary and that the youth were nominated based on counselor reports of their purposeful engagement, rather than implying that we labeled the youth themselves as “purposeful” (p. 6).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. As someone who has researched youth purpose, it is exciting to see the ways in which we are bringing in innovative techniques to understand purpose development across the lifespan. While I think the paper has many strengths, I would like the authors to consider several modifications and additions to the paper to provide transparency that is not intentionally omitted, but is worth highlighting to the readers.

1. The intro is well-rounded, but there is some language that the field of developmental research has moved away from, given its advancements. For instance, developmental science uses the terms "periods" instead of "stages", as stage theories imply stepwise, linear transformations. Along those lines, there is a reference to Piaget in describing the transitions that are indicative of adolescence, and why they struggle to articulate purpose. Given the literature and experience in discussing purpose across the lifespan, it seems that a lack of articulation, or inability to do so, is less of a developmental issue and rather a lack of familiarity with articulating such a concept (i.e., adults struggle with this question too). As such, I think the framing of why adolescents need different avenues to explore purpose needs more teeth in the introduction.

2. Additionally, there is a point made about non-career purpose-orientations as exclusionary of marginalized groups. This point seems problematic as (a) there is a lot of evidence that Beyond the Self-purpose is associated with the most positive outcomes for young people, a domain that does not always include career goals, and there are many non-marginalized group members that articulate non-group goals as their purpose or highest goal in life (goal hierarchy work). It's also not clear in the way it's written--are these Guatemalan participants in the US? In their home country? What about them being Guatemalan is supposed to indicate they are marginalized? or minoritized?

3. It's difficult to know if this method actually is better than what an interview might have provided. How do we know that adolescents wouldn't have been able to articulate a winding versus a straight path without the visual? As such, I suggest two solutions: a) add in participants that did just done an interview and show how the drawing component brought up things that otherwise would not have come up. b) if those data don't exist, highlight this VERY strongly in the limitations and discussion in general. 

4. It's not clear that the drawing exercise is "developmentally sensitive" in some way that's unique to adolescents. If it is the case that this is better than just an interview, what's to say that it wouldn't be helpful for adults to engage in this activity as well to articulate purpose better? It would be helpful to, in the discussion, either hear more about why this is particularly important for adolescents over other age groups (again, to my earlier point, adults struggle to articulate their purpose also). 

5. I keep thinking about how the medium of drawing might have its own limitations, and how it might just reflect how we integrate our internal narrative (again, in the scenario where it doesn't do much more good over and above just an interview). As such, I think discussing narrative identity (Dan McAdams) could play into how we literally would draw out our goals and purpose. 

Also, this gives away a little bit about the research team potentially, but this detail was left in the paper on line 290: All audio files were stored on a secure server at BC. If this is to be left in the final manuscript, be sure to either spell out Boston College or just say that files were stored on a secure university server.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
 
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights greatly strengthened our paper, both by sharpening its theoretical framing and by ensuring that our contributions are clear to readers. Below, we respond point-by-point to your comments and outline the corresponding revisions. Changes are also marked in bold in the revised manuscript.
 
1. Introduction framing (terminology and Piaget reference).

Reviewer Comment: The introduction uses the term “stages,” which implies linear transformations, and frames adolescents’ difficulty articulating purpose as developmental when adults also struggle. The rationale for adolescent-focused methods needs strengthening.

Author Response: We revised the introduction to use the term “developmental periods” rather than “stages.” We also reframed our introduction to emphasize that difficulty articulating purpose is not unique to adolescents, noting that adults also struggle with this task. For adolescents, the challenge may stem less from developmental deficits than from limited opportunities and practice in articulating abstract concepts like purpose. This revision provides stronger justification for using methods that scaffold adolescent articulation of purpose (pp. 1, 2, 8).   

2. Purpose orientations and marginalized groups.

Reviewer Comment: The point about non-career orientations being exclusionary of marginalized groups is problematic. The Guatemalan youth example needs clarification.

Author Response: Great point. We clarified that the example referenced Guatemalan youth living in communities near the Guatemala City Dump, where socioeconomic adversity shaped their outlooks. Many participants expressed a strong sense of purpose rooted in caring for their families, which is an orientation that, while not aligned with Western, individualistic notions of career success, was a deeply meaningful and culturally situated form of contribution. Recognizing these diverse expressions of purpose is important to avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes that certain youth lack meaningful aspirations. We also now note that non-career purposes are not unique to marginalized groups (pp. 2-3). 
 
3. Comparison to interviews (limitations).

Reviewer Comment: It is difficult to know if the visual method truly offers more than interviews alone.

Author Response: Thank you for this thoughtful point. Because we did not collect interview-only data, we have added a strong acknowledgment of this limitation: “our study design did not include an interview-only condition, which limits our ability to determine whether the visual mapping exercise uniquely facilitated insights beyond what interviews alone could provide. Future research should explicitly compare interview-only and combined visual–interview methods to clarify the added value of visual approaches” (p. 17).
 
4. Developmental sensitivity of drawing method.

Reviewer Comment: It is not clear that the drawing method is uniquely adolescent-sensitive, as adults also struggle to articulate purpose.

Author Response: This is a good point. We revised the discussion to note that although visual mapping is developmentally supportive for adolescents, adults also frequently struggle to articulate purpose. This suggests that visual methods may be beneficial across the lifespan, providing a scaffold for abstract reflection regardless of age. We recommend that future research explore this possibility (p. 17).
. 
5. Narrative identity (McAdams).

Reviewer Comment: Drawing may reflect narrative processes; consider discussing narrative identity.

Author Response: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. We added a new paragraph linking our findings to narrative identity theory. Specifically, we note that “the use of visual mapping can also be understood through the lens of narrative identity theory, which emphasizes how individuals construct internalized and evolving life stories to integrate their past, present, and future (McAdams, 2011; McAdams & McLean, 2013). The straight, winding, and split paths described by participants resemble narrative forms through which adolescents externalize and organize their emerging sense of self and purpose. From this perspective, visual methods serve as a scaffold for narrative construction, enabling participants to draw out their purpose stories and engage in the meaning-making processes that are central to identity development” (p. 15).
.
6. Institutional identifier (“BC server”).
Comment: The paper currently states “secure server at BC.”

Author Response: We revised this to “secure university server” to maintain clarity without referencing the institution by acronym (p. 6).