University Experiences of Students in a Gender Minority

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find this a very well researched, well written and interesting paper. The balance is good and the findings are firmly based in the research and the wider literature. I particularly commend the recognition that there are differences for MiM programmes which are different to FiM. I only have the following (minor) suggestions:

1) l26   a ‘relative’ gender balance? It’s not balanced i.e. 50/50?

 

2) L29-31 might be useful to have the ratios here or proportions as well as the figures. At a glance it looks to me that where women are in the minority the ratio of male to female is slightly higher than where men are in the minority - and the programmes are much larger i.e. not just more men (c.6?) per one woman but a large progamme means a lot more men in general. So, the experience on a programme with say 300 students, only 50 of whom are women may be difference to the experience on a programme of 100 students with 20 men (easier to find the other men for a start)? This is just supposition on my part although the authors may have a view. However, this leads to:

3) Might be worth adding as a limitation in the discussion section that the programmes chosen were above a certain enrolment level (300+ students). This is not a criticism of the research as I see it as a sensible and pragmatic approach but it may be good to just raise awareness of this in this section.

4) l481 The summing up of this section refers to the ‘quantitative’ findings but actually draws on both qualitative and quantitative findings - perhaps this could be clarified for the reader.

5) Might be interesting to hear a little more about the qualitative analysis methodology - the detail at the moment is quite limited when compared to the survey analysis. Maybe add about the sub-themes within the two main themes - they seem to echo those of the questionnaire. Was there any inter-coder reliability or was it all conducted by one researcher etc.? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I consider that the research is important, although it must be improved in order to fit into the journal. After reviewing the study, I leave some comments that the authors should address:

1- The theoretical framework should be deepened further, considering everything being studied in the results. In addition, to address the following:

Better specify the factors that they say have been studied.

Why do they focus on emotions?

And why social support?

Many aspects are mentioned within the theoretical framework and they are not connected to each other.

2- Instrument

It is necessary to analyse McDonald's Omega as well as Cronbach Alpha.  

3- Analysis

In this part, you need to explain better both analyses. For example, you can create subsections so that this part can be better understood. 

It is necessary to go deeper into the qualitative technique. What kind of program? How were the interviews organized? what are the categories?

4- Results

In the qualitative results, You can not write the names of the participants. You have to create some codes.

5- Other parts like the discussion need to be updated after the revision of the theoretical part.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a study that has always interested me because I work with groups where boys are in a minority.

I have followed the progress of this work with interest, and I am more interested in the specific descriptions than in the results contained in the introduction and conclusions.

I agree with these limitations and interpret them as the challenge of continuing to replicate this work in other universities and longitudinal studies.

This research shows that the part I have been working on for many years is consistent with the experience accumulated in real-time observation and gives voice to it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have not comments for authors