The Digital Exclusion of Vulnerable Children: Challenge for Sustainability Issues in Czech Social Work Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A brief summary

This paper aims to contribute to our understanding of the use of ICT in social work and its relation to the digital exclusion of vulnerable families and children. The study tackles this topic through a questionnaire survey and interviews done in Ostrava area in the Czech Republic.

Broad and Specific comments

The strength of this paper lies in the importance and timeliness of the topic it handles. There are important issues raised within this study dealing with the difficulties of implementing ICT in social work with apparently low socio-economic families living in de-industrialized areas. The paper also merits giving voice both to social workers and to vulnerable families within this difficult issue.

However, there are weaknesses that need to be addressed by the authors. These weaknesses include the lack of explicitly stated original contribution of their study findings, too shallow discussion-section, and some issues with the result reporting. (All of these are discussed in more detail below in my more specific comments.)

 

Specific comments

Manuscript title

I wonder whether the name of the manuscript should be more precise. For example, you seem to deal mainly the social work(ers) of Ostrava ”district” (are the findings generalizable to every Czech social worker?). Furthermore, the subjective component of assessing ICT competency and relevancy is prominent as is the perspective of social workers over the vulnerable families and children. Please, take these notions into consideration and be consistent throughout the ”manuscript narrative”! (Could this be viewed as "a case study" of sorts - see my comments below on the originality of your study?)

Abstract

Basically OK as such, but could be more precise and informative.

1. Introduction & 2. Materials and Methods

Positive: Definition of digital exclusion is given by the authors and digital exclusion as a phenomenon is embedded within the larger context of social exclusion.

• Check grammar – line 25: ”ICTs get ubiquitous” (replace get with become?) & line 40 ”In the presented study…”
• There seem to be some page numbers missing from references 1-3 (not perhaps from in-text references but from end references. Please, check the reference list.
• Lines 51-61: The central idea of this paragraph remains somewhat vague; while it contains valuable insights, the text should be rearranged. Compare with lines 107-114 in section 2 Materials and Methods.
• Lines 62-67: This is a quite lengthy sentence. Based on my reading, there are several dimensions or sub-categories to your study aim: (1) subjective perception of digital skills of social workers; (2) that of families of vulnerable children; (3) future use of modern technologies and how they contribute to the incidence of the digital exclusion on vulnerable children (especially those living in de-industrialized cities). To my judgment, these different perspectives should be more emphatically differentiated in the text.

 

Compare this with what you write in lines 115-124. Furthermore, the lines 115-124 seem to drop out the perspective of vulnerable families and children (I.e., not included in the research questions), although this perspective has been present earlier in the text and yet again in lines 129-133. The authors should crystallize the different perspectives/aims more clearly. This comes afore throughout the different sections in this manuscript; see also Discussion-section lines 364-368.

• Lines 62-103: The lack of explicit novelty of the authors’ study contribution: While there are some indications in the text regarding the novelty of this present study, the reader remains uncertain of the novel contribution that this study might have on our current knowledge. I.e., in the light of refs. [10-20] the authors should clarify and fortify their novel contribution (e.g., what new information/knowledge/theoretical and/or practical considerations and/or solutions does their study bring to the table of social scientists?). This is perhaps the most important weakness in your paper to address comprehensively!
• See lines 125-128: In what way was the sample (N=105) chosen and demarcated? What was the basis for this selection? Please specify the criteria and other relevant information (cf. line 172 ”among the interviewed social workers of the selected social services).
• See lines 138-145: The ethical considerations of this study should be elaborated by the authors: e.g., how was the research subjects’ consent documented (I.e., written consent)? cf. ”The informants were involved in the research on a voluntary basis”. For the sake of scientific good conduct and transparency, all pertinent documents related to the aforementioned ethical issues should be added to appendices – if thus required. Please, refer and follow the guidelines of MDPI Sustainability.
• See lines 122-123: Phrase "SAS social workers" is used two times. However, the acronym SAS is not explained until lines 160-161. Also, and perhaps even more importantly, the inclusion of SH under SAS seems somewhat misleading. Please, take this into consideration in the pertinent terminology throughout the manuscript.
• The software(s) version(s) used for statistical calculations are missing.

 

3. Results

• I am not sure about the use of the bolded text while reporting. Please, follow the guidelines of MDPI.
• The overall structure of the Results-section needs some re-arrangement; maybe more explicit in terms of the research questions (which, in turn, may also need revisiting – see my earlier comment). Also, consider possible subcategories and/or sub-numberings as headlines under the results-section.

Personally, I would prefer arranging the text and topics as you have done in the Discussion-section. It seems clearer that way.

• Line 149 (grammar): types ICT -> types of ICT
• See line 153: ”by Elich [22]”. References state Elichova (see also page numbering).
• Lines 207-222 offer lots of data. I reckon the original questionnaire form would be needed/helpful in the Appendix-section!
• Numbering missing: the quantitative part 3.1 and the qualitative part 3.2 (see lines 147 & 255, respectively)?
• See line 264: As the footnote 6 explains the mission of SAS, it could be earlier in the text when defining SAS itself.

 

4. Discussion

• The overall structure of this ending section is fine. However, the authors should discuss more fully and explicitly what is their original contribution to the field of ”ICT and social work” especially in light of existing scientific literature. While the authors do engage themselves in some discussion between their findings and existing literature, the dive remains somewhat shallow. Therefore, a somewhat deeper discussion about the originalities and differences, as well as similarities between the authors’ findings and what is already known by social science theorists and practiced by practitioners in the field is, in my opinion, needed. In other words, a more substantial connection and dialogue of the current findings is called upon.

 

Yet again, this problem is principally connected to the lack of the original contribution (at least, what is explicitly stated by the authors in this manuscript iteration) of the present study.

 

 

English language and grammar

• For the most part, the language used by the authors is OK. However, there are some issues, for example, inconsistency in verb tenses, typos (I.e., ”on-line”; ”ICs”; ”ITCs”;” Pearns’ Chi-square”), some redundant words ”that that”, missing articles etc.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and substantiated comments on the submitted work. Following the opinions of the two other reviewers, we tried to incorporate these completely.

1. First of all, we further developed the theoretical basis of the submitted work. We emphasized the socio-ecological approach in social work, which we draw on. We also newly mention the concept of social resilience, with which we work in the field of digital skills. This was also reflected in a more precise title of our article.
2. We clearly formulated the goals of the study into 4 points and stated them in the abstract. We took the fulfillment of these goals into consideration in the final discussion (while always taking the results of the presented research into account).
3. We also added the absent data to the online questionnaire survey of Czech social workers and to the ethics of research (we added the wording of the online questionnaire and consent to the involvement of informants in the research in the appendices).
4. We have also made the description of the methodology of individual phases of research more precise so that its steps and place of implementation be unambiguous.
5. We added in the discussion recommendations for public policy makers and social workers and a comparison of the results of our research with the only existing international research on the digital competencies of the Czech population.
6. Errors of a formal nature (references to sources, numbering of paragraphs, etc.) have been adjusted according to the requirements of the journal.
7. We have made proofreading, but we would still like to ask for the final proofreading offered by the journal's editors to ensure the desired language standard.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

The manuscript was a pleasure to read and offered important insights on the topic. However, there are a few limitations and shortcomings which undermine your arguments and influence the academic soundness of your article in a negative way:

 

1. The theoretical framework seems to be underdeveloped, especially when considering the richness of the literature dedicated to the overarching topic. The literature review provides only a brief glimpse on the relevant existing scientific work, while it also lacks a consistent narrative which should have been used toward building a consistent argument. Furthermore, some of the claims made in the manuscript are not fully developed as valid arguments and are not properly substantiated by referencing the works of other authors. A more comprehensive literature review should have been conducted as you ignored multiple sources (articles) which analyzed empirically the same topics as case studies or in a comparative perspective.

 

2. Although the manuscript is written in a clear, concise and correct way, there are still small language mistakes (typos) or sections which could be rephrased in order to ensure better clarity.  I would recommend proofreading the manuscript one more time.

 

3. The article uses multiple footnotes, but that information should have been included in the text. It would be recommended  to rephrase these sections.

 

4. The methodology could have been more clearly described, regarding both the data collection instrument used, as well as discussing more thoroughly the potential biases in the responses received. It is unclear when was the questionnaire.

 

5. Although the authors have collected significant data (both qualitative and quantitative), the data analyses are basic. More complex statistical texts should have been conducted. 

 

6. Although some are presented during the paper, the last section (Conclusions) should include clear public policy recommendations which can be  derived from the results of the authors and taking into account potential methodological limitations. These public policy recommendations should be clear enough for decision makers to understand, feasible enough to be implemented and as detailed as possible.

 

7. Regardless of the current editorial decision, it would be an excellent idea to dwell on your results, discuss and debate their implications and limitations and then provide consistent policy recommendations which can provide added value to the overall research. The lack of policy implications and lessons which can be applied in different contexts reduces significantly the academic impact and added value of your work. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and substantiated comments on the submitted work. Following the opinions of the two other reviewers, we tried to incorporate these completely.

1. First of all, we have further developed the theoretical basis of the presented work. We emphasized the socio-ecological approach in social work, which we draw on. We also mention the concept of social resilience, with which we work in the field of digital skills. This was also reflected in a more precise title of our article.
2. We have incorporated the footnotes into the text.
3. We supplemented the methodology with the required data for the online questionnaire survey, including the data on the size of the basic set. The results of the analysis, given the total number of responses obtained (105) remain at a descriptive level. The tested hypotheses were not confirmed, which is also a finding with which we work in the interpretation of the data. Due to the triangulation of the data collection techniques and informants, we believe that the obtained knowledge about social reality can be considered supporting.
4. We have met the requirement to add recommendations for public policy makers and outlined possible perspectives in the conclusion.
5. We have made proofreading, but we would still like to ask for the final proofreading offered by the journal's editors to ensure the desired language standard.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is clear that the strengths of the paper rest with the author's ability to engage in research and linear thinking on the topic, along with their ability to engage in neighboring research in the area.  Another strength of the article rests with the high degree of professionalism evident in the structure of the paper.  These qualities deserve praise for their willingness to engage in significant scholarship on digital inclusion. The specific case of children and social workers can potentially inform researchers who are working on this topic or similar areas of interest, possibly in other countries or cities. 

With that said, this paper suffers from two glaring challenges that demand attention before they should seriously be considered for publication in Sustainability. Firstly, the authors fail to include a meaningful discussion that brings their inquires into the realm of sustainability in a meaningful way. This point alone is concerning. 

Secondly, this point leads to the next one of concern. The authors fail to adequately illustrate the connection of digital exclusion of children and social workers to any meaningful consideration of sustainability. When considering these points in tandem, it is challenging to see how this article could benefit the sustainability literature or readers of this journal. 

If the authors want to make a contribution as described above, then they should engage with the relevant literature on sustainability and make the connections in the paper pronounced so that researchers can see such a relationship and understand its bearing on the appropriate and collective scholarly conversations of interest. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the valuable fundamental initiative that guided us in reworking the text presented. First of all, we have further developed the theoretical basis of the presented work. We emphasized the socio-ecological approach in social work, which we draw on. We also mention the concept of social resilience, with which we work in the field of digital skills. This was also reflected in a more precise title of our article. We clearly formulated the goals of the study into 4 points and stated them in the abstract. We reflected on the fulfillment of these goals in the final discussion (while always drawing on the results of the presented research). In the discussion, following Goal 4, we supplemented recommendations for public policy makers and social workers aimed at mitigating the impact of digital exclusion on the target group of vulnerable children and at supporting the sustainability of their social status/standard.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I want to thank the authors for all the efforts they have made to improve their original manuscript. As a result, this revised manuscript seems to respond quite well to many of the first-round suggestions made by the reviewers. The embedded notion of the socio-ecological perspective adds a theoretical framework and situates the overall problem the authors pose to a more theoretical context (in addition to a practical one). The methodology and results sections are more informative in this revised manuscript. Furthermore, the limitations and future research implications are now presented.

While the manuscript as a whole work quite well there are still some important things the authors should address/improve. These are my strong recommendations:

• Based on my reading, the originality/novelty aspect of the authors’ study remains too vague. One can read it is there, but it should be more explicitly stated in the text (preferably in the abstract too). The authors should aim to tell explicitly and clearly to the readers, what new information does their current study give to our pre-existing knowledge; how their study findings relate to previous studies and literature. While there are references here and there hinting at this originality/novelty aspect, the point should be crystallized and made more prominently!
• Methodology/results: While the appendices – and other improvements - added by the authors to this revised manuscript are all positive, I yet wonder if there should be some appendices for the research design parts 2) individual and group interviews and 3) expert interviews. This would, in my opinion, improve the transparency and reproducibility ”norms” of good scientific conduct. Surely, the authors have some question templates, etc. that they used in these interview sessions (these are hinted at, for example, in subsection 3.2). At a minimum, the authors should report what types of interviews were used (i.e., structured, semi-structured, open).
• Results: Especially the newly added 3.3 Summary of research results while otherwise a good summary, seems to incorporate conclusions from their findings in relation to other studies (i.e., reflections upon Hargittai’s and Bodyova’s studies) that, in my opinion, should be better placed in the final section 4 Discussion and conclusions.
• Socio-ecological model, social resilience, and social sustainability/social exclusion: I would suggest to the authors two recent articles published in Sustainability to yet fortify their notions of social sustainability as a whole and more specifically the socio-ecological model introduced. Hämäläinen and Matikainen (2018) (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2166) seem to view social exclusion as a problem/discrepancy in the relationship between society and an individual. To me, this comes very close to what the authors might mean with ”The aim of social work based on the socio-ecological approach is to maintain a balance between people and the environment… [environment understood to incorporate societal and structural aspects]”. Presenting these notions together would possibly strengthen the link between a sustainable future and the socio-ecological model used in social work. I would also advise the authors to check the article by Koskela et al. (2020) that could shed some further insights into how family resilience might be supported through various networks in pandemic-like conditions. The study by Koskela et al. focuses on parents’ views and worries on the learning and wellbeing of school-aged children via ICT.
• The English language used: While the language used is generally at a good level, there are some minor errors that need correction (the proofreading aspect was noted by the authors in their reply). For instance, the Introduction begins:

 

”Information and communication technologies (hereinafter “ICTs”) [are defined] as “a diverse set of technological tools and resources used to transmit, store, create, share or exchange information.”

 

Addressing the abovementioned (1-4) recommendations, should not prove too arduous a task. Please, provide the needed revisions or give a well-reasoned rebuttal.

Thank you and good luck!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions for our edited text, based on which we edited our text again.

1)        In particular, we focused on making it clear to readers what new information our current study provides and how our study findings relate to previous literature. This is stated in the introduction - the text in green colour.

2)        Regarding the methodology, we have added scenarios of interviews to the annexes - Appendix C The semi-structured interview scenario for SAS clients, Appendix D The scenario for Expert interviews.

3)        Part 3.3. Summary of research results, we would like to keep, as we believe that for the  clarity of the article it is good to summarize the findings of our research in this chapter. And in the subsequent chapter 4 Discussion and conclusions to discuss the results in the content of recommendations for public policy makers and social workers.

4)        We also supplemented our text by articles authors who published in the journal Sustainability, and deal with the topic of social sustainability, or the target group of vulnerable children in relation to our topic.

5)        We just remind you, that we have made proofreading, but we would still like to ask for the final proofreading offered by the journal's editors to ensure the desired language standard.

Reviewer 3 Report

I feel conflicted about this paper.  While I do appreciate that the authors addressed the points that I raised substantially, I do have some reservations. 

Here are the strengths of the paper:  The paper has drawn in elements of sustainability, incorporating the socio-ecological model. I was actually quite impressed with how the authors did this. Very clever, indeed.  This move provides a more complex grounding of the issue of digital exclusion. I was also glad to see that they basically "told a good story." It works, somehow. They deserve praise for this work, and it did greatly improve the paper.

Here are the weaknesses of the paper: Despite incorporating the socio-ecological element, it still has a "forced" feel when examining how "environment" basically means "your surroundings." Despite this condition, it does feel a bit more fitting than the previous version. The notion of "sustainability" in turn is weak—at best. And I worry that there is no way around this reality. 

Secondly, the appeal of this paper might be rather narrow, and this point connects with the worry above.  People who approach this paper thinking that it deals with a robust conception of sustainability could be disappointed, criticizing it on those grounds.

I believe that this paper is in response to a special edition, so it might fit in better and my worries above are less warranted. Still, to remedy the situations mentioned above, I recommend adding a footnote or two that at least acknowledges these limitations, specifically the environmental shortcoming (e.g., the nonhuman world, "nature," etc. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions our edited text, based on which we edited our text again.

As you recommended, we have added the context of our concept of social sustainability and a footnote to the text to make it clear to readers what the limitations of our approach to this are. This footnote implies restrictions on environmental shortcoming, nonhuman world. We believe that this clarification will correct the previous shortcomings.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

The authors’ latest iteration is better than than the previous manuscript versions. More importantly, the authors have been able to address the biggest shortcomings of the earlier versions, namely: (1) the sufficient explicit statement of their study’s originality/novelty with respect to the existing research literature in the field; (2) the methodology section is improved via the added appendices (C and D); (3) the conceptual and theoretical link between their study topic and that of social sustainability is now more robust as a result of a thicker discussion presented through the lens of some recent research in the field of social sustainability (see Introduction and Discussion and conclusions).

Overall, I would evaluate this latest manuscript as a paper that has value in furthering our current understanding of social sustainability and social exclusion (particularly e-exclusion), and more specifically how these concepts/phenomena relate to families and children in a vulnerable state, as well as to practical implications concerning the everyday work done by social workers. This study addresses these issues via novel quantitative and qualitative data gathered from Czech social work experiences and draws conclusions for improving future social work and public policy in pursuit of more socially sustainable societies.

Specific comments

• Part 3.3 remains the same as in the previous version. However, I will accept the authors’ reasoned rebuttal to my suggestion in the previous round.
• Grammar/English language-related, see lines 746-749: I would prefer using digitalization over digitization. At least, this is the term used by Hämäläinen, Pihlainen, and Vornanen in their article. (Furthermore, the terms ”digitization” and ”digitalization” are – to my knowledge – two different things.)
• Grammar/English language-related, see line 828 (Appendix D): Please, remove the dot and add a question mark.

Author Response

Thank you for evaluating our versions of the texts and the reviews that helped the article into a quality in context this journal. We appreciate it very much.

We accepted your suggestion about Grammar/English language-related.