The Dialectics of Body, Self, and Environment in the Psychic Life of Individuals with Disabilities: Compensation, Meaning, and Social Contexts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is conceptually strong and well organized, but some adjustments are needed to enhance clarity and interpretive balance. First, the relationship between the number of interviews and the number of participants should be clarified, specifying whether multiple interviews were conducted per participant and how theoretical saturation was achieved.

Second, some psychoanalytic interpretations appear to extend beyond what is directly supported by the data. These should either be moderated or more explicitly grounded in the empirical material.

Additionally, some redundancy is present in the discussion section, with ideas repeated from earlier sections. Streamlining these passages would improve conciseness. Finally, a moderate simplification of language would enhance accessibility without compromising conceptual rigor.

From a methodological standpoint, the description of the analytic process would benefit from additional detail, including how coding was conducted, whether multiple analysts were involved, and what strategies were used to ensure rigor (e.g., triangulation or researcher reflexivity). This would strengthen the study’s transparency.

In the results section, although the four-pattern structure is clear and effective, some interpretations rely heavily on the psychoanalytic framework without acknowledging alternative readings. It would be helpful to briefly consider other perspectives or to acknowledge the limits of the chosen framework.

The summary table (p. 6) is clear and useful, but it could be more explicitly integrated into the text through brief interpretive commentary highlighting its analytical contribution.

In the discussion, while engagement with psychoanalytic theory is strong, incorporating more recent literature from critical disability studies would broaden the manuscript’s interdisciplinary relevance.

Finally, regarding style, revising overly long or dense sentences and reducing the repeated use of highly technical terminology where not strictly necessary would improve readability and flow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript addresses an important topic, namely the subjective and relational experience of early-onset physical disability. The attempt to integrate psychoanalytic theory with qualitative data is conceptually interesting, and the use of life-narrative interviews is appropriate for capturing meaning-making processes.
However, in its current form, the manuscript presents some limitations that affect its scientific rigor and clarity.

First, the methodological section lacks sufficient detail. It is not clear how the thirty-five interviews relate to the reported sample size of seven participants, nor how many interviews were conducted per participant and how they were used analytically. In addition, key elements of qualitative rigor are missing, including a clear description of the coding process, the analytic steps followed, the role of researchers in interpretation (reflexivity), and any procedures to enhance credibility (e.g., multiple coders).

Second, the manuscript tends to overinterpret the data through a predominantly psychoanalytic lens. While this perspective can be valuable, many claims appear theory-driven rather than clearly grounded in the presented excerpts. Alternative interpretations (e.g., resilience, identity development, social adaptation) are not sufficiently considered, which limits the balance and empirical robustness of the findings.

Finally, the theoretical framing relies on classical psychoanalytic literature, with limited engagement with recent empirical research on disability, coping, identity, and stigma. Strengthening the integration with contemporary literature would significantly enhance the manuscript’s relevance and impact.

Overall, the paper has potential, but revisions are required to clarify its methodological foundations, strengthen analytic rigor, and better balance theory and data.

1. The statement “thirty-five life-narrative interviews (N = 7)” requires clarification. Please specify:

-number of interviews per participant

-whether interviews were longitudinal or repeated

-how data from multiple interviews were integrated in the analysis

2. The method section should be expanded to include:

-whether coding was inductive or theory-driven

-steps of analysis (e.g., familiarization, coding, theme development)

-whether multiple researchers were involved in coding

-how disagreements or interpretive biases were managed

3. Interpretations involving constructs such as “narcissistic restitution,” “omnipotent fantasies,” or “castration anxiety” should be more explicitly grounded in the data. In several cases, the link between excerpts and these interpretations appears implicit rather than demonstrated.

4. The analysis would benefit from acknowledging alternative, non-psychoanalytic interpretations of the findings (e.g., adaptive coping, identity construction, social comparison processes), to avoid a one-sided theoretical reading.

5. While the thematic categories are clearly presented, the analysis could be strengthened by:

-comparing patterns across participants

-highlighting variability or contrasting cases

6. The manuscript would benefit from stronger engagement with recent empirical research on disability, stigma, and psychological adaptation, beyond classical psychoanalytic sources.

7. Please include information on ethical approval, informed consent, and data protection procedures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments, and the overall quality of the paper has improved. The study addresses an important topic, namely the psychological and relational processes underlying the lived experience of disability, moving beyond the traditional medical versus social dichotomy. The integration of psychoanalytic, developmental, and disability frameworks represents a clear strength and contributes to advancing a more nuanced, multidimensional understanding of disability.

The qualitative design, based on repeated in-depth narrative interviews, is appropriate for the research aims and allows for a rich exploration of meaning-making processes. The identification of compensatory patterns (e.g., symbolic resignification, achievement-oriented positioning, compensatory roles, and family silence) provides a coherent and theoretically grounded contribution.

Overall, the manuscript is now much clearer, better structured, and conceptually more consistent than in the previous version.

The authors have adequately addressed the previous comments, and the manuscript has been substantially improved in terms of clarity, structure, and conceptual coherence. I have no further specific comments or requests for revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your insightful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. The paper has been carefully revised in accordance with your suggestions, which has significantly enhanced its overall clarity, structure, and conceptual consistency. Following your valuable recommendations, I have strengthened the theoretical grounding of the study. I am confident that the resulting revisions have led to a much more rigorous and transparent manuscript.

Once again, I appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing my work.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dimitrios Petrilis