Identifying the Social, Urban, and Environmental Co-Benefits of Coworking Spaces in Irish Towns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This article reports on an empirical study into the social, urban and environmental dimensions of coworking spaces and their associated work practices is Ireland.   The article is timely considering the increasing interest in new work practices and coworking spaces post-pandemic. The paper is well written, clearly structured and the figures illustrate the data / argument well.   Two overall minor suggestions:   1. Discussion should be a synthesis – not just a summary of the analysis The Discussion (section 4) should be revised to be less of a summary of Section 3 and more of a synthesis. The goal here should be to zoom out from the nitty gritty of the data analysis in Section 3 and (whilst guided by Section 3) to now make broader synthesis-style statements about the implications of the study's results for the management of coworking spaces, for the HR departments of companies wanting to consider remote work / coworking practices, for policy, and for planning.   While it is consistent to stick with the social – urban – environmental themes in Section 4, I wonder whether there are other ways to structure the synthesis discussion that give more room for broader implications and impact findings, e.g.: Implications for technology adoption / management / policy / etc.
2. Extending the coverage of the literature A couple of suggestions for further links with current debates and discourse in the field:   p. 2: "Modern information and communication technologies facilitate flexibility in worker location" – suggest citing: Houghton, K., et al. (2018). Working from the other office: Trialling coworking spaces for public servants. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 757–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12317 – could also be added to Section 2.   p. 2: "advances in digital and mobile technologies" – suggest you look up, review and cite studies on coworking spaces conducted by Dr Mark Bilandzic.   Also: Rogers, Y. (2020). Is remote the new normal? reflections on Covid-19, technology, and humankind. Interactions, 27(4), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403586   For Section 2.1, I suggest adding: Foth, M., Forlano, L., & Bilandzic, M. (2020). Mapping New Work Practices in the Smart City. In H. Friese, M. Nolden, G. Rebane, & M. Schreiter (Eds.), Handbuch Soziale Praktiken und Digitale Alltagswelten (Vol. 50, pp. 169–181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08357-1_33  

 

For Section 2.2, I suggest you look up, review and cite studies led by Dr Matthew Zenkteler who is looking not just at remote work practices but coworking spaces located in residential neighbourhoods and the implications for urban design and planning.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the main question of the research concern the social behavior changes that emerge due to SARS- CoV-II isolation and the continuous increase of the home working citizens percent

the research is necessary to help the governmental bodies (local or central level) in designing medium and long terms strategies

the number of interviews must be highly increased for future studies, also the number of dimensions take into account

the conclusion are consistent with the presented data and they address the main questions of the study

the references are good if we take into account the fact that EU just begin to analyze in this manner social behavior

in the future it will be a good idea to use on line questionnaires in order to have large number of interviews because the statistic is relevant over 10.000 samples on each relevant dimension used in analysis

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting mixed-methods study exploring the perceptions of users and operators of coworking spaces (CWS) located in Ireland. I like the research design and the graphical presentation of the statistical results. The interview data are also informative. I have a good impression of this paper but a few minor revisions are required.

The headings in 2.1, 2.2., and 2.3 (similarly, in the results’ section) are not very informative and do not help the reader navigate the lit review. Please make the headings more informative.

The literature review should be supplemented by drawing upon other important studies such as the following:

Akhavan, M. (2021). Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Literature on Coworking Spaces and Maker Spaces.

Howell, T. (2022). Coworking spaces: An overview and research agenda

Bouncken, R.B., Reuschl, A.J. Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship.

 

Reflect also on possible drawbacks of the CWSs. Are there any data on the productivity of the individual workers in CWSs? Please refer to the work by:

Bueno, S., Rodríguez-Baltanás, G. and Gallego, M.D. (2018). Coworking spaces: a new way of achieving productivity

Consider delineating between different types of CWS such as traditional or Startup-purposed coworking spaces. See the work by Orel, M. and Bennis, W.M. (2021), "Classifying changes. A taxonomy of contemporary coworking spaces", Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 278-296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-12-2020-0061

For the qualitative strand of the paper, please explain your trustworthiness criteria such as credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability.

How were the qualitative data analysed? Please explain which scientific method you chose.

Consider how the imbalance in the demographics of the interview participants can result in design limitations. Similarly, what are the limitations of the voluntary sampling design.

Add a footnote to explain the DART and the Luas.

It is not clear what the comparison with the Census 2016 data (figure 3) adds to the overall argument here since there is no direct comparability.

Would it be possible to include the survey and interview questions in the supplementary materials? This would help the readers understand the structure of the questions.

Can you add a label or a code name per quote so that it can be clear that you are talking about different participants in each instance?

The discussion section needs a little supplementation by existing literature. Usually when we discuss our findings, we try to place them within the wider literature by comparing and contrasting with previous empirical studies’ findings. In this paper’s discussion section, I cannot locate a similar comparison, even though some empirical studies on SWS exist.

Some further limitations could also be considered, e.g., small sample size, voluntary convenience samples, inability to generalise, imbalanced demographics, etc.

I hope my comments will prove helpful in further refining the manuscript!

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In principle the article is good and well written. I don't have so many criticisms against publication. I am instead favorable to publication pending minor revisions.

At the moment, what I would encourage authors is to elaborate a section of policy implications a bit more focused within a specific part of the text, instead of leaving some many considerations around and sparse.

Second, literature review is relatively broad but can be enriched substantially, with a non-European perspective.

We have specifically to answer readers outside the old continent and convince them on why is so important for them to read this article.

For the rest, the article is good and reads well. Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Rather good overall.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This type of study is well carried out and has a well-integrated and functional writing.

 I consider that all the aspects that must be included in a scientific article have been sufficiently covered, so it can be published in the present form.

Maybe you see bibliographical citation 14 is a little old and is covered with 15 but it is not a thing of fundamental importance

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented is interesting. However, there are some issues that should be considered for the review:

1) Summary to rewrite. Better explain the objectives and methodology.

2) In the introduction, detail the objectives and hypotheses. When presenting your hypotheses, indicate what research question you intend to answer with their help.

3) Subtitle 2 does not reflect the focus of the field study, it presents the research area and its particularities. Furthermore, it is advisable and common to present the research area after reviewing the literature and conceptual framework. The background, gaps and hypotheses should be explained first, and then the research area and methodology, etc.

4) The results are not discussed in relation to other studies. Do your findings agree with other research? Know what your results mean, that is, how your results are advancing knowledge! We also want you to consult the literature when comparing your findings with those that have been previously presented in the literature. You should provide more discussion about what you would do in the future to improve research.

5) Conclusion section: what are the practical implications of your research?

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments