Exploring Environmental Justice in Higher Education Through Applied Theatre: An Interpretative Phenomenological Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript: higheredu-3866136

Title: “Exploring Environmental Justice in Higher Education through Applied Theatre: An Interpretative Phenomenological Approach”

Date: 13/09/25

 

Dear authors,

I have carefully read your manuscript “Exploring Environmental Justice in Higher Education through Applied Theatre: An Interpretative Phenomenological Approach” (higheredu-3866136) and would like to begin by highlighting its main contributions. The topic addressed, the intersection between environmental justice, higher education and applied theatre, is innovative and highly relevant in the current context. The use of an interpretative phenomenological approach offers a valuable and under-explored perspective for understanding the participants' experiences. Furthermore, the discussion of the findings is developed in a convincing manner and links coherently with the existing literature, which is a significant strength of the article.

At the same time, I believe that the manuscript would benefit from some improvements before publication. First, although the English is understandable, it could be optimised. Currently, the writing contains long sentences and certain repetitions that hinder the flow of the text. I recommend a professional linguistic review to help polish the syntax and clarity of expression, in order to facilitate international readability and highlight the merits of the work more strongly.

In terms of structure, I suggest separating the results section more clearly from the discussion. In the current version, the empirical findings are mixed with the interpretation, which detracts from the precision. A clearer presentation of the emerging categories and the participants' textual quotations will allow the reader to appreciate more clearly the empirical evidence on which the interpretations are based.

Regarding the theoretical foundation, the references cited are generally current and relevant, which is a strength of the manuscript. However, there is an absence of reference authors in areas closely related to the topic, such as environmental education (e.g., David Orr, Arjen Wals, Stephen Sterling), critical pedagogy (Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, bell hooks, Peter McLaren) or social and environmental justice (Nancy Fraser, David Schlosberg, Martha Nussbaum). Including some of these key voices would not only enrich the theoretical framework but also connect the study more solidly with widely recognised debates in the international literature.

Finally, the conclusions are consistent with the results and are well integrated into the conceptual framework of the study. However, the practical contribution of the research could be emphasised a little more: how the use of applied theatre can guide policies and practices in higher education towards greater environmental justice. This addition would provide further clarity on the added value of the study for researchers and professionals in the field.

Overall, I consider your work to be an interesting and original contribution to the field of higher education. With the improvements noted in the use of English, the presentation of results, the updating of references, and the emphasis on practical relevance, the manuscript will achieve the level of clarity and robustness required by Trends in Higher Education.

I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript and hope that my comments will be useful in further strengthening a study that already makes valuable contributions.

Yours sincerely,

External reviewer — higheredu-3866136 (MDPI)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is understandable and the English is acceptable, but there are long sentences, redundancies and awkward constructions that detract from clarity. Professional linguistic editing would be advisable to polish the grammar and syntax and improve the precision of the academic style. This would facilitate international readership and reinforce the impact of the research.

Author Response

Comment:

Dear authors, I have carefully read your manuscript “Exploring Environmental Justice in Higher Education through Applied Theatre: An Interpretative Phenomenological Approach” (higheredu-3866136) and would like to begin by highlighting its main contributions. The topic addressed, the intersection between environmental justice, higher education and applied theatre, is innovative and highly relevant in the current context. The use of an interpretative phenomenological approach offers a valuable and under-explored perspective for understanding the participants' experiences. Furthermore, the discussion of the findings is developed in a convincing manner and links coherently with the existing literature, which is a significant strength of the article.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for these encouraging comments.

 

Comment:

At the same time, I believe that the manuscript would benefit from some improvements before publication. First, although the English is understandable, it could be optimised. Currently, the writing contains long sentences and certain repetitions that hinder the flow of the text. I recommend a professional linguistic review to help polish the syntax and clarity of expression, in order to facilitate international readability and highlight the merits of the work more strongly.

 Response:

We thank the reviewer for the constructive observation regarding clarity and readability. We carefully revised the manuscript to improve flow, precision, and overall coherence. Minor linguistic refinements were made in sections of the Introduction, Methods, and Discussion, including slight reductions of long sentences and the removal of small repetitions, while fully preserving the intended meaning and academic tone. These adjustments enhance the readability of the text without altering the authors’ scholarly style of writing.

 

Comment:

In terms of structure, I suggest separating the results section more clearly from the discussion. In the current version, the empirical findings are mixed with the interpretation, which detracts from the precision. A clearer presentation of the emerging categories and the participants' textual quotations will allow the reader to appreciate more clearly the empirical evidence on which the interpretations are based.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. We revisited the structure carefully and confirmed that the empirical findings are presented descriptively in Section 3, while Section 4 contains the interpretative component and the linkage with the literature, following conventions of phenomenological and qualitative analysis. Nevertheless, we introduced some minor refinements to ensure an even sharper separation (lines 251, 281-282, 324). Should the reviewer identify a specific passage where the distinction still appears unclear, we would be grateful for further guidance, noting that the remaining reviewers did not raise concerns on this point; nevertheless, we carefully considered this comment and implemented the refinements described above.

 

Comment:

Regarding the theoretical foundation, the references cited are generally current and relevant, which is a strength of the manuscript. However, there is an absence of reference authors in areas closely related to the topic, such as environmental education (e.g., David Orr, Arjen Wals, Stephen Sterling), critical pedagogy (Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, bell hooks, Peter McLaren) or social and environmental justice (Nancy Fraser, David Schlosberg, Martha Nussbaum). Including some of these key voices would not only enrich the theoretical framework but also connect the study more solidly with widely recognised debates in the international literature.

 Response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, we enriched the theoretical framework by incorporating key references from environmental education (e.g., Orr, Wals), critical pedagogy (e.g., Freire, Giroux), and social and environmental justice (e.g., Fraser, Schlosberg). These additions connect the study more clearly with internationally recognised debates in the field. The corresponding revisions have been added in lines 35-38, 66-68, and 348-351.

 

Comment:

Finally, the conclusions are consistent with the results and are well integrated into the conceptual framework of the study. However, the practical contribution of the research could be emphasised a little more: how the use of applied theatre can guide policies and practices in higher education towards greater environmental justice. This addition would provide further clarity on the added value of the study for researchers and professionals in the field.

 Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We added a brief statement clarifying how applied theatre can guide policies and teaching practices that promote environmental justice in higher education. This addition has been incorporated in lines 513-516).

 

Comment:

Overall, I consider your work to be an interesting and original contribution to the field of higher education. With the improvements noted in the use of English, the presentation of results, the updating of references, and the emphasis on practical relevance, the manuscript will achieve the level of clarity and robustness required by Trends in Higher Education. I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript and hope that my comments will be useful in further strengthening a study that already makes valuable contributions. Yours sincerely, External reviewer, higheredu-3866136 (MDPI)

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive overall assessment and for the constructive feedback offered. We carefully addressed all suggested improvements. We hope that the revisions made satisfactorily respond to the reviewer’s comments and further strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is imperative that we take a closer look at the research presented, particularly the language used to describe its findings.  The abstract and conclusions claim that a certain number of assumptions are "demonstrated." However, from a more nuanced perspective, it is crucial to acknowledge that the research is based on the narrative perceptions of just eight people. This limited scope raises significant concerns about the validity of the conclusions drawn. The research is based on the narrative perceptions of eight people, which can lead to "show," "describe," or "contribute to understanding," but never to "demonstrate", a verb that should be used for more extensive studies with more varied instruments, representative samples, etc.

 

The instrument used in this study is built upon a theoretical model, but it has not undergone the necessary scrutiny from experts. Furthermore, the semi-structured interview questions are designed to support the proposed model, leaving little room for discussion or controversy. This lack of critical examination is a major flaw in the research, undermining its scientific potential and rendering it insufficient for publication.

While the analysis may be considered adequate, the narrative results of the interviews are not sufficient to support the conclusions presented. The sample limitations are acknowledged, yet the authors proceed to draw conclusions and offer recommendations that are not supported by the study's explanatory potential. This is particularly concerning, as it positions the authors in favour of using theatre as a sociocritical tool for students to promote ideological aspects of educational policies based on concepts such as sustainability.

It is essential to approach this research with a critical eye, recognizing the limitations and potential biases that underlie its findings. A more thorough examination of the key concepts and theoretical frameworks is necessary to ensure that the conclusions drawn are accurate and reliable.

Author Response

Comment:

It is imperative that we take a closer look at the research presented, particularly the language used to describe its findings.  The abstract and conclusions claim that a certain number of assumptions are "demonstrated." However, from a more nuanced perspective, it is crucial to acknowledge that the research is based on the narrative perceptions of just eight people. This limited scope raises significant concerns about the validity of the conclusions drawn. The research is based on the narrative perceptions of eight people, which can lead to "show," "describe," or "contribute to understanding," but never to "demonstrate", a verb that should be used for more extensive studies with more varied instruments, representative samples, etc.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation regarding the strength of the claims in the abstract and conclusion. After carefully revisiting both sections, we identified a single sentence in the abstract where the verb “demonstrate” could be read as stronger than warranted for a small-scale qualitative study. We have now revised this sentence to read that “the findings indicate that Applied Theatre can create an intermediate learning space…”, in order to better reflect the interpretative scope of our design. Apart from this instance, the abstract and conclusion already used more cautious formulations (e.g., “highlights”, “suggests”, “contributes to understanding”) and did not employ terms such as “demonstrate” or “prove”. We believe the revised wording now fully aligns with qualitative and phenomenological conventions.

 

Comment:

The instrument used in this study is built upon a theoretical model, but it has not undergone the necessary scrutiny from experts. Furthermore, the semi-structured interview questions are designed to support the proposed model, leaving little room for discussion or controversy. This lack of critical examination is a major flaw in the research, undermining its scientific potential and rendering it insufficient for publication.

Response:

We respectfully disagree with the assertion that the interview instrument “has not undergone the necessary scrutiny from experts” and that the semi-structured questions “leave little room for discussion or controversy.” In this study, the instrument is not a standardized measurement scale but a semi-structured interview guide grounded in the Environmental Justice in Education framework. In line with qualitative and phenomenological conventions, the purpose of the guide was to orient the conversation around three broad dimensions (perceptions of inequalities and justice, pedagogical approaches, and institutional context), rather than to test the model in a confirmatory way.

As described in Section 2.4, the guide consisted of open-ended questions that invited participants to articulate both supportive and critical views about environmental inequalities and the use of drama-based or artistic approaches in higher education, without presupposing any particular stance. The formulation of the questions allowed participants to introduce reservations, alternative interpretations, and critical reflections, and these are visible in the results, especially in the subcategories on conditions, constraints, and institutional barriers (Sections 3.3 and 4.3). In Section 2.5, we also clarify that, although the three dimensions of the model were used as initial coding categories, the analysis explicitly allowed for the emergence of new subthemes beyond the predefined structure.

To make this orientation even clearer, we slightly expanded the description of the interview guide and of the analytic procedure, emphasizing the open, exploratory and interpretative character of the instrument and the space given to unanticipated perspectives. We therefore believe that the critique of a “major flaw” based on a lack of expert validation of the interview guide does not apply to the qualitative and phenomenological design adopted in this study.

 

Comment:

While the analysis may be considered adequate, the narrative results of the interviews are not sufficient to support the conclusions presented. The sample limitations are acknowledged, yet the authors proceed to draw conclusions and offer recommendations that are not supported by the study's explanatory potential. This is particularly concerning, as it positions the authors in favour of using theatre as a sociocritical tool for students to promote ideological aspects of educational policies based on concepts such as sustainability. It is essential to approach this research with a critical eye, recognizing the limitations and potential biases that underlie its findings. A more thorough examination of the key concepts and theoretical frameworks is necessary to ensure that the conclusions drawn are accurate and reliable.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising concerns about the scope of the conclusions. We respectfully clarify that the study does not aim to generalize causal claims or to promote ideological positions regarding the use of theatre in higher education. The conclusions synthesize the participants’ perceptions through a qualitative, phenomenological lens and remain clearly bounded by the limitations acknowledged in Section 5. The suggestion that theatre-based practices may enrich sustainability-related teaching does not constitute a prescriptive recommendation. Rather, it reflects the instructors’ own accounts, as documented in Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, and 4.3, where both perceived benefits and substantial constraints are discussed. These include limited time, lack of training, institutional barriers, and insufficient infrastructure. Several participants also expressed reservations about feasibility and institutional recognition. Such counterbalancing evidence shows that the study does not endorse theatre uncritically as a sociocritical tool but reports the nuanced and sometimes ambivalent perspectives of the instructors themselves. The study does not position the authors in favour of ideological agendas. It situates theatre within established scholarly discussions on democratic participation, experiential learning, and environmental and sustainability education. The concepts employed reflect mainstream literature in the field and the frameworks within which the participants already work. The conclusions remain within the explanatory potential of the data, outlining opportunities, limitations, and possible pedagogical implications without extending claims beyond what the qualitative material supports.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic presented in the article is interesting and relevant, especially in terms of increasing the opportunities for students from various social groups to engage in the study process. The article presents a fairly good analysis of the theoretical discourse, the research methodology, the course of its organization, and the research results are presented in a detailed and informative manner. On the other hand, practically until the very end of the article it is not entirely clear how the first part of the research "Perceptions of environmental inequalities and justice" correlates with the other two parts. This feeling is reinforced by the title of the article itself, which very clearly refers to aspects 2 and 3 of the research. And only in the Discussions section in lines 358 and 359 can an implied connection be detected, e.g. "[...] artistic and theatrical activities create spaces of collective inquiry and voice for students who are often marginalized."
It would be necessary to explain all the connections between all 3 issues under consideration at the very beginning of the research presentation.
It is also unclear for what purpose part 6 of the article is presented, which is atypical for scientific articles of this type. If these are to be considered recommendations, they should be presented after the Conclusions section.
The article also uses the term "instructor" repeatedly, which is also not entirely clear whether these are the professors who participated in the study or something else. So, the terminology should also be sorted out, or the basis for its use and connections should be explained (e.g. that these are synonyms).

Author Response

Comment:

The research topic presented in the article is interesting and relevant, especially in terms of increasing the opportunities for students from various social groups to engage in the study process. The article presents a fairly good analysis of the theoretical discourse, the research methodology, the course of its organization, and the research results are presented in a detailed and informative manner.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for these positive remarks.

 

Comment:

On the other hand, practically until the very end of the article it is not entirely clear how the first part of the research "Perceptions of environmental inequalities and justice" correlates with the other two parts. This feeling is reinforced by the title of the article itself, which very clearly refers to aspects 2 and 3 of the research. And only in the Discussions section in lines 358 and 359 can an implied connection be detected, e.g. "[...] artistic and theatrical activities create spaces of collective inquiry and voice for students who are often marginalized." It would be necessary to explain all the connections between all 3 issues under consideration at the very beginning of the research presentation.

 Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. The structure of the study follows directly the three dimensions of the Environmental Justice in Education model: (a) perceptions of inequalities, (b) pedagogical approaches that address these inequalities, and (c) the institutional conditions that shape their implementation. These dimensions already underpin the organization of the Results section; however, we agree that making this relationship more explicit can enhance clarity for the reader. For this reason, we added a brief clarifying sentence in the Methods section explaining how the three analytical strands correspond to and follow the conceptual progression of the theoretical framework (lines 155-159). We hope this addition resolves the reviewer’s concern and renders the structure of the study even more transparent.

 

Comment:

It is also unclear for what purpose part 6 of the article is presented, which is atypical for scientific articles of this type. If these are to be considered recommendations, they should be presented after the Conclusions section.

 Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We agree that the former Section 6 could be more clearly positioned within the structure of the article. In the revised version, we have relocated this section to follow the Conclusion and retitled it as “Implications for University Practice” which reflects its purpose more accurately and aligns with conventional article formats. We hope that this adjustment addresses the reviewer’s concern and improves the overall clarity of the manuscript.

 

Comment:

The article also uses the term "instructor" repeatedly, which is also not entirely clear whether these are the professors who participated in the study or something else. So, the terminology should also be sorted out, or the basis for its use and connections should be explained (e.g. that these are synonyms).

Response:

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point regarding terminology. In the original manuscript, the term instructor was used as a general descriptor for members of the teaching staff in the participating university departments. However, we agree that this wording may create ambiguity, especially because the term professor is reserved for colleagues who hold an official academic rank (Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor). Not all members of our sample occupy such positions, and using the term professors throughout would inaccurately represent their status. To avoid misunderstandings, we revised the terminology in the manuscript and adopted the more accurate phrase higher education instructors. We also added a short clarification in the Participants section explaining that the term refers to teaching staff engaged in university-level instruction regardless of rank or contract type. This adjustment ensures precision and consistency while reflecting the actual composition of the sample.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have a strong paper! Your research on exploring post-secondary arts/drama-based instruction within educational/environmental disciplines is quite unique. The following are my suggestions:

Your introduction is strong and provides information regarding drama-based approaches such as role-play. However, I wonder if you can expand on the types of drama-based assignments/pedagogical approaches your participants utilized in their current or former teaching experiences. In lines 276-277, your participant quote "when we discussed the burned forests in the area and dramatized it..." that is a great example of an assignment/approach. Do you have others that you can share? For example, question 7  asked, "Can you imagine an example of a theatrical activity that could raise your students’ awareness of environmental issues?" Do you have participants' responses? 

You noted your selection criteria and the number of participants in your study have years of teaching experience ranging from 5 to 17. However, to what extend did your participants have an "expressed interest in or prior experience with artistic or drama-based teaching practices?" (lines 172-173). Clarifying to what extent they had experience or interest may strengthen your paper. Additionally, identifying how many of the participants utilized drama/artistic pedagogy in environmental courses is suggested.

Your discussion is great. My only suggestion is to weave 4.2 more into the conclusion e.g., briefly add how your study contributes to the literature of post-secondary active learning and student outcomes. 

Note, in your appendix you forgot to number question 3. 

Author Response

Comment:

You have a strong paper! Your research on exploring post-secondary arts/drama-based instruction within educational/environmental disciplines is quite unique.

 Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these encouraging comments and truly appreciate the positive assessment of the study’s contribution.

 

Comment:

Your introduction is strong and provides information regarding drama-based approaches such as role-play. However, I wonder if you can expand on the types of drama-based assignments/pedagogical approaches your participants utilized in their current or former teaching experiences. In lines 276-277, your participant quote "when we discussed the burned forests in the area and dramatized it..." that is a great example of an assignment/approach. Do you have others that you can share? For example, question 7  asked, "Can you imagine an example of a theatrical activity that could raise your students’ awareness of environmental issues?" Do you have participants' responses?

 Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. Several participants did, in fact, refer to additional drama-based assignments they had used in their teaching, including short improvisations on local environmental conflicts, role-plays involving different stakeholders, and collective image-theatre activities. To make this clearer to the reader, we added a brief sentence in Section 3.2 highlighting these examples (lines 293-297). We add lines 401-407 too. We hope this clarification addresses the reviewer’s concern.

 

Comment:

You noted your selection criteria and the number of participants in your study have years of teaching experience ranging from 5 to 17. However, to what extend did your participants have an "expressed interest in or prior experience with artistic or drama-based teaching practices?" (lines 172-173). Clarifying to what extent they had experience or interest may strengthen your paper. Additionally, identifying how many of the participants utilized drama/artistic pedagogy in environmental courses is suggested.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. To address the concern, we expanded the description of the sample in the Participants section. We now clarify explicitly that all participants had either prior experience with, or an established interest in, drama-based or artistic pedagogical practices, and that each had incorporated such techniques, at least to some extent, when teaching environmental education or sustainability-related topics. These additions make the selection criteria and the participants’ level of experience more transparent.

 

Comment:

Your discussion is great. My only suggestion is to weave 4.2 more into the conclusion e.g., briefly add how your study contributes to the literature of post-secondary active learning and student outcomes.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Following the comment, we added a brief sentence in the Conclusion highlighting how the study contributes to the literature on post-secondary active learning and student outcomes, This addition appears in lines 471-475 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comment:

Note, in your appendix you forgot to number question 3.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for noticing this oversight.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study's primary methodological challenge lies in its conceptual ambiguity regarding the term "environment." It does not fully distinguish between 'Environmental Justice' (EJ) as the goal of the pedagogy and the 'university resource environment' as the means to implement it. This ambiguity can create confusion, potentially substituting the essential pedagogical question—how effective the Applied Theatre pedagogy is—with a more administrative one: how efficiently university resources were used. Consequently, the research could be limited to a simple program case study, potentially overlooking its core pedagogical outcomes. A related challenge is the alignment between the study's objectives and its performance metrics. The stated aim is to foster 'critical participation' through an innovative pedagogy. However, the evaluation appears to lean on conventional, resource-centric metrics (like satisfaction or enrollment) rather than developing qualitative metrics that fully measure this goal. To strengthen its validity, the research would benefit from applying metrics that track changes in students' EJ perceptions, the development of critical analysis skills, and any subsequent behavioral changes. Furthermore, while the research topic of exploring perceptions and perspectives is inherently phenomenological, the study does not yet detail a corresponding phenomenological method. A rigorous application would typically involve detailing key procedures such as bracketing, phenomenological reduction, and the description of essence. Clarifying these procedures would strengthen the methodological claims. Finally, for a study focused on pedagogy, the research could be substantially strengthened by providing more substantive detail about the pedagogy itself. 'Applied Theatre' is mentioned as an approach, but its specific implementation, techniques, and theoretical grounding are not fully detailed, leaving it somewhat of a "black box." This omission presents a key limitation, as the study's central purpose—to research a specific pedagogy—remains not fully addressed.

Author Response

Comment:

The study's primary methodological challenge lies in its conceptual ambiguity regarding the term "environment." It does not fully distinguish between 'Environmental Justice' (EJ) as the goal of the pedagogy and the 'university resource environment' as the means to implement it. This ambiguity can create confusion, potentially substituting the essential pedagogical question—how effective the Applied Theatre pedagogy is—with a more administrative one: how efficiently university resources were used. Consequently, the research could be limited to a simple program case study, potentially overlooking its core pedagogical outcomes.

 Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We respectfully clarify that the study does not treat “environment” as an undifferentiated concept. The theoretical framework employed is the Environmental Justice in Education model, in which the three dimensions of justice (distribution, participation, and recognition) explicitly guide both the interview protocol and the directed content analysis. References to infrastructural conditions (e.g., uneven access to natural spaces or technological resources) appear only because participants themselves described these as environmental inequalities affecting student experience, a perspective consistently documented in the Environmental and Educational Justice literature. These elements are therefore interpreted as part of distributive justice in line with the theoretical model, not as indicators of administrative efficiency, and they do not replace or overshadow the pedagogical focus of the study. No evaluation of resource use or administrative performance is conducted. The core aim remains the exploration of instructors’ perceptions of how drama-based approaches relate to environmental justice within higher education. Based on the above, no amendments were made.

 

Comment:

A related challenge is the alignment between the study's objectives and its performance metrics. The stated aim is to foster 'critical participation' through an innovative pedagogy. However, the evaluation appears to lean on conventional, resource-centric metrics (like satisfaction or enrollment) rather than developing qualitative metrics that fully measure this goal. To strengthen its validity, the research would benefit from applying metrics that track changes in students' EJ perceptions, the development of critical analysis skills, and any subsequent behavioral changes.

 Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s intention to encourage methodological clarity. We note, however, that the study does not employ performance metrics of any kind, nor does it rely on indicators such as satisfaction or enrollment. As a qualitative, phenomenological investigation, the study collects no quantitative outcomes and makes no evaluative claims about the effectiveness of the pedagogy. Instead, it documents how instructors understand environmental inequalities and how they perceive the potential role of drama-based approaches. The analysis is therefore aligned with the stated aims and with the methodological orientation of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and directed content analysis. While future research may indeed incorporate longitudinal or mixed-method designs to assess student learning outcomes, such aims fall beyond the scope of the present exploratory study.

 

Comment:

Furthermore, while the research topic of exploring perceptions and perspectives is inherently phenomenological, the study does not yet detail a corresponding phenomenological method. A rigorous application would typically involve detailing key procedures such as bracketing, phenomenological reduction, and the description of essence. Clarifying these procedures would strengthen the methodological claims.

 Response:

Thank you for this thoughtful remark. The study employs Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, which differs methodologically from transcendental phenomenology. IPA follows an interpretative, double-hermeneutic approach and does not implement phenomenological reduction or essence description in the Husserlian sense. Similarly, bracketing in IPA is understood as a form of reflexive awareness rather than as a formal procedural step. For this reason, the inclusion of such procedures would not align with the methodological framework adopted in this study.

 

Comment:

Finally, for a study focused on pedagogy, the research could be substantially strengthened by providing more substantive detail about the pedagogy itself. 'Applied Theatre' is mentioned as an approach, but its specific implementation, techniques, and theoretical grounding are not fully detailed, leaving it somewhat of a "black box." This omission presents a key limitation, as the study's central purpose—to research a specific pedagogy—remains not fully addressed.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. To address the request for greater clarity regarding the specific drama-based techniques used by participants, we added short but concrete examples in the Results section (lines 293-297), where additional participant descriptions of improvisations, stakeholder role-plays, and image-theatre activities are now included. Furthermore, we expanded the Discussion section (lines 401-407) with a concise paragraph highlighting how these techniques exemplify the pedagogical mechanisms through which applied theatre supports embodied and critical engagement with environmental inequalities.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort invested in preparing the manuscript’s second draft and providing detailed responses to the initial comments. The revision work was thorough and meticulous, and the changes unmistakeably improved the study’s methodological precision and internal coherence.

In particular, I highlight the following advances:  

1. The abstract and conclusions have been rewritten, substituting overly forceful language with wording that better suits a qualitative, phenomenological approach. 
2. The methodological section has been expanded to more transparently present both the interview guide and the analytical process.  
3. The discussion now incorporates nuanced points and explicitly acknowledges limitations, thereby enhancing the study’s credibility and interpretive caution.  
4. The theoretical framework is applied more consistently, and critical perspectives emerging from the data are integrated, demonstrating that the study captures not only positive perceptions but also reservations, barriers, and institutional tensions.

Regarding the instrument, while my initial assessment identified a potential confirmatory bias arising from its alignment with the theoretical framework, I recognise that the clarifications offered contextualise this choice within the chosen qualitative methodology. The expanded presentation of the interview guide and the willingness to accommodate emerging subthemes strengthen the stance articulated in the revision.

 Overall, I find the revisions satisfactory and believe that the manuscript, in its current form, presents the conceptual and methodological consistency required for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and for your positive assessment of the revised manuscript.