An Exploratory Study of Digital Inequities and Work in the Redevelopment of a Southeastern American City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have enjoyed reading this paper. I think it touches a relevant and timely topic, with a clear social application. The paper also provides a useful compilation of literature, and the structure is clear and easy to read.

My main concern is related to the sample selected, and how representative is it. Which conditions does Charlotte have to make it a relevant area of study? How generalizable the obtained results are? Then, I’m also worried about the relevance of the analysis. It is a purely descriptive study, with no causal identification – the authors provide only descriptives, and with a limited reach. Although the authors already mention these limitations in the text, I think these aspects should be emphasized to avoid wrong expectations. Given the difficulties to generalize the results obtained, I would rather present this paper as a specific case study.

However, despite those limitations, I still think it is an informative paper, with some interesting contributions. I would only add two minor comments to be solved before its publication:

-        -  In line 226 the authors mention they will explore 5 questions; however afterwards they only enumerate (and explore) 4.

-       -   The word “instrument” is ambiguous. It does not refer to the standard instrument typically used in econometrics, and hence the term can be confusing. Probably is better to use the term “tool”, for instance, or some other synonym.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

I have enjoyed reading this paper. I think it touches a relevant and timely topic, with a clear social application. The paper also provides a useful compilation of literature, and the structure is clear and easy to read.

My main concern is related to the sample selected, and how representative is it. Which conditions does Charlotte have to make it a relevant area of study? How generalizable the obtained results are? Then, I’m also worried about the relevance of the analysis. It is a purely descriptive study, with no causal identification – the authors provide only descriptives, and with a limited reach. Although the authors already mention these limitations in the text, I think these aspects should be emphasized to avoid wrong expectations. Given the difficulties to generalize the results obtained, I would rather present this paper as a specific case study.

Response: Thank you for this feedback. An additional sentence was added to the limitations to clearly state the non-generalizability of the results.

However, despite those limitations, I still think it is an informative paper, with some interesting contributions. I would only add two minor comments to be solved before its publication:

-        -  In line 226 the authors mention they will explore 5 questions; however afterwards they only enumerate (and explore) 4.

      Response: This error was corrected to reflect the four research questions.

-       -   The word “instrument” is ambiguous. It does not refer to the standard instrument typically used in econometrics, and hence the term can be confusing. Probably is better to use the term “tool”, for instance, or some other synonym.

      Response: The term ‘instrument’ has been updated to ‘survey tool’.

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting paper. The exploratory dimension should be focused in the abstract more as well as in the introduction.

Let me consider several points from the research question to the discussion and conclusion.

 

It is not always clear what the authors want to communicate and the direction of the manuscript. I would suggest to answer better the following question: What contribution does the article make to the field of study?

The overall study design is adequate, but the exploratory nature should be more evident (see earlier comment).

It is not always clear what is the objective of the study. Is is to prepare another one or to take the opportunity to explore a data set already available?

The abstract can be improved in terms of clarity.

The paper should  address better the limitations of the current results. 

I consider that the study design and methods are appropriate for the research purpose.

 

The results could be presented more clearly. It is also the case for the discussion of the results. It should explain better and also compare the  findings with current findings by other authors.

 

There is a lack of references in several parts of the paper (see for example p. 2, 3 and the discussion of the results).

 

The conclusion is not detailed enough. It could state the main results, limitation and point for further research, aslo with a comparison with the existing literature. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

 

Interesting paper. The exploratory dimension should be focused in the abstract more as well as in the introduction.

Let me consider several points from the research question to the discussion and conclusion. 

It is not always clear what the authors want to communicate and the direction of the manuscript. I would suggest to answer better the following question: What contribution does the article make to the field of study?

 

Response: A research objective was added to the end of the introduction and implications were added to the conclusion.

 

The overall study design is adequate, but the exploratory nature should be more evident (see earlier comment).

It is not always clear what is the objective of the study. Is is to prepare another one or to take the opportunity to explore a data set already available?

 

Response: Additional framing about the research objective was added to the end of the introduction.

 

The abstract can be improved in terms of clarity.

 

Response: The abstract was edited for clarity and to emphasize the exploratory nature of the study.

The paper should address better the limitations of the current results. 

 

Response: The limitations section was amended to include the non-generalizability of the results.

 

I consider that the study design and methods are appropriate for the research purpose.

 

The results could be presented more clearly. It is also the case for the discussion of the results. It should explain better and also compare the findings with current findings by other authors.

 Response: Current literature has been added and the results section amended.

There is a lack of references in several parts of the paper (see for example p. 2, 3 and the discussion of the results).

Response: References for the PIAAC survey, Van Deursen et al., 2018, and Khan et al., 2020 were added to pages 2, 3 and 5. Seminal studies on the role of income and internet use by DiMaggio, Hargittai, and others were omitted due to a lack of an environmental or intersectional emphasis in these studies.   

The conclusion is not detailed enough. It could state the main results, limitation and point for further research, aslo with a comparison with the existing literature. 

 

Response: The conclusion was amended and additional literature was added to the discussion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for submitting the paper. This paper presents an interesting analysis of an exploratory study of identities and experiences of the digital economy among residents of an area with high rates of digital, social and economic inequality.

Comments on individual parts:

·         The abstract is not precise enough. The abstract must address the purpose of the research concisely and clearly.

·         The keywords should be completed by adding e.g. digital inequality, digital identity.

·         The Introduction should highlight not only the research problem and define the research gaps, but also should provide a precise research objective and a brief description of the content of each section of the paper (in the last paragraph).

·         The literature review presents important issues and the major topics received enough attention and explanation. However, the literature review section should identify gaps in the literature and formulate the hypotheses. One of the weaknesses is that the research hypotheses are missing.

Furthermore, I would suggest moving subsections 2.4 and 2.5, to Chapter 3, as this is directly related to the research area in this section.

·         The use of research methods is adequate. however, it would be important to justify the choice of methods and data used as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the research. What are the pros and cons? How did you provide reliability and validity?

·         The result section includes the key findings that can be considered significant. However, the critical assessment of the results will improve the quality of the analysis. In addition, please amend the titles of subsections 4.1-4.4, e.g. instead of "4.1. R1" it should be:

"4.1. The relationship between residents' home broadband access and their digital identity"

·         The conclusions section is not well developed. This section should include a synthetic overview of the key research results and indicate practical or/and theoretical implications, research limitations and potential directions for further research.

 

The academic language is correct, however, general proofreading would be advisable.

 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

 

  The abstract is not precise enough. The abstract must address the purpose of the research concisely and clearly.

 

Response: The abstract was edited to include the research purpose.

 

• Thekeywords should be completed by adding e.g. digital inequality, digital identity.

 

Response: The keywords were updated.

 

• The Introductionshould highlight not only the research problem and define the research gaps, but also should provide a precise research objective and a brief description of the content of each section of the paper (in the last paragraph).

 

Response: The research objective was added to the end of the introduction.

 

• The literature reviewpresents important issues and the major topics received enough attention and explanation. However, the literature review section should identify gaps in the literature and formulate the hypotheses. One of the weaknesses is that the research hypotheses are missing.

Furthermore, I would suggest moving subsections 2.4 and 2.5, to Chapter 3, as this is directly related to the research area in this section.

 

Response: The sections were moved as requested and additional references to noted gaps have been added. Research questions are included in the Materials and Methods section.

 

• The use of research methodsis adequate. however, it would be important to justify the choice of methods and data used as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the research. What are the pros and cons? How did you provide reliability and validity?

 

Response: These concerns are addressed in the final sentences of the Methods and Materials section.

• The resultsection includes the key findings that can be considered significant. However, the critical assessment of the results will improve the quality of the analysis. In addition, please amend the titles of subsections 4.1-4.4, e.g. instead of "4.1. R1" it should be:

"4.1. The relationship between residents' home broadband access and their digital identity"

Response: The results section was amended to include greater discussion of significant findings and these recommended changes were made to the subsections.

 

Response: These changes where made to the research question section headers in the results section.

 

• The conclusionssection is not well developed. This section should include a synthetic overview of the key research results and indicate practical or/and theoretical implications, research limitations and potential directions for further research.

 

Response: The conclusion was amended to address these concerns.

 

The academic language is correct, however, general proofreading would be advisable.

 

Response: The manuscript was re-edited for grammatical clarity.