Agency Barriers of the Members of Silesian Senior NGOs in the Implementation of Social Innovation (Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The abstract indicates that the objective of the research is to diagnose the objectivized and awareness agency barriers to innovations in NGO.

The authors have answered some comments and have improved the manuscript but some problems remain.

 

Introduction

• Very long and mixes various elements: presentation of the topic, theories, definition of concepts… The introduction should not be mixed up with the presentation of the theoretical frame.

L37:

• The intensifying change in the demographic structure of the 37 Polish society, in the direction of an increase of the share of people aged 60+ in the population, favors 38 the increase of agency of seniors in the social life.:  This is not automatic and the sentence is contradictory with the idea mentioned above that demographic change is a “burden”.

L40-L80: The part on social innovation should be reinforced with robus references on social innovation so to avoid presenting it as only a fuzzy concept with no consensual definition. The author also only refer to the steps of social innovation in the rest of the article, not using the rest of what they have settled as important parts of of social innovation processes as well (like changing social relations, ideas etc…). It is not clear why this article really needs the theory on social innovation: it seems here to serve as a descriptive frame for the organisations that are studied. The fact that the organisations that are studied are SI is not proven but suggested (L94: In the dimension of the examined senior non-governmental organizations, executing social innovations, all the aforementioned categories of members adopt a role of prosumers of such innovation. They participate in all the stages of its creation, implementation 96 and dissemination.)

 

L80: I can’t understand the section on truth and how it is attached to the rest of the section on social innovation.

L 128:

• The contexts presented above, related to the occurrence of structural barriers and, particularly 128 important in the issue described – agency barriers, constitute a reference point for the 129 conceptualization and operationalization of research problem and construction of research tools for 130 diagnosing the limitations in the development of social innovations that were perceived by the 131 members of the examined NGOs.: What is referred to as “context” is more a theoretical frame than a “context” with indications of the field of NGO. The sentence is also long and difficult to understand.
•  

L132:  The authors propose an extension of the definition of “agency barriers” (L132: The authors distinguish two original types of agency barriers – 132 objectivized and related to awareness. ) : on what basis?

L140: Then, the author refer to Archer’s theoretical frame to define agency  (L140. The article does’nt provide sufficient explanation on the use of Archer’s theory in this particular case: why is it relevant? The theoretical part on social innovation and Archer’s theory is long and not sufficiently articulated.

L156: Very long and complex sentence: “To make the analysis of creation of the objectivized and awareness barriers of agency, resulting in dysfunctions in the field of innovativeness understood in a broad sense in non-governmental organizations and their environment, the authors are going to refer to several epistemological assumptions of morphogenetic theory and critical realism. “ The rest of the section (including the bullets points) that has been added does’nt add much clarity.

Part 1 is really too long and too theoretical. In order to ease the understanding of a rather complex interwining of theories, it should present introductory elements and frame separately.. Besides, the fact that concrete elements are only presented at p.5 makes it difficult to concentrate on all those off ground elements

Part 2

In the article, the authors sometimes mention “selected senior NGO’s “ (13-14) and later  “Third age universities and the NGO working with them” . There is also confusion about who are the individuals; members and sympathisers (262) or “leaders and members (263). The presentation of the two models of UTW seems to have no incidence on the description of the Polish model. It might be interesting to explain how relating to one of these models is important for the topic of the article.

The justification of the interest of the subject comes at L253) which is rather late.

Part 3:

L315: Table 1 presents some descriptive elements on the presence of internet communications. I can’t really see “fragments of elaborate quantitative and qualitative empirical material.

The rest of the section presents interesting results but

• I found it hard to perceive the subtle differences among various types of organization. I also found it difficult to conclude to real “digital inclusion” only from the fact that those initiatives exst (L456: “Summarizing the subsection, digital and communication competences were indicated above for the members of the examined organizations, which in a significant way contribute to magnifying their objectivized agency.”
• The digital innovations that are presented are not proven to fulfill the definition of a “social innovation”

 

Part 4:

L463: An attempt was made to determine the extent of digital competences of the examined members 463 of Silesian senior non-governmental organizations. In other words, there was research conducted on 464 the component of the objectivized agency, which is conditionned by the structural and cultural context 465 of their actions but is independent from the images of the context examined in this area.: I don’t understand the use of the word “images” and to what it refers.

The schemes are rather hard to read.

Part 5:

The research questions should be explicitely reframed here and get a clear answer.

Also, given the results of the analysis, how do the authors explain them? Are there any social or economical elements that can justify these "good" results in terms of social and old-age inclusive policies etc? The "envy" results is also interesting to contextualise.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment: the latest corrected version of the article and author's reply to the review report (reviewer 1).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your responses and the revision.

I still can see three major problems with your paper 1. language 2. structural organization and 3. clearness  

1. I strongly recommend a language proofreading and editing.

You use the term ‘agency’ differently throughout the paper and this can increase confusion. For example, use of agency in line 38, is different from the ‘agency’ barriers.

When you are using someone else's exact words in your text, you should use quotation marks and cite your source with the pages. Otherwise, you do not need to mention the pages. (see line 36 and 40).

There are many parts that need more simplification or clarification. For e.g.  line 42-44: “The attention should also be paid, in the  authors’ opinion, to definitions that point to the fact that innovation allowing creative reaction to  social challenges, among others, is linked to the situation on the market of people socially excluded  and to social effects of globalization of many economic activities.”  Can you simply mention that

Innovation can also imply the creative reaction to social challenges, which can be influenced by the socio-economic effects that globalization has caused. In this regard, a pre-retirement, disabled and long-term unemployed group, who cannot actively engage in the normal social-economic activities, may have less contribution to the innovation.

 

2. You need to work on the structural organization of your paper. For example, it is more logical to start your introduction by “Characteristics of the research subject “ (line 230-288). In addition, it is more logical to bring the discussions in part “ Digital competence as the elements of objectivized agency of the members of senior NGOs” (lines 336-359) in the introduction part, where you are justifying your research.

The authors open op the discussion of agency in line 140. I think this paragraph should come after line 127.

 

3. There is a lack of interaction between main parts of your paper, including the objectives, the theory and methodology. If you can connect these parts in your arguments, you will increase the quality of your paper. It is not always clear what the point of the argument is. There is no logical connection between different paragraphs and new topic discussions.

What is the difference between ‘ structural’, ‘objective’, ‘objectivized’? and ‘agency’, ‘subjective’, ‘awareness’ and activity/process. These terminologies are sometimes used interchangeably, and it really confuses the reader. Please stick to one terminology or specifically distinguish them!

 

Some recommendations:

• In my opinion, in order to target a larger group of audience for your paper, who are not familiar with your theoretical framework (agency), change your title to something like ‘what barriers affect the members of senior non-governmental organizations to implement the social innovation’ or ‘structural’ and ‘agency’ barriers of implementing social innovation among members of senior non-governmental organizations.
• In line 27: You can refer to J Schumpeter’s English reference: Prophet of innovation, 2007’
• Based on your research questions, your theory should explain and clarify the ‘objectivized agency’ and ‘awareness agency’ barriers and their relation with digital competence and social innovation as well as reflexivity. There should be an interaction between these concepts, how they relate to each other and will help the researcher to answer the research questions. Your discussions in lines 180 to 228 should be summarized and simplified and it should be a clear connection and interaction with the main objective of the research. How they will be used/investigated/understood in this research?
• Since you use the interview quotations, you need to discuss the ethical issues and that you considered them.
• The quality of your figures should be improved.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachement. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors improved the manuscript well

I accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

No comments from the reviewer 3.

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Introduction
The purpose of the paper is clearly stated.
The problem is well defined.
The case is made that the problem is significant.
The research questions are clear.
The title and abstract are appropriate for the paper.
The introduction is adequate for the paper.

2. Literature Review
The literature is recent and relevant.
The literature review acknowledges the depth and breadth of investigation in the field.
The term “elderly” should not be used due to the ageist meaning. Please change to older people, older adults, or seniors.
Original Polish names of institutions and organizations should be included – not only translated versions. The same issue is in the case of using abbreviations (such as UTW instead of U3A).

3. Methods
The methods used are clearly explained and justified.
The methods are sufficient to answer the research questions.
Methods are described with enough detail to be reproducible by other investigators.

4. Findings
The results are clearly related to the data (including text and numeric).
Figures could be presented with higher resolution to increase the readability of the text included.

5. Discussion and Implications
The findings are discussed in relation to the literature review and research questions.
Implications for theory, policy, and practice are explored, as appropriate.
The strengths and limitations of the study could be more clearly presented.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

2. Literature review: The term "elderly people"has been changed to seniors in the article. The table with the original (Polish) names of the institutions and organizations is provided in the appendix.

4. Findings:  The clarity of drawings has been improved.

5. Discussion and Implications: The strengths  and weaknesses of the study are presented in more detail.  The importance of the autor's use of the morphogenetic casual analysis and limited reprezentativness scales was emphasized.

 

 

 

Reviewer 5 Report

The text is well presented. The language is clear. The authors have made a lot of improvements in the article during the reviewing process. The tables and figures can be improved, following the styles required, and making it more visible and clear (specially the figures)

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

The figures have be improved, following the styles required, and making  it more visible. 

No other comments from the reviewer 5.

Reviewer 6 Report

Dear author(s),

Thank you very much for submitting this manuscript, which I read with interest.

This is a qualitative study that intends to diagnose the objectivized and awareness agency barriers occurring when implementing social innovation in the selected Silesian senior non governmental organizations.

The paper holds significant information that would be of interest to Sustainability readers. Your contribution is important, but there are some clarifications that must be done before publication. I report below some questions that are important to answer and what it seems to me the most important to improve.

What is the knowledge gap to be addressed with regards to previous researches and what are the expected theoretical and practical expected outcomes and implications, or what new knowledge for sustainability research can be constructed on the basis of this article? How these objectives and research questions are supported by an in-depth literature review? How this study confirms or challenges existing theories and approaches? What are the contributions at a theoretical and practical level based on the analysis and critical discussions of the findings? 

Abstract:

The abstract clearly defines what the purpose of the study is, however the author(s) should mention the following factors:

More important contributions and implications (theorical and empirical) of this study.

The original value for this field of study must be better specified.

Introduction:

In my opinion, Introduction should be a separate section of “Social innovation and social agency” and should contain the following:

(i) Definition of the problem of research with an adequate statement of reasons for thematic.

(ii) The motivations/reasons which lead to the study highlighting the innovative aspect of this research.

(iii) Clear research goals defined.

Literature review:

Literature review seems well

Results and discussion:

Results and discussion seem well but there should be a section with the conclusions where the innovative aspect of the research, the implications for theory and practice, contributions and limitations were presented.

No relationship is made with the results of other investigations and the results found in this study.

This paper addresses an interesting topic. Despite the merits, there are several issues to be considered before the publication of the paper.  I hope the authors take advantage of my comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 7 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the article „Agency barriers of the members of Silesian senior NGOs in the implementation of social innovation (Poland)”. Below my remarks:

• the summary should include 1-2 sentences on the results obtained and the practical implications associated with them;
• the section "Introduction. Social innovation and social agency" should be divided into two separate sections: Introduction and Literature review;
• in the introduction (at the end), add a paragraph about the structure of the article and what each section contains;
• the research methodology is correct, although it is not research on a representative sample (CAWI). They should be described as preliminary or pilot studies;
• Unfortunately, although the study is interesting, there is a definite lack of structured logic and readability in the results presented. The results of the SWOT analysis are only partially presented. This must be improved;
• the name of section 5. Results and discussion should be changed to 5. Discussion of results because the results were already described in the previous section. The discussion of results should be referred to the results obtained in other studies by other researchers and described in the literature. It is now a repetition of the main results already described;
• the article lacks the Conclusions section. It should be separated from section 5 and extended. It is worth answering the question: what do the results bring? How can they be used in practice?
• the article is a little bit technically and editorially poorly prepared. Here are some examples of errors;
• in lines 173-174 is incorrectly inserted enter;
• line 289 - delete the dot after the section title;
• line 313 incorrectly writes SWAT analysis instead of SWOT analysis;
• figures 1,2,3 are of very poor quality, poorly readable. They should be improved;
• in line 540 the sentence should start with a capital letter – „which is…”
• technical corrections are necessary. All references should be properly prepared. e.g. Kalmykova, Y.; Harder, R.; Borgestedt, H.; Svanäng, I. Pathways and Management of Phosphorus in Urban Areas. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, 928–939.

Author Response

Please see the attechment. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thanks for your responses and the revision. Unfortunately, your paper suffers from a poor language quality, which challenges the reader to comprehensively follow your discussions. I still believe 'objectivized' is not an appropriate theoretical term. I could not find this terminology anywhere. Some phrases that are used are not appropriate for a high quality scientific paper, for example "Why have the authors deemed this particular subject of research to be significant?". Some of the errors I have addressed before are still unchanged. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the review that has substantially improved the paper. I only have one suggestion to make, to remove the reference to the author [1] in the abstract. Abstracts must not contain references.

Author Response

L10: The reference to the author [1] in the abstract has been removed. 

Thank you for cooperations. 

Reviewer 7 Report

Thanks to the Authors for taking into account my comments.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer 7 for constructive comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with barriers to social innovations in NGO's. it focuses in particular on digital barriers in NGOs that are managed by senior leaders. It first presents definitions of social innovation, smart cities and agency. It then presents the theory of morphogenesis as the principal frame of analysis and the methodology (FC and CAWI). The results show that there are no digital barriers hindering social innovation toward smart cities among the seniors that were interviewed but that there are indeed a series of (interrelated) structural- and agency- barriers that can affect NGO's innovative capacity on the economical, political, cultural and social level (p.10). The discussion then highlights that Silesian NGO's face no fundamental barriers their active participation to smart cities as defined earlier.

Although the subject is very topical, the article in itself has three majors problems:

1/ The definition part (introduction) presents extensive definitions on SI, smart cities and agency while it is very evasive on barriers to SI. The state of the art should be more focused on obstacles at all levels and better show why SI and smart cities (presented though their digital nature here) are related as social innovation usually refers to innovations in social relations rather than in technologies or products per se. This part also lacks a critical approach on digitalization and an explanation of why digital competences are treated differently than other (as important) competences.

2/ The status of the 12 elements referring to morphogenesis theory is not clear and the results that are presented are only loosely related to them. This should be clarified. The justification for focus groups and CAWI as methods suitable for this theory is not clear neither.

3/ The results and the discussion part does not refer to the morphogenesis theory anymore. The results are presented in a very descriptive way but without any data on the context. For example, the article points to rivalry, overlapping competences etc... It is easy to imagine that these are obstacles but it is difficult to figure out why these attitudes exist etc... It lacks a discussion of the results in terms of new knowledge added to that theory and the limits of the theory/methods etc...

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The main challenge of this paper is the language. The sentences are long, often including too many vague, meaningless and complicated words, concepts and terminologies. In addition, the supporting arguments are not outlined, and sentences do not flow together.

Abstract: The issue of agency barriers was taken up that limit the development of social innovations in the selected Silesian senior non-governmental organizations, in this agency which is conditioned by the level of digital competence.

Comment: Is ‘agency barriers’ specific limitation of social innovation in the research selected organizations? was this found by the former study?  is ‘this agency’ refer to ‘Silesian senior non-governmental organizations’? then there is a grammatical mistake that should be fixed.

 Can this sentence be re-written so that it can be clearer? e.g. Agency barrier is identified as one of the limitations of social innovation. This study investigates the interplay between social innovation and agency barrier in the selected Silesian senior non-governmental organizations (NGOs?), in which the level of digital competence has an important effect on innovation. (This is my understanding of your sentence. It should be definitely adjusted to your point).

The morphogenetic approach is used to explore the roots of the emergence of agency barriers hindering social innovations.

Through qualitative analysis of data obtained from focus group interviews (FGI) and computer assisted web interview (CAWI) with the leaders and members of NGO’s, a diagnosis of agency barriers in the processes of initiating, testing and implementing innovation is identified.

Introduction. Social innovation, smart city and social agency

 

This part starts with some definition of social innovation, without explain the excellence and importance of this topic. There are so many known and cited articles about the social innovation that are missing here. The literature review in this topic is not sufficient and the authors could not show that they have great understanding of this topic. Therefore, they have provided a narrow aspect of social innovation.

In line 35, the authors refer to National Centre for Research and Development, mentioning that the notion of social innovation includes technological innovation and strictly social innovation. What does it (social innovation includes social innovation) mean? Then they indicate that one of the social innovation aspects that they are interested in is an increasing number of people in the pre-retirement age, the disabled and the long-term unemployed, who need support from the state and the society, creating tensions on the labor market. However, they won’t elaborate on this, leaving the argument and jump to another topic: effectiveness. There is no logical connection between sentences. They lack supportive explanation, reasoning and arguments. it is very difficult to understand the point of the argument.

from effectiveness, which is not argued completely, they jump to the new topic of ‘place’ or ‘context’ in social innovation. The extent to which they are relevant to the main thesis of the paper is not discussed and clear. None of these theoretical issues will be reflected or argued later in the discussion. They will remain loose and disconnected.

Lines 59 to 69 brought common elements of social innovation. However, they are never reflected in the research questions, methods and later discussions. So the main question is how different issues of ‘total change of social arrangement functioning’; ‘effectiveness’; ‘place-based context’; ‘role of users and recipients’; ‘creative changes in social processes, relations among people, and various types and forms of innovation (variety of solutions) that demand different reactions’ ; ‘truth, co-operation and mutual inspiration of innovators, users and recipients’; and ‘smart city’, which all are mentioned in this section, are examined, studied and/or analyzed in this paper? What is their relevance?

It seems that morphogenetic theory is the main theoretical approach of this study. therefore, it is suggested that the authors focus on this theory, use all the relevant, updated and important literatures to support their argument. In addition, it is very important that authors respect and capture the substantive differences between structures and culture and discuss them appropriately in the paper.

In line 145: the authors mention that ‘based on the theoretical assumptions above and author observation and reflection, three research questions were raised, and the answer will be searched in the paper.

First, it should be authors. Second, observation and reflection of what? Authors did not reflect on their position or role, regarding the fact that they will also adopt the action research approach.

they ask about the digital competences of the examined leaders. It is not clear why they chose the leaders and not users for example, as all their arguments in the theory emphasize the role of the latter. In addition, they have not argued why they are studying the importance of the digital competence and in what context (smart city, social innovation or U3A?)

The second question is “What agency barriers are noticed by the examined seniors in the undertaken innovative activities?”.  They have not deeply discussed and opened up the agency barriers in the innovation field. Still it is not clear what the authors mean and look for in their research. They have used so many different theoretical and methodological concepts that it is difficult to find the thread of the argument.

I don’t understand what the authors mean in line 152: “Questions 2 and 3 refer to the research on the component of conscious agency, which is a derivative of the type of reflexivity taken by the subject.”

Methodological assumptions and frames of research procedure

I don’t understand what the authors mean by “Agency  barriers  of  the  particular  collective  action  subjects  may  be  examined and  their ontological status is taken into account as the elements of multi-level reality (micro-, meso- , macro-) and  dualistic,  because  objective  (structure)  and  subjective  (agency) reality . (line 155)

What does ‘the causal morphogenetic analysis’ mean? The authors need to determine who their target group is? If they aim at a wider international academic and practitioners, they should define and explain any theoretical-methodological terminology and concept.

In line 165, the authors present some “deductive scheme of causal explanation for the analysis of concrete cases of the occurrence of agency barriers amongst the leaders of the particular non-governmental organization”. However, in the discussion there is no reflection on/reference to this part.

These points are quite long and difficult understand the theoretical background and logic behind them. They need more explanation and reference to the context of the paper. Some examples or explanatory sentences are required. In addition, I am not sure if the study design is appropriate and the order of reasons and arguments in the paper is satisfactory. For example, why these points are discussed in this part and not in the theoretical part, which can better rationalize the research questions.

I am not convinced that the authors provide sufficient details of methods and analysis to allow replication by others. In addition, their scientific analysis and interpretation are not complete and satisfactory; not all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility.

In line 213, the authors give new type of information regarding their methodological approach, which has been discussed former and the reasoning of such new and sudden information is missing. “In order to diagnose agency barriers and search for their genesis and directions of conditioning the organizational activities, the authors used, including a diachronic time and causal order, research procedures that consist in using a qualitative method (FGI), mixed quantitative and qualitative (CAWI)  and  morphogenetic  causal  analysis.” In addition, they have not provide the necessary information regarding the sampling method, type of interviews, examples of the questions, analytical techniques, and research quality concern.

there is no introduction to the research case. The readers’ knowledge about the research context and case is taken as granted. The reader is supposed to have geographical and social knowledge about the country and cities! There is nearly no methodological reference. There is no information about the concept of U3A and its development in Poland, and its excellence in this research. The research justification is thus not very rich.  

In line 233, which project are the authors talking about, in which the research team will obtain the remaining 6 questionnaires from all target groups until the end of the project (28.02.2020). How is the reader supposed to know all this info?  

Objectified agency of the leaders of Silesian senior NGOs

This part should have been argued much sooner. some of the arguments are referred to the context in Poland, while the others are discussed generally or context-independently. How can these two distinguished from each other or be built upon each other?

the authors provided some statistical info without any logical reasoning and how the authors’ interpretations can contribute to the research.

in line 264, the authors mentioned “that conducted research on, among other areas, the topic how the generation from before the era of computers (called the BC generation – before computers), which are the currently living people in senior age (60+), deals with utilizing the Internet, what type of activities they do in the net and how do they influence their feeling of social agency and civil activity”.  The results are not presented in the paper.

In line 268, they mentioned that “One of the objectives of the research was to show that the members and leaders of Silesian seniors non-governmental organizations are not digitally excluded  as well as to diagnose the extent of their digital competences, showing their agency in building relations with social, cultural and economic environment.” This shows that the researcher made the conclusion before doing the research. This brings the objectivity under the question.

What do the author analyze table 1? How do they understand the results? There is no interaction between theory, methodology and results.

Even though they use some of the citations to support their arguments, it is not clear how their methodology has directed them to their conclusion and answering their research questions.

In this section, they brough some of examples, which are not clear how the researchers found them (line 350).

The awareness component of agency of the leaders of Silesian senior NGOs

They asked different questions and answered none of them. In addition, they have not explained what the background of such questions are.

Figure 1, which is the main finding of the research is not well presented. How they came up with these core groups. How do they do the coding system? what does each core group represent? what are the examples of these groups?

In some parts, they mention ‘structural barrier’ and ‘agency barrier’, the difference between them is not mentioned.

In line 393: They refer to economic context as a precise meaning of structural barriers. Can they explain this?

In this part, the authors provide many facts or findings without explaining how they come up with such reasoning. there is no logical match between their methods, data presentation, findings and analysis.

Discussion

The beginning of this part can be a part of the excellence or research justification or even conclusion, but definitely not discussion.

I am not convinced how they come up with the conclusion, mentioned in lines 426- 430.

Neither their methodology nor their analysis, they discuss smart city.  However, their conclusion links to the smart city. How? specially they are admitting that their research sample is unique and ungeneralizable. This itself challenges the generalizability, one of the research quality concerns.

There is no explicit answer to the research questions and there is no conclusion.

 

Summary

I am sure the authors have worked hard, and their paper can potentially contribute to the field, however

• The paper could not sustain the argument trough the thesis body
• The topic sentences do not always contribute to the main argument
• The order of the reasons in the introduction does not match the order of the paragraphs in the body
• Each paragraph does not necessarily have a topic sentence and one main idea
• The sentences do not always flow together
• There are many long sentences that can be shortened
• There are many redundant phrases that could be cut
• The paper is not clearly and accurately presented and does not cite the current literature
• The study design is not appropriate
• The conclusions are not drawn adequately supported by the results
• There is no connection between introduction, theory, method and analysis
• The main point of the paper is vague
• There are so many objectives, questions, concepts, focuses and terminologies that undermine the quality of the paper
• The references are not appropriate
• The title does not match the scope of the paper

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript focuses on the issue of agency barriers that limit the development of social innovations in the selected Silesian senior non-governmental organizations conditioned by the level of digital competence. Its structure is correct and logical. The abstract contains the main purpose of the paper, the description of the methodology and the main results and findings of the research. The first part of the article includes an introduction and background to the study and the literature reviews. The second part presents the results of the research. At the end of the article the conclusion is presented.

The paper contains all the required elements: research general aim, review of literature, problem solving and conclusions. The chapters are suitably prepared and articulated. The scope and layout of the work do not raise any objections; the issues discussed are important and described clearly and objectively. However, there are several critical remarks.

1. In the introduction the research problem should be pointed put.
2. The results should be clearly present.
3. I would suggest the author make the reader aware of the possible reasons of the results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf