Inclusive Design of Workspaces: Mixed Methods Approach to Understanding Users

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, quantitative and qualitative research methods were used to collect data. The data results were compared with existing literature to find out the key methods to reduce the physical barriers faced by people with a disability, so as to encourage all people to use the workspace more comfortably and effectively, and to provide some guidance and suggestions for the design of more inclusive workspace.

My comments are as follows:

1. It is better for the author to point out the advancement and innovation of his own research compared with the existing literature.
2. Charts and tables will be more intuitive in listing the most common factors of inclusive design and relevant literature.
3. In data processing and result analysis, it is better to adopt multi-factor analysis.
4. In conclusion, it is desirable to briefly outline key approaches to reducing barriers and making the workplace more inclusive. At the same time, the future prospects and directions are put forward in the face of the limitations of the research.
5. English words and grammar need to be checked again. For example, "re-em-phasising" in line 187 should be changed to "Reemphasising".
6. The format of the article needs to be adjusted. For example, the title of Figure 1 should be placed after the figure, Table 8 should be placed before the table, and the format of cited literature should be put at the end of the year, etc. Specific modification can be made according to the format of published articles in the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments! Point-by-point responses are in red below.

1. It is better for the author to point out the advancement and innovation of their own research compared with the existing literature.

1. Existing literature has now been incorporated and pointed out within section 5. Analysis and discussion.

2. Charts and tables will be more intuitive in listing the most common factors of inclusive design and relevant literature.

1. The section this was previously located in (section 3, Summary of design features), has now been removed, and any relevant literature and factors have been added to the analysis and discussion (Section 5).
2. Figure 16 (section 5) highlights and summarises the main outcomes.

3. In data processing and result analysis, it is better to adopt multi-factor analysis.

1. Line 769; time was limited to include this analysis, however mention has been made to the limitations and further research in the conclusion.

4. In conclusion, it is desirable to briefly outline key approaches to reducing barriers and making the workplace more inclusive. At the same time, the future prospects and directions are put forward in the face of the limitations of the research.

1. This has been added to the conclusion, also summarised in Section 5 (analysis and discussion)

5. English words and grammar need to be checked again. For example, "re-em-phasising" in line 187 should be changed to "Reemphasising".

1. This has been updated throughout.

6. The format of the article needs to be adjusted. For example, the title of Figure 1 should be placed after the figure, Table 8 should be placed before the table, and the format of cited literature should be put at the end of the year, etc. Specific modification can be made according to the format of published articles in the journal.

1. Format adjusted, improved and aligned to the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deal with a relevant and interesting topic. Some clarification are needed to improve readability and clarity, ensure scientific soundness and reliability of the study.

1. The title is generic. Formulate a concise but detailed title to specifiy the exact topic of the study.
2. line 14: do not insert citation in the abstract
3. The methods (analysis of key design guidelines / literature review / survey / comparison of literature and survey) that are specified in the abstract are not so clear in the manuscript. Please clarify them in the methodology section
4. The first lines in the introduction present important statements but they are not supported by appropriate references: line 33, line 37 and line 42.
5. In the introduction when referring to assessment tools you might want to support the statements with some examples referring to “Validation of a multiple criteria tool for healthcare facilities quality evaluation” doi:1108/F-06-2020-0070
6. I suggest checking the appropriate citation style in the entire manuscript (i.e. line 62, line 80)
7. When discussing guidelines about inclusive design I suggest referring also to assessment frameworks developed in the following studies: “Universal Design-Based Framework to Assess Usability and Inclusion of Buildings”doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58814-4_22 and “Inspiring architects in the application of design for all: Knowledge transfer methods and tools”, doi: 10.17411/jacces.v9i1.147
8. Section 3 is not relevant in its present form. I suggest summarise it and merge in the Backgorund section highlighting only the aspect that are important/basic assumptions for the study.
9. Section 4 due to its length and content appears more appropriate for a result section in a litearature review. The authros should decide if they want to include the literature review as part of the present study or not. In case they will include it I suggest clarify in the methodology the methods used for paper collection and analysis.
10. In general the background section (i.e. section 1-4) is too long and not adequate for a scientific article. I suggest summarizing only the most important concepts and assumptions that support the definition of a research gap and objective
11. The methodological section need to be revised, several unclear passages are present. I provide below in the form of questions the main doubts to address.
    1. You describe only the survey method. What about the literature review and guidelines analysis you declare in the abstract?
    2. Why staff and students have been included in the same sample size A while in sample size B only staff is present?
    3. Sample A is not homogeneus, please clarify the % of students in this sample. You assume that working and studyng from home is the same but you never explain why
    4. Is sample A representative of the general population?
    5. Is sample B representative of “experts” in the topic of the study?
    6. How the survey has been submitted? Via email, phone, etc..
    7. Line 418-422 are not relevant for the methodology explaination
    8. Line 417 is not clear
    9. Which is the response rate?
    10. Line 434: the size of the sample is not very big (60+15 respondents) I would not count it as a strength of the study
    11. How such variability reported in lines 440-442 can bring consistency to the study result?
    12. Are there examples of other questionnaire on similar topic? How the topics have been selected?
    13. I suggest inserting a summary of the topic included in the questionnaire (table) and leave the full survey in annex.
    14. Is the coding /thematic analysis performed with some software?
12. Section 5.3.1 should be included in the conclusion section with study limitation and future developments
13. Some statement reported in the result section may be directly linked to the sample type (i.e. line 529, 533)
14. For reference about survey on students home environments you can refer to “Gender Differences in COVID-19 Lockdown Impact on Mental Health of Undergraduate Students” doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.813130; “ COVID-19 Lockdown: Housing Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health” doi: 10.3390/ijerph17165973
15. Results: always compare the two samples in terms of % not absolute numbers
16. Demographic questions results should be reported at the beginning of Result section because they may contain confounding variables such as the fact that 88% of the sample A is most probably student
17. Line 673: rephrase in “this confirms Helander studies…”
18. Line 694: always refer at this as “self-reported wellbeing” since no wellbeing measurement has been used
19. The study did not considered some built environment aspects such as: apartment size, outdoor views, access to open space. Why those features have not been included since there is evidence of relationship between such aspects and occupant wellbeing? i.e. refer to Evidence Based Design research field
20. Section 7.4.1 is not relevant. I suggest to mention only the actual bias that are present in the study, if any (for example the adaptability one)
21. Figure 16 should be described in the discussion section

Author Response

Thank you for your comments! Point-by-point responses are shown in red below.

1. The title is generic. Formulate a concise but detailed title to specifiy the exact topic of the study.

1. Title changed to: Inclusive Design of Workspaces: Mixed-methods Approach to Understanding Users. Hopefully this is more concise and specific.

2. line 14: do not insert citation in the abstract

1. Has been changed.

3. The methods (analysis of key design guidelines / literature review / survey / comparison of literature and survey) that are specified in the abstract are not so clear in the manuscript. Please clarify them in the methodology section

1. Methodology has been updated, as well as the abstract.
2. Key changes include the removal of section 3 which is now part of the analysis and discussion section, to avoid repetition. The methodology has then been edited to match.

4. The first lines in the introduction present important statements but they are not supported by appropriate references: line 33, line 37 and line 42.

1. References have been added.

5. In the introduction when referring to assessment tools you might want to support the statements with some examples referring to “Validation of a multiple criteria tool for healthcare facilities quality evaluation” doi:1108/F-06-2020-0070

1. This has been added – line 56.

6. I suggest checking the appropriate citation style in the entire manuscript (i.e. line 62, line 80)

1. Entire document has been reviewed and checked.

7. When discussing guidelines about inclusive design I suggest referring also to assessment frameworks developed in the following studies: “Universal Design-Based Framework to Assess Usability and Inclusion of Buildings”doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58814-4_22 and “Inspiring architects in the application of design for all: Knowledge transfer methods and tools”, doi: 10.17411/jacces.v9i1.147

1. This has been added in line 53 of the introduction, it has also been added in lines 724-730

8. Section 3 is not relevant in its present form. I suggest summarise it and merge in the Backgorund section highlighting only the aspect that are important/basic assumptions for the study.

1. Section 3 has been removed and section 2 (now titled ‘background’) has refined and reduced significantly.

9. Section 4 due to its length and content appears more appropriate for a result section in a litearature review. The authros should decide if they want to include the literature review as part of the present study or not. In case they will include it I suggest clarify in the methodology the methods used for paper collection and analysis.

1. Section 4 has also been removed in its previous form; it is now part of the analysis and discussion, as there was repetition within the two sections.
2. To account for the above, the abstract and methodology have been updated.

10. In general the background section (i.e. section 1-4) is too long and not adequate for a scientific article. I suggest summarizing only the most important concepts and assumptions that support the definition of a research gap and objective

1. The background section has been narrowed down to the most important concepts – including designing for a spectrum of users and the design of workspaces – and consolidated into one section.

11. The methodological section need to be revised, several unclear passages are present. I provide below in the form of questions the main doubts to address.

1. You describe only the survey method. What about the literature review and guidelines analysis you declare in the abstract?
1. This has been updated, the literature is now a part of the analysis section.
2. Why staff and students have been included in the same sample size A while in sample size B only staff is present?
1. This has been included in line 271, there were data protection considerations and a lack of student-run neurodivergent groups.
3. Sample A is not homogeneus, please clarify the % of students in this sample. You assume that working and studyng from home is the same but you never explain why
1. % of students has been clarified in line 255, and mentioned in the results – line 380.
2. The assumption and clarification has been added in lines 257 – 262.
4. Is sample A representative of the general population?
1. Yes, this has been added – line 263
5. Is sample B representative of “experts” in the topic of the study?
1. Yes, this has been added – line 273
6. How the survey has been submitted? Via email, phone, etc..
1. Via Google Forms – line 278.
7. Line 418-422 are not relevant for the methodology explanation
1. Has been removed, placed in results – line 377.
8. Line 417 is not clear
1. Hopefully lines 274-275 clarifies this.
9. Which is the response rate?
1. Has been added to the results – line 369 (30% for A, 15% for B)
10. Line 434: the size of the sample is not very big (60+15 respondents) I would not count it as a strength of the study
1. Has been removed.
11. How such variability reported in lines 440-442 can bring consistency to the study result?
1. An explanation has been added in lines 292-296.
12. Are there examples of other questionnaire on similar topic? How the topics have been selected?
1. Reference has been added in lines 318-321 about a study of learning spaces; and what questions and topics they chose to ask to improve their experiences.
13. I suggest inserting a summary of the topic included in the questionnaire (table) and leave the full survey in annex.
1. This has been added – line 246.
14. Is the coding /thematic analysis performed with some software?
1. Microsoft Excel and Word; this has been highlighted in line 330.

1. Section 5.3.1 should be included in the conclusion section with study limitation and future developments
1. This has been adjusted and moved into section 5.4., data limitations and bias. Future developments have been added to the conclusion.
2. Some statement reported in the result section may be directly linked to the sample type (i.e. line 529, 533)
1. Has been added – lines 388, 393
3. For reference about survey on students home environments you can refer to “Gender Differences in COVID-19 Lockdown Impact on Mental Health of Undergraduate Students” doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.813130; “ COVID-19 Lockdown: Housing Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health” doi: 10.3390/ijerph17165973
1. These have been added – lines 737, 742
4. Results: always compare the two samples in terms of % not absolute numbers
1. Has been updated in the results section text.
5. Demographic questions results should be reported at the beginning of Result section because they may contain confounding variables such as the fact that 88% of the sample A is most probably student
1. Has been updated: section 4.1 – line 373
6. Line 673: rephrase in “this confirms Helander studies…”
1. Has been updated.
7. Line 694: always refer at this as “self-reported wellbeing” since no wellbeing measurement has been used
1. Has been updated.
8. The study did not considered some built environment aspects such as: apartment size, outdoor views, access to open space. Why those features have not been included since there is evidence of relationship between such aspects and occupant wellbeing? i.e. refer to Evidence Based Design research field
1. This has been added – lines 740-742
9. Section 7.4.1 is not relevant. I suggest to mention only the actual bias that are present in the study, if any (for example the adaptability one)
1. This has been refined and added to section 5.4.
10. Figure 16 should be described in the discussion section
1. Has been changed – line 688

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors significantly improved paper quality and clarity. 

Fig.4,5 and 10 can be improved inserting the % instead of absolute number to allow comparison between the two samples that are different in terms of total number. In all the figures you might insert both the % and the number.