Multiple Network Effects: “Individual-Organization Social Interaction” Model on China’s Sustainable Voluntary Service Supply Mechanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article under title “"Individual-Organization Social Interaction" Model on China’s Sustainable Voluntary Service Supply Mechanism” by Liu and coworkers presents a novel research on the model of volunteerism based on the data from the interviews. The study is well-thought, includes sufficient material for the main conclusion, standard methodology, well-developed strategy, and it is applicable to the similar studies.  The authors have selected a successful organization for the volunteers and therefore had a cohort of data that could be analyzed.  My main concern is for the authors to explain and elaborate if the selection of the organization influences the obtained results and main conclusions. Besides that, my suggestion is MINOR REVISION for the authors to answer the question and present a rational explanation supported by the literature review.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for specific modification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The sustainability mechanism of volunteer service provision in China and establishing a grounded theory analysis of the long-term interactions of the research subjects.

2. It has added the sustainability mechanism of volunteer service provision in China and compared it with national and international published materials.

3. There is no need to change the methodological part. It is better to present the conclusion a little more neatly.

4. The references can be improved compared with other recent studies.

5. Abstract can be improved: by adding study objectives or main questions of the research; a clear understanding of the method should be given; it is also good to contribute research.

Nice contribution in the literature. Thanks

Overall looks fine.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for specific modification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is  very interesting because it deals with a qualitative data analysis, which is methodologically has some merits due to  its uniqueness and strengths.. Many scholars in the past have  argued for the importance of  taking a hybrid approach in research methods combining qualitative with quantitative methods.   In this  respect, this paper has some good contribution to be made for better understanding of the qualitative methodology. Below are my suggestions based on my knowledge of qualitative methodology.

1.  Introduction has some  discussions on the previous literature on volunteering or voluntary services. But I think authors need to mention some merits (contribution) of this study,  that is, what is the  advantage of using qualitative  methods and what they  tried to accomplish with this approach.  Because that is  exactly what makes this  paper uniquely different from other research papers.in  terms of methodology.

2.  I would suggest that authors include some discussions on the qualitative methods in  section  3 on research  methods  and data sources. This would  familiarize readers with the  characteristics (pros and  cons) of the  qualitative methods like the one used in this paper. For instance, they can provide details on the advantages of  using such  technique, and potential pitfalls of the me method, and  why authors chose to  pick up the qualitative method,  etc.

3.  As long  as qualitative research  goes,   I believe the selection of data source is very critical because it dictates the research outcome immensely due to the typically small sample size used for depth interviews. Authors mentioned the selection of the 12 interviewees based  on  their previous volunteering period of more than one  year. But I am not convinced whether  just one year experience is  long enough period  to  conclude their  experience is sustainable. I  am   afraid  it is  not a good   indicator of  sustainable  engagement in  volunteering.  Therefore, authors should  justify the sample selection by providing rationale of this use against some other indicators perhaps, frequency or volunteering  or  stable nature of participation, or average period of each volunteering event, etc. And authors state they separated the sample into two groups, university students and older group. I don't  think  this  method is really the best way to ensure  the representativeness of the sample vis-a-vis whole population of volunteers. Rather I think the age group should be  more balanced. Perhaps authors might consider taking a quota sampling, picking two people from each of 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, for example. In short. I suggest authors try  to justify the  representativeness of  the sample they selected.  

4.  Authors  said  they used Nvivo as a tool for analysing the interview  data. But there  is no explanation about  the program in   the text and why they used that particular program.  At least they should describe the mechanism or basic procedures that  Nvivo employs in greater detail.

5. I don't see clearly how Tables 1 through 5 are connected. Authors should discuss  in  greater detail how they are linked and  how they extracted the major constructs in each step..

6. Figure 1 shows three  ( Motivating, Resources, and Competence) as three major concepts finally extracted. But I think the paths should be indicated in reverse direction by drawing arrows in reverse direction.

7. Figure 2 shows triangular relationships between the three factors. But it is not clear how authors derived that relationship. Was there previous literature to support that relationship? Or is it just authors subjective views? They should come up with justification for that relationship proposed. Furthermore Is there any way authors can predict which part of relationship is stronger or weaker? And how do you suppose the three concepts contribute to sustainable volunteering, and in what way?

8. It is strongly recommended that authors support their finding based on previous research outcomes. This will allow authors to ensure the validity of the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for specific modification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It appears that authors did an excellent job of revising the paper to fully reflect the reviewer's comments and suggestions. This kind of qualitative study is hard to conduct and compared with quantitative study it has some distinct merits and strengths. I strongly recommend this paper to be published.