Symbolic Interactionism and Communication Patterns: Insights from Army Wives Union Organizations (Persit-KCK), Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

It is clear that the authors considered feedback from reviewers and made significant improvements to the manuscript. The purpose of the research is much clearer and the discussion of results directly relates to the figures in the article.

As Reviewer 1 mentioned, it is unclear why some broad literature is reviewed and how it connects to the goals of this study. I suggest that the authors refine their argument to include fewer citations about organizational communication in general.

Thank you for adding detail to the methods section. That gives me a better understanding of your data collection and analysis process. You still need to include the number of interviews conducted and how participants were recruited.

Author Response

Author response For both of Reviewer:

Again. We would like to thank the reviewers who have been willing to provide input and suggestions for our articles. We really appreciate it and thank you very much for that. The suggestions and input from the reviewers are very meaningful and that is very good and extraordinary for us. Once again, we would like to thank the reviewers who are willing to take their time to read, examine and provide suggestions for us in the midst of their busy schedules.

 

Dari Reviewer (2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• It is clear that the authors considered feedback from reviewers and made significant improvements to the manuscript. The purpose of the research is much clearer and the discussion of results directly relates to the figures in the article.
• Response from the Author: The aim of our research is directed to look at the patterns of interaction and communication of the Persit-KCK organization (the Association of Indonesian Armed Forces Wives) which have an impact on harmony and cohesiveness among members of the Persit-KCK organization so that a strong commitment is built in providing benefits to the wider community in Indonesia.
• As Reviewer 1 mentioned, it is unclear why some broad literature is reviewed and how it connects to the goals of this study. I suggest that the authors refine their argument to include fewer citations about organizational communication in general.
• Response from the Author: the researcher seeks to build a research focus on How Persit-KCK Identity in the Organizational Communication Realm Forms Organizational Social Identity through analytical instruments from symbolic interactionism theory (Mead, G.H., 2012) to explore the phenomenon of how individuals or organizations behave, interact, and make decisions based on the environment occupied by the individual in this case the Persit-KCK organization. The research approach used in this study uses communication ethnography by explaining phenomena through an illustration of how the dialectic of communication between Persit-KCK Center officials forms social identity. Exploring whether Persit-KCK's symbolic behavior in the communication function supports the duties of soldiers of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI-AD) and helps the wider community in Indonesia.
• Thank you for adding detail to the methods section. That gives me a better understanding of your data collection and analysis process. You still need to include the number of interviews conducted and how participants were recruited.
• Response from Author: We've made changes to our research informant. The 5 informants were taken as key informants in this study, namely: (1) Mrs. "HAP" as the former Chairperson of Persit-KCK for the 2018-2021 period; (2) Mrs. "RDA" as the current Chairperson; (3) Mrs. "Mr" as Head of Persit-KCK PG Kostrad; (4) Mrs. "SR" as Head of Persit-KCK PG Mabesad; and (5) Mrs. "Nv" as Chair of the Persit-KCK Branch. The analytical instrument in this study is the theory of symbolic interactionism (Mead, G. H., 2012) to explore the phenomenon of how an individual or organization behaves, interacts, and makes decisions based on the environment the individual occupies in this case the Persit-KCK organization.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Thank you for revising your submission to respond to some of the comments made by the other reviewer and myself.  The piece comes across as interesting and revealing, explaining a setting and dynamics well worth writing about that would interest a range of readers.  I would like the piece to get the attention that it deserves, and to achieve that, further work is needed.  I made extensive comments on the previous submission, and most of those comments do not appear to have been addressed. As a result, the piece is still not ready for publication.  

Again, great research; now let us see if you can turn it into a great article.  Try to simplify things further, and aim to make just one key point.  I have added comments to your revised draft and to your response to reviewer comments.  See also my comments on your first submission.  Line up an editor to polish the English.  Plus, find an academic to help who is good at making the argument in an article come through really clearly.  In two hours of you with this academic, you will have sorted out what is needed.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author response For both of Reviewer:

Again. We would like to thank the reviewers who have been willing to provide input and suggestions for our articles. We really appreciate it and thank you very much for that. The suggestions and input from the reviewers are very meaningful and that is very good and extraordinary for us. Once again, we would like to thank the reviewers who are willing to take their time to read, examine and provide suggestions for us in the midst of their busy schedules.

Dari Reviewer (1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• Thank you for revising your submission to respond to some of the comments made by the other reviewer and myself. The piece comes across as interesting and revealing, explaining a setting and dynamics well worth writing about that would interest a range of readers.  I would like the piece to get the attention that it deserves, and to achieve that, further work is needed.  I made extensive comments on the previous submission, and most of those comments do not appear to have been addressed. As a result, the piece is still not ready for publication.
• Response from the Author: Thank you very much once again to the reviewers for the help of extraordinary suggestions and recommendations for improving our manuscript. We have made improvements again based on the suggestions/recommendations given in session 1 and session 2 this time. And changes almost occur in our entire manuscript.
• Again, great research; now let us see if you can turn it into a great article.  Try to simplify things further, and aim to make just one key point.  I have added comments to your revised draft and to your response to reviewer comments.  See also my comments on your first submission.  Line up an editor to polish the English.  Plus, find an academic to help who is good at making the argument in an article come through really clearly.  In two hours of you with this academic, you will have sorted out what is needed.  
• Response from the Author: We have directed our findings to the notes and input on the revised 1st and 2nd corrective drafts that have been submitted by the reviewers themselves. Our findings further confirm that The Persit-KCK organization is an organization whose members are the wives of Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI-AD) soldiers. When married to Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI-AD) soldiers, the soldier's wife automatically becomes a member of Persit-KCK so indirectly membership in this organization is mandatory for the wives of TNI soldiers, and interpersonal communication is carried out by the wives of Army soldiers Indonesian National Army (TNI AD). Persit-KCK is also known as "soldier's wife", apart from being known by that title Persit-KCK is also known as "soldier's wife". In terms of terminology, there is a difference, if the mention of a soldier's wife refers to the wife of an Indonesian Army soldier, then a military wife refers to activities carried out by Persit-KCK members who have military elements. This makes Persit-KCK have an identity in the realm of organizational culture, and is also unique because many countries do not apply "military wife" but are only limited to "army wife". Persit-KCK institutional communication prioritizes integrative member communication (strengthening communication between TNI wives within the internal organization of Kartika Candra Kirana (KCK) in all regions in Indonesia). In each of its branches, Persit-KCK carries out voluntary and non-profit activities as a community-friendly organization as one of the actors driving the growth of social capital amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Creating an agricultural program to help food security during Covid-19 while also vaccinating the community, especially in various regions in Indonesia. The main insight in this research is the social identity possessed by Persit-KCK, the creation of social identity involves the categorization of "inside groups" relative to "outside groups" and the tendency to see one's own group positively as well as towards outside groups. The most significant thing that influences the values and culture of the Persit-KCK organization is the Organizational Symbol and Vision-Mission of the Persit-KCK Organization in the Symbolic Interactionism approach which encourages its members to behave and communicate as a soldier's wife (TNI). The result is identification with a depersonalized collective identity based on group membership, imbued as a positive aspect of all Persit-KCK members.
• And the limitation of this research is only to explore the patterns of interaction and institutional communication of the Soldier's Wives Association (Persit-KCK) in Indonesia. However, it is lacking see the dominance of two-way communication that occurs between institutions, members, and other subjects.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

See my comments throughout the first half of the revised submission, which is attached in 'track changes' mode of Word.  

My further comments and edits on this revised draft have been completed to line 400.  The changes made or suggested above illustrate the responses that I was hoping to see from my comments in the first review.  The revisions to date, in response to that review, have been constructive and worthwhile.  They are not going far enough, though.  Key areas needing attention throughout are: (1) greater clarity in defining terms; (2) use of short illustrations to help explain concepts; (3) better explanations of the research methods employed; (4) more thought about where key sentences and paragraphs have the most impact – that is, what statements need to be up front in the article, where you should explain the Indonesian context, or why you selected to focus on symbolic interactionism; and (5) simplify phrasing.

It feels like I am being asked to do too much in identifying how to clarify and sharpen the article.  Much of the insight that I am providing is really the responsibility of a senior academic at your university (or another university) to guide you.  They can then be named as a co-author.

 

Next steps – fix the things that I have noted in the first part of the article up to this point – line 400.  Then, look again at the reviewer comments on the rest of the article. Make the recommended changes with, I hope, greater understanding of what we reviewers are looking for. The article does not need more analysis in it. You can cut 20 per cent, if you wish.  The key thing is to make what is here clear and convincing.  It is good research that is being held back by a lack of explanation, clarity, context and examples. Submit again to this journal in a week or a month, if possible, and I will help to refine your further changes.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author response for both of Reviewer:

Again. We would like to thank the reviewers who have been willing to provide input and suggestions for our articles. We really appreciate it and thank you very much for that. The suggestions and input from the reviewers are very meaningful and that is very good and extraordinary for us. Once again, we would like to thank the reviewers who are willing to take their time to read, examine and provide suggestions for us in the midst of their busy schedules.

REVIEW REPORT (Round 3)

Dari Reviewer (1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• See my comments throughout the first half of the revised submission, which is attached in 'track changes' mode of Word.
• Response from the Author: We have read and revised all suggestions given in our manuscript.
• My further comments and edits on this revised draft have been completed to line 400. The changes made or suggested above illustrate the responses that I was hoping to see from my comments in the first review.  The revisions to date, in response to that review, have been constructive and worthwhile.  They are not going far enough, though.  Key areas needing attention throughout are: (1) greater clarity in defining terms; (2) use of short illustrations to help explain concepts; (3) better explanations of the research methods employed; (4) more thought about where key sentences and paragraphs have the most impact – that is, what statements need to be up front in the article, where you should explain the Indonesian context, or why you selected to focus on symbolic interactionism; and (5) simplify phrasing.
• Response from the Author: Once again we thank the reviewers for their excellent suggestions and recommendations for improving our manuscript. We really appreciate it. Our improvements are: (1) we have made greater clarity in defining terms according to the suggestions and recommendations given in the manuscript; (2) We have provided a more comprehensive explanation regarding the use of short illustrations to help explain the concept as suggested and recommended in the manuscript; (3), We have highlighted a better description of the research method used in our manuscript as suggested; (4) we have included several reasons to explain why we chose to focus on symbolic interactionism, and (5) finally we have made further improvements to simplify expressions as suggested and recommended in the manuscript.
• It feels like I am being asked to do too much in identifying how to clarify and sharpen the article. Much of the insight that I am providing is really the responsibility of a senior academic at your university (or another university) to guide you.  They can then be named as a co-author.
• Response from the Author: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their suggestions and comments on our manuscript. These suggestions and comments mean a lot to us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thank You.
• Next steps – fix the things that I have noted in the first part of the article up to this point – line 400. Then, look again at the reviewer comments on the rest of the article. Make the recommended changes with, I hope, greater understanding of what we reviewers are looking for. The article does not need more analysis in it. You can cut 20 per cent, if you wish.  The key thing is to make what is here clear and convincing.  It is good research that is being held back by a lack of explanation, clarity, context and examples. Submit again to this journal in a week or a month, if possible, and I will help to refine your further changes.
• Response from the Author: We've fixed what's at line 400 in our script. And paying attention to the suggestions and comments of other reviewers. and further clarifying the focus and discussion in our manuscript according to the suggestions and comments were given by the reviewers.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Thank you for your efforts in improving this article in response to previous reviews.  The opening sections of the paper make more sense to me and should make more sense to readers.  The background information on Indonesia and the clearer rationale for qualitative research are very helpful, for example.  There is not much additional information needed, but how the information that is there is presented can be improved.  

I have gone through your changes up to line 400, the first half of the paper. That has taken several hours, and I need to address the rest of paper in another session.  So, fix up the things that I have noted from line 1 to line 400 and resubmit.  

I have provided numerous edits in an attempt to clarify your points.  They are typed right into the PDF.  There are also 'stickies'/comments on the document.  

The paper would be improved by providing clearer 'signposts' for the reader.  That includes an introduction to each section and subsection.  The lack of introduction has the greatest impact in section 3 (as the other sections are relatively short).  

Section 3.1 presents a series of insights, but it is not entirely clear why they are provided in that sequence or what conclusion they are building toward.  A 'signpost' at the start would summarise the key points in the subsection and explain how they are related to an overall conclusion on the theme of that subject (which should be indicated in the subsection's title).  I have marked up the paper to suggest where these signposts and summaries could go. 

There are some sentences and some paragraphs that may not be in the right place. There are also sentences that seem to be repeated - stated near the opening of the paper and then repeated later during the analysis.  That is generally not a good idea.  

As I have noted before - good research!  Now, to make the piece easier to read so that that analysis will be fully appreciated.  

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Again. We would like to thank the reviewers who have been willing to provide input and suggestions for our articles. We really appreciate it and thank you very much for that. The suggestions and input from the reviewers are very meaningful and that is very good and extraordinary for us. Once again, we would like to thank the reviewers who are willing to take their time to read, examine and provide suggestions for us in the midst of their busy schedules.

REVIEW REPORT (Round 4)

Dari Reviewer (1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• Thank you for your efforts in improving this article in response to previous reviews. The opening sections of the paper make more sense to me and should make more sense to readers.  The background information on Indonesia and the clearer rationale for qualitative research are very helpful, for example.  There is not much additional information needed, but how the information that is there is presented can be improved. 
• Response from the Author: We are very pleased about the reviewer with the advice and recommendation of its extraordinary to improve the quality of our articles. Improvement of background, research focus, and research objectives, until our research methods have been improved according to the suggestions and recommendations contained in the review notes in the PDF manuscript file that has been sent.
• I have gone through your changes up to line 400, the first half of the paper. That has taken several hours, and I need to address the rest of paper in another session. So, fix up the things that I have noted from line 1 to line 400 and resubmit. 
• Response from the Author: We have made improvements according to the suggestions and recommendations from extraordinary improvements at 1 to 400 lines suggested by the reviewer.
• I have provided numerous edits in an attempt to clarify your points. They are typed right into the PDF.  There are also 'stickies'/comments on the document. 
• Response from the Author: We have read the improvement and suggestions in PDF and participated in the revision of the 4th round this time.
• The paper would be improved by providing clearer 'signposts' for the reader. That includes an introduction to each section and subsection.  The lack of introduction has the greatest impact in section 3 (as the other sections are relatively short). 
• Response from the Author: In the introduction point from the results of your research manuscript, we have revised it according to the suggestions and recommendations contained in the review notes in PDF.
• Section 3.1 presents a series of insights, but it is not entirely clear why they are provided in that sequence or what conclusion they are building toward. A 'signpost' at the start would summarise the key points in the subsection and explain how they are related to an overall conclusion on the theme of that subject (which should be indicated in the subsection's title).  I have marked up the paper to suggest where these signposts and summaries could go.
• Response from the Author: In section 3.1 we have fixed according to suggestions and recommendations from the reviewer about of analysis explores human thought (to understand the description of human mental and thoughts that can be formed from the experience of the Persit-KCK Organization in Indonesia) Specifically, we describe patterns of interaction between Persit-KCK members and the Behavior of Soldiers' Wives as a Symbol of the Persit-KCK Organization.
• There are some sentences and some paragraphs that may not be in the right place. There are also sentences that seem to be repeated - stated near the opening of the paper and then repeated later during the analysis. That is generally not a good idea. 
• Response from the Author: The repeated sentence on our manuscript that has been marked by the reviewer in PDF has been deleted and fixed.
• As I have noted before - good research! Now, to make the piece easier to read so that that analysis will be fully appreciated. 
• Response from the Author: And once again we really appreciate the good and extraordinary suggestions of the reviewer for our manuscript. Thank You.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Symbolic Interactionism, and Communication Patterns: Insights from Organizations Army Wives Union (Persit-KCK), Indonesia 

 

Interesting topic – the forging of collective identity among wives of soldiers in the Indonesian army, Persit-KCK.  The topic is well worth publishing an article on in this journal.  The research conducted covers some relevant literature and reveals insight into a ‘community’ that few readers would be familiar with.  The case material from Indonesia is a welcome addition to the English-language literature.  The article makes some interesting connections between individual identity, group identity and national identity.  

 

The article would benefit from strengthening on several fronts before publication.  The line of argument needs a stronger foundation, it needs to be more clearly interlinked, and the key insight for the article needs to be made more clearly.  There is a more sophisticated insight to be shared here than is captured in the phrase, ‘communication is important’.  

 

More information is needed about Indonesian society to enable readers from overseas to understand why certain factors or insights are important.  For example, Persit-KCK seems to value ‘harmony’.  Why?  I would guess that it is important because Indonesia is a highly multi-cultural society.  There are significant disparities between social classes.  If these elements are exhibited in the military, then it will be weaker as fighting force and as a symbol of Indonesian unity.  So, the article needs a paragraph on Indonesian culture and a paragraph on the history of the Indonesian army in relation to Indonesian society.  Reference is made to its role in fighting for Indonesian independence, but there is a larger story to tell about its role in politics, corruption, blending soldiers from different cultural groups, etc.  

 

At a more ‘technical’ level, the composition can be improved.  I have put numerous comments on the manuscript about points that can be clarified.  The writing is easy to understand, but it needs an editor to make the English more fluent.  There is repetition of whole sentences and paragraphs, which creates a bad impression.  A few sections are opened with ‘generic’ statements about what such a section should include.  The opening of a section should instead outline what is concluded in the section.  For example, “Qualitative research methods were employed in this study over 10 months of fieldworking, with XX pages of transcripts enabling analysis that reveals a sense of connection to Persit-KCK and a focus on harmony among members.”

 

Methodological elements can be strengthened.  Certain literature is reviewed, and the piece needs an explanation of why that literature was chosen and not some other literature.  The same point goes for research methods and analytical approaches.  The author cites having completed 10 interviews, but only one interview is quoted.  Key terms decisions driving analysis of the interviews need to be discussed, as well.  A couple of charts are presented with no explanation of how the figures – percentages – in the charts were arrived at.  These things have to be explained.  It is a mistake to conclude that readers understand the analytical techniques and that they only need to be named. No academic, no matter how senior, is intimately familiar with all of the many methods of research and analysis and all bodies of literature.  There will be readers from many different disciplines and many different cultures viewing such an article.  

 

It is an intriguing topic, and there seem to be some interesting insights.  However, the line of argument and the mechanics of making the case need significant strengthening.  The article does not need more content, just a clearer explanation of what is already there.  

 

A copy of the manuscript with my comments on where to focus is attached.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author response:

We would like to thank the reviewers who have been willing to provide input and suggestions for our articles. We really appreciate it and thank you very much for that. The suggestions and input from the reviewers are very meaningful and that is very good and extraordinary for us. Once again, we would like to thank the reviewers who are willing to take their time to read, examine and provide suggestions for us in the midst of their busy schedules.

 

Dari Reviewer (1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• Interesting topic – the forging of collective identity among wives of soldiers in the Indonesian army, Persit-KCK. The topic is well worth publishing an article on in this journal.  The research conducted covers some relevant literature and reveals insight into a ‘community’ that few readers would be familiar with.  The case material from Indonesia is a welcome addition to the English-language literature.  The article makes some interesting connections between individual identity, group identity and national identity.
• Response from the Author: Our research departs from the general view that is developing in Indonesia regarding Persit, who is also known as a soldier's wife, apart from being known by this title Persit is also known as a military wife. The terminology has differences, if the term soldier wife refers to a wife of an Army soldier, then military wife refers to activities carried out by Persit members who have military elements. This makes Persit have an identity in the realm of an organizational culture, and also becomes a uniqueness because many countries do not implement a military wife but only a soldier's wife.
• The article would benefit from strengthening on several fronts before publication. The line of argument needs a stronger foundation, it needs to be more clearly interlinked, and the key insight for the article needs to be made more clearly.  There is a more sophisticated insight to be shared here than is captured in the phrase, ‘communication is important’. 
• Response from the Author: We emphasize one of the key insights in this study is a social identity that is owned by Persit KCK, the creation of social identity involves the categorization of "inner group" related to "outside group" and the tendency to see one's own group with a positive bias dealing with outsiders. The result is an identification with a depersonalized collective identity based on group membership and imbued with positive aspects.
• More information is needed about Indonesian society to enable readers from overseas to understand why certain factors or insights are important. For example, Persit-KCK seems to value ‘harmony’.  Why?  I would guess that it is important because Indonesia is a highly multi-cultural society.  There are significant disparities between social classes.  If these elements are exhibited in the military, then it will be weaker as fighting force and as a symbol of Indonesian unity.  So, the article needs a paragraph on Indonesian culture and a paragraph on the history of the Indonesian army in relation to Indonesian society.  Reference is made to its role in fighting for Indonesian independence, but there is a larger story to tell about its role in politics, corruption, blending soldiers from different cultural groups, etc. 
• Response from the Author: We add several references regarding the characteristics of Indonesian people who like to gather because of the strong kinship values in them, whether in family events, social gatherings, social group events, and others. In these gatherings, various issues are usually discussed, because physically gathering will be more fun and 'alive'. One of the manifestations of this gathering activity is Persit KCK, it's just that in this Persit it is more assertive and organized in gathering. The activities carried out by Persit are not only military in nature, but are also closely related to the Indonesian people and finally the Persit organization has an identity that is constructed by the community.
• At a more ‘technical’ level, the composition can be improved. I have put numerous comments on the manuscript about points that can be clarified.  The writing is easy to understand, but it needs an editor to make the English more fluent.  There is repetition of whole sentences and paragraphs, which creates a bad impression.  A few sections are opened with ‘generic’ statements about what such a section should include.  The opening of a section should instead outline what is concluded in the section.  For example, “Qualitative research methods were employed in this study over 10 months of fieldworking, with XX pages of transcripts enabling analysis that reveals a sense of connection to Persit-KCK and a focus on harmony among members.”
• Response from the Author: Regarding the problem of repetitive sentences in our study, we have tried to update it to be simpler and more focused.
• Methodological elements can be strengthened. Certain literature is reviewed, and the piece needs an explanation of why that literature was chosen and not some other literature.  The same point goes for research methods and analytical approaches.  The author cites having completed 10 interviews, but only one interview is quoted.  Key terms decisions driving analysis of the interviews need to be discussed, as well.  A couple of charts are presented with no explanation of how the figures – percentages – in the charts were arrived at.  These things have to be explained.  It is a mistake to conclude that readers understand the analytical techniques and that they only need to be named. No academic, no matter how senior, is intimately familiar with all of the many methods of research and analysis and all bodies of literature.  There will be readers from many different disciplines and many different cultures viewing such an article.
• Response from the Author: On this issue, primary data (interview data that we have/or other data) and secondary data have been entered and analyzed directly in the Nvivo 12 pro qualitative analysis tool, and this data has been presented in the form of a figure-fire present in our research.
• It is an intriguing topic, and there seem to be some interesting insights. However, the line of argument and the mechanics of making the case need significant strengthening.  The article does not need more content, just a clearer explanation of what is already there. 
• Response from the Author: We try to reinforce our research analysis through social network analysis and are intended to make it easier for readers to read the results of this research, if indeed the descriptions and interpretations as well as quotes from sources are better then the results will be added from descriptions, interpretations and elaboration with related references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dari Reviewer (2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

• My major concerns are related to potential ethical issues in the manuscript. On line 416, the authors mention Ms. Vice Chairperson of Persit and Mrs. Danki. Were these study participants? If so, they must be de-identified. I am also concerned about the potential bias that the authors bring to the study. There are multiple instances where it is assumed that Persit-KCK is only beneficial. For example, on lines 125-127 the authors write, “This study aims to determine the interactions and communication patterns of a Persit organization (KCK) that shape organizational values and culture so that they have an impact on the good of the wider community…” Why do the authors enter this research with the mindset that all impacts of PersitKCK are good? This has the potential to skew results.
• Response from the Author: Mrs. Deputy Chairperson of Persit and Mrs. Danki and the mention of positions in the organization are identified because each of the Persit administrators has the capacity and authority, however I will reconsider not mentioning the identity (We will change). This sentence "This research aims to find out the patterns of interaction and communication of a Persit organization (KCK) that shape organizational values and culture so that it has an impact on the good of the wider community" shows a hope, it is hoped that the existence of this Persit can have a good impact on society and can become a identity for Persit-KCK.
• I also wish that the purpose, methods, and results of the study had been more clearly articulated. I am not certain whether the authors were interested in social capital, speech codes, organizational communication/norms, symbolic interactionism, cultural norms, or information flow. They state that they conducted an ethnography with 10 interviews, but do not provide any additional information about their participants or process. It seems like they collected qualitative data but analyzed it quantitatively using Social Network Analysis and frequency tables. It would have been more informative to identify themes in participant responses and include representative quotes for each theme.
• Response from the Author: We have updated it to be simpler and more focused, intended to make it easier for readers to read the results of this study, if indeed the descriptions and interpretations as well as quotes from sources are better then the results of descriptions, interpretations and elaborations will be added with reference related.
• Finally, the manuscript would benefit from some heavy editing. At times, significant portions of text are repeated. For example, Lines 555-560 and lines 563-568 are identical.
• Response from the Author: there was an error in writing so that he was not aware of the similarity of sentences in this article, then it will be corrected so that there are no identical sentences in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf