Review Reports - How Should We Interpret Silence in Qualitative Communication Studies?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to review your paper! You will see some comments offered to (intentionally) help strengthen the presentation of your ideas. They are related to what I (we) believe is necessary to include in the publication. The review proposes different ways of interpreting silence(s) through three qualitative research methods: ethnography, focus groups, and interviews. Drawing from my extensive theoretical background, I view ethnography as a method and focus groups and interviews as techniques. However, I acknowledge that this may be a nuanced perspective. While the review integrates various sources, deeper engagement with theoretical frameworks could enhance the analysis. Consider discussing the theoretical implications of silence in more detail and, perhaps, integrating additional communication theories. This could significantly enrich the discourse and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Let's compare how different cultures interpret silence within communication studies. This could involve a more detailed exploration of non-Western perspectives on silence, thereby broadening the scope and applicability of the findings. Doing so can make your research more inclusive and relevant globally. To illustrate the points more vividly, include more empirical examples or case studies demonstrating the role of silence in qualitative research. This could help in grounding the theoretical discussions in practical observations. Expand the discussion on methodological approaches by suggesting specific innovative methods for capturing and analysing the role of silence in communication studies. This might include mixed-method approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative data to offer a richer analysis. Introduce more interdisciplinary perspectives that intersect with communication studies, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. This can provide a more holistic view of silence's role across different fields.

Please translate the references (titles) into other languages. For example, Araújo, A. (2019). Do silêncio como via longa. Contribuição para uma pedagogia do silêncio [Title in English]. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 46, 25-40.

The review does not present any new, unpublished data, which aligns with the guidelines for a review article. Instead, it synthesises existing research to offer new insights and perspectives on the communicative value of silence in qualitative studies. This synthesis is presented clearly and is supported by a robust bibliographical foundation, fulfilling the criteria for a critical and comprehensive review article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer of the Special Issue of Social Sciences: “Selected Papers from the 8th World Conference on Qualitative Research”,

The authors of the manuscript titled "Silence in qualitative communication studies: How to interpret?", are grateful for your review and comments on this article, which were very helpful to strengthen the significance of the paper that we now resubmit for your consideration. All changes made are marked in the document with track changes.

Reviewer 1 – 1) deeper engagement with theoretical frameworks was added, comparing how different cultures interpret silence based on empirical examples that can illustrate the role of silence grounding theoretical discussions in practical observations. Also, more interdisciplinary perspectives that intersect with communication studies were provided. 2) the discussion on methodological approaches was expanded with the suggestion specific innovative methods (including mixed method) for capturing and analyzing the role of silence in communication studies. 3) The references (titles) where translated.

Considering the short period of time we had to work on these revisions (between May 22nd and 27th) at the end of the academic year, we hope that the changes made can meet your criteria and we remain at your disposal for any change or additional clarification.

Yours Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting conceptual paper exploring silence in qualitative communication studies and I think the paper offers some relevant discussions about silence in the context of three familiar qualitative methods. I have made some suggestions to the author(s) to strengthen the significance of the paper and hope these are helpful to the author(s).

In the introduction it is not clear why the paper starts with misinformation, a stronger opening might be starting with the third paragraph (1 line 39) as that seems to be a clearer introduction about why silence in communication is important (and related to meaning) and therefore should be more central in qualitative research. - this paragraph could end with the last sentence from line 35 to 38.

A stronger rationale for the reader would be useful here, who is this paper relevant to and why?

You mention discourse and discursive in a few sections but this is not expanded and I would remove these references as you don't really discuss discursive practices at length (nor do you need too).

At the end of this section it would be useful to have a rationale for the selection of three method (is it because they are the most used, some rationale would be useful).

In the individual sections, I would like to see more examples (in depth of silence and how can be interpreted - or how it has in seminal studies). there are a lot of references but a really detailed example in each section would really be helpful to the reader.

In the section on ethnography, I would consider whether you could remove the last paragraph it seems to detract from this section.

Again the interview section the paragraph on Rogers (1959) does not seem as well placed as others, could this be removed as the following paragraph on coding for is really pertinent (and could you give some examples?)

Also, I was reading this section I wondered if the author(s) had examples they could draw on from their own research? I think the reader would appreciate this and it would strengthen the paper.

In the three sections about methods a consideration of who is part of the research might be needed, for example, interviewing children would be different than adults... so saying this is focusing on adults might be helpful here (unless you aren't and want to say something about this). It might also be helpful to talk about power and differences between people in interviews and the ways this might manifest or increase silence and the need to interpret silence in these contexts.

In the discussion could you draw out the themes across the three methods and differences and again draw out the significance of this review to the reader? I also thought about a comment about silencing here as well, so a broader thought about people who are silent from the research process completely and how we can discuss silence via absence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is generally well written, a final proof read is needed prior to final publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer of the Special Issue of Social Sciences: “Selected Papers from the 8th World Conference on Qualitative Research”,

Reviewer 2 – 1) The beginning of the introduction was changed to start at the proposed paragraph/idea. 2) A stronger rationale was provided, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of research and methodological designs to study silence in communication through different cultural and theoretical perspectives. 3) References to discourse and discursive in a few sections have been removed as they are in fact not the central focus of the paper. 4) A rationale for the selection of three method was provided. 5) empirical examples to illustrate the role of silence in practical observations were provided (with clues for empirical studies that could not be broadly developed in each section due to article space issues). 6) In the section on ethnography the last paragraph was removed. 7) in interview section the paragraph on Rogers (1959) was removed.8) Examples of previously conducted research were provided. 9) Considerations of who is part of the research where provided, particularly in the context of ethical concerns. 9) In the discussion several common themes and differences that emerge across these methods were provided, as well as broader thought about people who are silent from the research process.

Yours Sincerely,