Inclusive University Education in Bolivia: The Actors and Their Discourses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is very interesting as it concerns the understanding of the elements that facilitate or hinder university inclusion of students with functional diversity in Bolivia. 

The main improvements I am suggesting are: 

1) For the "Introduction". Although:

• the relationship between the inclusion of students with fuctional diversity in higher education and sustainable development goals (Especially, 4: Quality Education) is very well described, 
• the same is true about the Bolivian setting framed within the Latin America and the Caribbean countries

I have the sense that a literature review related with the international state of arts about the inclusion of students with functional diversity in higher education is missing. And this is addition is more than necessary, as the authors discuss their findings by the help of literature they have not present or review before.

2) For the "Materials and Methods" section:

• I believe that a more detailed description about the questions or the claims guiding the discussion in focus groups is needed.
• I believe that some arguments about the research choices are needed, by this I mean especially the numbers of focus groups and the participants. Do the researchers have any indication that they reached data or information saturation?
• There is an overlapping between table 1 and 2. My suggestion is to be transformed in one table and to add the codes for the participants that are missing (e.g. Pu1♀ (page 9, line 359) or PPr21♀ (page 11, line 478).
• There is not any mention about validity and reliability as is perceived and applied in the context of qualitative research. It is not necessary for me to use some of the great variety of terms we meet in literature for these issues, but I believe that the authors have to adopt one of the various frames of qualitative research and describe how in accordance to this frame they responded in validity and reliability issues in their research.
• The citation STRAUSS and CORBIN, 2016 (page 6, line 237) is not in a proper format for Sustainability Journal.

Results

• In all the figures, in each element there are a E and a D followed by numbers and a very small figure. It is not explained what these are, probably because they are not used. If my guess is true then a restructure of the figures is needed by eliminating them.
• In all the figures there is a spelling issue in the legends, that is "analisis" instead of "analysis", Please see page 7, lines 272-3, page 10, lines 410-11.

Author Response

Comments and responses to reviewer 1

Dear Mr./Mrs.,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Inclusive university education in Bolivia: the actors and their discourses” for publication in Sustainability.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

We appreciate your review of the manuscript and the contribution of your suggestion to the improvement of the paper. We hope you find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Thank you once again for your consideration.

Reviewer 1.

The main improvements I am suggesting are:

• For the "Introduction". Although:

Comment 1. the relationship between the inclusion of students with fuctional diversity in higher education and sustainable development goals (Especially, 4: Quality Education) is very well described, 

• Response: Thank you very much for the comment.

Coment 2: the same is true about the Bolivian setting framed within the Latin America and the Caribbean countries

• Response: Thank you very much for the comment.

Comment 3: I have the sense that a literature review related with the international state of arts about the inclusion of students with functional diversity in higher education is missing. And this is addition is more than necessary, as the authors discuss their findings by the help of literature they have not present or review before.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions accordingly. The review of the international literature in the introduction of the text has been reinforced. In section 1.1., a new paragraph is introduced indicating the importance of educational inclusion policies for university students with functional diversity (p. 2, lines 61-64). In addition, the gap between the design of educational policies and practices is evident. Finally, the most relevant works that are used in the discussion block are anticipated (p. 2, lines 61-75).

 

• For the "Materials and Methods" section:

Comment 4: I believe that a more detailed description about the questions or the claims guiding the discussion in focus groups is needed.

• Response: Thank you for the appreciation. We agree with this and we have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript (p. 5, lines 240-246)

Comment 5: I believe that some arguments about the research choices are needed, by this I mean especially the numbers of focus groups and the participants. Do the researchers have any indication that they reached data or information saturation?

• Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, throughout the manuscript, we have included some arguments about the research choices in the main text (page 5; lines 223-230; 249-254) as well in the footnotes of Figure 1 and Figure 2 (p. 8, lines 323-326; p. 11, lines 463-466).

Comment 6: There is an overlapping between table 1 and 2. My suggestion is to be transformed in one table and to add the codes for the participants that are missing (e.g. Pu1♀ (page 9, line 359) or PPr21♀ (page 11, line 478).

• Response: Thank you for the appreciation. The reference to the cited codes (Pu1♀ or PPr21♀) was erroneous, so we have corrected this mistake (p. 9, line 413; p. 12, line 534)

• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Although we agree that this is an important consideration, in the case of our study, we have opted for the inclusion of two tables where Table 1 provides a general information of the inclusion criteria of the informants and Table 2 a more detailed description of the profile of each informant. We consider that this way to present the information about the participants in the study favors the identification and understanding of them. However, if the reviewer deems it appropriate, we could supress Table 1. We remain at the disposal of the editor to proceed in the proper way.  

Comment 7: There is not any mention about validity and reliability as is perceived and applied in the context of qualitative research. It is not necessary for me to use some of the great variety of terms we meet in literature for these issues, but I believe that the authors have to adopt one of the various frames of qualitative research and describe how in accordance to this frame they responded in validity and reliability issues in their research.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the suggested arguments about the validity and reliability issues in this research (p. 5; lines 223-230; 249-254), wich are suported by three new bibliographic references.

Comment 8: The citation STRAUSS and CORBIN, 2016 (page 6, line 237) is not in a proper format for Sustainability Journal.

• Response: Thank you for the appreciation. The quotation STRAUSS and CORBIN, has been modified adapting it to the publication standards of Sustainability Journal (p. 7, line 288)

• Results

Comment 9: In all the figures, in each element there are a E and a D followed by numbers and a very small figure. It is not explained what these are, probably because they are not used. If my guess is true then a restructure of the figures is needed by eliminating them.

• Response:  Thank you for pointing this out. The meaning and information provided by the letters E and D in the figures have been explained (p. 8, lines 323-326; p. 11, lines 463-466)

Comment 10: In all the figures there is a spelling issue in the legends, that is "analisis" instead of "analysis", Please see page 7, lines 272-3, page 10, lines 410-11.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The misspelling "analisis" instead of "analysis" has been corrected in the legends of the figures (p. 8, line 326; p. 11, line 466)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is correctly substantiated. The methodological aspects are well developed. The data analysis and results are correctly presented.

However, in section 2.1 Procedure the authors state: "The first part of the project consisted of the bibliographical review of the reference material such as scientific articles, institutional documents and regulations concerning socioeducational policies in Bolivia. "

In this aspect, it is necessary that the authors explain in more detail how this review was carried out or what review protocol, which databases were used and the results obtained.

 

Author Response

 

Inclusive university education in Bolivia: the actors and their discourses

 

Dear Editors, 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Inclusive university education in Bolivia: the actors and their discourses” for publication in Sustainability.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

We appreciate your review of the manuscript and the contribution of your suggestion to the improvement of the paper. We hope you find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Thank you once again for your consideration.

Comments and responses to reviewer 2

Reviewer 2.

Comment 1. The article is correctly substantiated. The methodological aspects are well developed. The data analysis and results are correctly presented.

• Response: Thank you very much for the comment.

Comment 2. However, in section 2.1 Procedure the authors state: "The first part of the project consisted of the bibliographical review of the reference material such as scientific articles, institutional documents and regulations concerning socioeducational policies in Bolivia. "In this aspect, it is necessary that the authors explain in more detail how this review was carried out or what review protocol, which databases were used and the results obtained.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have detailed and incorporated into the text the revision process carried out, as well as the limitations that were found in the results of the searches carried out (p. 4, lines 201-219).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The contextualisation made in the theoretical framework can be further updated by referring to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The treatment of the goals of inclusion and quality education become essential in relation to the subject of the study.
In the discussion of the data and results, it would be convenient to establish correlations with studies derived from the situation by COVID-19 to associate if there are future analyses. 
Knowing how the impact of COVID-19 has affected students with special educational needs is a national need within the Ibero-American context.

Author Response

 Inclusive university education in Bolivia: the actors and their discourses

Dear Mr./Ms., 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Inclusive university education in Bolivia: the actors and their discourses” for publication in Sustainability.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

We appreciate your review of the manuscript and the contribution of your suggestion to the improvement of the paper. We hope you find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Thank you once again for your consideration.

Comments and responses to reviewer 3

Comment 1. The contextualisation made in the theoretical framework can be further updated by referring to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The treatment of the goals of inclusion and quality education become essential in relation to the subject of the study.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have updated the theoretical framework with the aim of expanding and qualifying the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on the Goal number 4 (p. 17, lines 46-54).

Comment 2. In the discussion of the data and results, it would be convenient to establish correlations with studies derived from the situation by COVID-19 to associate if there are future analyses, Knowing how the impact of COVID-19 has affected students with special educational needs is a national need within the Ibero-American context.

• Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We think this is an excellent suggestion. Consequently, we have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the final paragraph of section "4. Discussion and main conclusions". It is complemented by seven new bibliographic references that expand the content of the text on the impact of COVID-19 on the international and Ibero-American educational field (p. 17, lines 800-809).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf