Identity and Multiplicity of Belonging in a Europe in Search of Democracy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is devoted to important issues of contemporary European studies and Identity Discourses. The research sheds a new light on the multiplicity of belonging to Europe among young Italians through the lens of the so called pedagogical personalism. 

My suggestions for improvement are as follows:

1. Unclear and somewhat vague title of the article. What does "search of democracy" mean without a context? Also, having in mind the particular focus of the research, I believe some sub-title would be beneficial (of the sort: "narratives of young Italians" or something of the kind).

2. Too long abstract. Half of it is devoted to features of a research paradigm that should be presented in the main body of the text. The added value of the article perhaps could be more efficiently emphasised (e.g., phrases such as "promise of social commitment containing a strong hope for change" may refer to too many things).

3. Research questions are solid and focused; the theoretical framework is well established. However, the method is not to be easily deduced. "Narratives" and "discourses" should be appropriately defined as concepts. Also, the main source of empirical data, the analysis of focus groups, requires elaboration. Most of all: what is the sample, and what are the criteria for making the sample?

4. There are various interesting findings, in my view, which could perhaps be outlined more specifically: e.g., age-dependent extension of the notion of identity to cultural characteristics; or the correlation between migrant background and civic awareness, etc.

5. In the conclusion, the outcomes of the research may be related in a more pronounced manner to previous research sketched in the articles (paragraphs 5, 7, mostly)

6. From a structural viewpoint, paragraph 8 is called "Main findings..." although paragraph 6 also concerns the findings. Perhaps this could be clarified.

7. As far as I see, the research points out that the tension between formal institutional disengagement and readiness for proactive social commitment is related strongly to the notion of inclusive European citizenship. This also could be elaborated a bit.

I think that the English of the article is sometimes heavy and clumsy. In numerous cases, the reader struggles to grasp the meaning of separate sentences. Some language editing is recommended.

See, e.g., this sentence from the abstract: "The article presents some contrasting aspects of the way young people living in Europe - with which they are sometimes unfamiliar - in which they draw their political identity and toward which they harbor uncertainties and discontinuities from the universe of values inherited from previous generations." What is the main sentence here? What is the thing the young people are unfamiliar with: the contrasting aspects or Europe? Etc.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study which extends Ross' work and adds insight from a specifically Italian perspective. The first mention of his work should be accompanied by a date citation.

Some of the English is unnecessarily obtuse e.g. the author[s] might consider replacing "paideia" wi.th, for example, 'broad cultural education'

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This appears to be a possibly valuable and unusual study of the formation of political identities among young Italians. How young Europeans relate their wider senses of identity to their own more immediate national and local contexts is an important area. This paper attempts to make original contributions with suggested findings of doubt and uncertainty that emerge in the transition to adulthood and the decline of traditional forms of political activism toward a European identity. It unclear how this is born out by the data and how it is based on a robust methodology. I mean no disrespect to the author(s) when I say that I found the paper to be written by a new researcher or one not familiar with the requirements of this journal. In short: the paper needs to be substantially rethought and rewritten for all the reasons I set out below. Therefore, I have tried to assist as much as possible the author(s) so they can produce a viable article.  

Feedback to assist the author(s)

The focus needs to be clearer and more consistent throughout. I understood the focus to be on the formation of a European political identity (as a sense of belonging) among young Italian people in Italian schools. I would tighten up the research questions accordingly. I would also restructure the literature review (sections 2-5) to focus on the construction of political identity and senses of belonging at school not the legal structure of civic education. The primary focus of the argument is changes to political identity. The educational law is part of the context is which that occurs. Furthermore, it is best to avoid arguments on the failures of civic education without clear evidence from the literature or your study to support these contentions (p.7). The author(s) may well have two articles rather than one: a study of political identity and a critical analysis of teaching of citizenship in Italy.  

The article needs explain its positioning in the literature at the start. The introduction should explain to the reader the field to which this study contributes by identifying key voices and ideas. There are far too few references to the existing literature here (only one on pp.1-2). Please refer to the guidance to authors on the journal’s webpage: ‘[t]he introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important… The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited’. A good way to organise your introduction is to: establish your field, the niche or gap in which you focus, how you will fill that gap, the rationale for doing so and then a summary how the paper is structured. Then the reader knows where we are, what we are looking at specifically, how you will help us to understand it, why this matters and how the paper is organised.

There needs to be better coverage of more recent sources (last 5 years) on the formation of political identity, citizenship or civic education and senses of belonging among young people. There is good coverage of sources in the Italian literature. However, this study addresses wider senses of identity (European – only Ross’ work and Bruter in 2005), the role of teachers in citizenship education and the concept of senses of belonging. Acknowledgement of and positioning within these areas in the literature should be included here and will make the paper relevant to wider audiences. For example, a lot has been written on the tensions around formations of youth political identity in transitions to adulthood and on young European’s sense of political identity.

The methodology needs to be more fully explained. This is a significant oversight in an empirical study. At a minimum, see the journal’s guidance to authors on materials and methods: ‘They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited’. For example:

o   A short explanation of why the author(s) chose a qualitative approach using a paradigm of pedagogical personalism (which needs to be explained with key literature cited);

o   the data set (number of respondents, ages, background, recruitment);

o   the researcher’s own positionality and relation to the data (and how they understood how this might effect how the participants responded);

o   how access was gained to the young people;

o   the text repeatedly refers to a survey – was a survey conducted or only focus groups;

o   the limitations of the approach;

o   how the data was analysed, including use of any computer software; and,

o   what kinds of questions were asked in the focus groups.

This would be helpful for other researchers to understand and gauge the validity of the findings, and thereby attribute any weight, and so any significance to them.

·       There should also be an explanation of the ethical approach (particularly in a study with young people).

·       The names of the participants are presumably pseudonyms?

·       The introduction states that ‘The representations of young people were collected by deliberative discussion as main strategy of the survey conducted by Alistair Ross’ (p.2). It is not clear what this means – are these results from a separate study by Ross used, did Ross conduct the fieldwork in this study, or something else?  

·       A separate section titled ‘Methods’ or ‘Methodology’ is advisable.

Turning to the data, it would help the reader to have the opportunity to read the actual data. There few excerpts from the raw data (only 4 quotations, 2 of which are short). As the data was obtained from focus groups, it would also be interesting to know how the participants responded to one another in the groups. The discussion should address limitations to the findings. Crucially, it needs to made much clearer how the data is analysed with respect to the research questions on the senses of belonging and how this supports the conclusions (on p.9). This is an important task.   

The conclusion must explain how the study contributes to a clearly identified body of literature on the topics concerned.

There are glimpses of some original data and approaches here that merit the author(s) rethinking and rewriting the piece after careful thought. 

Written English needs some attention. There are many passages where the meaning of the writing is obscure, either because general terms are used that are not explained, or the sentences are too long. For example, the word order in the first sentence of the piece is incorrect and a vital moment. Phrases such as ‘strong cultural soul’ (p.2), ‘the upward parabola of the polity’ (p.5), ‘a real “inner organism”’ (p.3), can be helpful if they are clear to the reader what they mean. Shorten sentences generally (e.g. p.8, para 3, three very long sentences 6-8 lines each).

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx