The Mediatized Interactions and Social Networks of Empty-Nesters: A China-Based Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study addresses a current and relevant topic that is of interest to the academic community, although it should be improved in key aspects.
The number of references and their cohesion with the text of the introduction is poor. For example, in the paragraph between lines 105 and 121 there is only a single citation, which also has little relation to the study, despite the fact that several statements are made indicating “Most studies” or “Studies have also examined”. The theoretical framework should be expanded and all statements, especially those that generalize, should be supported by cited evidence.
The methodology is correct and well detailed. Likewise, the characteristics and size of the sample are correct and adequate for the study.
The analysis of the results is coherent and well categorized. The same is true of the discussion and conclusions, although a reflection on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies in the field are lacking.
Finally, the bibliographic references should be revised and cited appropriately, given that in some reports only a link appears.
Author Response
Comments 1:[The number of references and their cohesion with the text of the introduction is poor. For example, in the paragraph between lines 105 and 121, there is only a single citation, which also has little relation to the study, even though several statements are made indicating “Most studies” or “Studies have also examined”. ]
Response 1: [Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with you about the lack of references between lines 105 and 121. In the first draft writing, I wanted to express a summary of the previous references here, but after your comments, I realized that there is a need for sufficient literature here to support the exposition. Therefore, I have made sufficient additions to this revision. The newly revised parts and the added literature I have marked in red font in the main text.The newly revised parts and the added literature I have marked in red font in the main text. I refer you to lines 195-205.]
Comments 2: [The theoretical framework should be expanded and all statements, especially those that generalize, should be supported by cited evidence.]
Response 2: [Your suggestion that the theoretical framework should be further expanded inspired me a lot. In this revision section, I have mainly revised this section in detail. In addition to further extending the theoretical part, I have also explained in more depth the relationship between the theory and the object of study of this thesis. The new revised section and the added literature I have labeled in red font in the text. For details, please refer to lines 44-69 and 74-86.]
Comments 3: [...reflection on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies in the field are lacking.]
Response 3: [During the writing of the first draft of the thesis, I did not provide a systematic explanation of this issue, although I briefly described the research limitations of the thesis. Your proposed revisions have helped me to recognize my shortcomings in this area, for which I am deeply grateful. In this revision, I have rewritten the research limitations of the dissertation and mapped out the next steps of the research in the context of the major issues facing the current aging society. The newly revised parts and added literature I have marked in red font in the main text. Please refer to lines 680-703 for more details.
Comments 4: [the bibliographic references should be revised and cited appropriately, given that in some reports only a link appears.]
Response 4: [You mentioned that only one link appeared in some of the references, and after careful verification, we found that it was due to a typographical error that caused the reference formatting to be misplaced. Your seriousness and care not only made our thesis ideas broader but also made my thesis more standardized in reference formatting. In this revision process, I have strictly followed the APA 7 rules for detailed checking and comparison, and have ensured the accuracy of the participating literature citation.]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your work on this significant topic of older adults, particularly through their online interactions. However, this paper seems to explore the participants’ (digital) media world broadly by involving several key issues without a robust theoretical framework and discussions.
1. Introduction section (covering LR) is not sufficient and lacks focus.
a. More information on ‘empty nester’ will help non-Chinese readers get familiar with Chinese ageing and social issues.
b. The concept of ‘mediatisation’ and media use seem too broad to conduct this qualitative study. First, it should be linked with the online environment or more focused (e.g., digital media or social media) since most findings are concerned with the digital/online space. Second, several issues, including networking, emotions, and identities, are involved in this study. However, this work did not conceptualise them well within the context of digital media. Each idea is complicated and dynamic when interplaying with users and (digital) technology, and worth further exploration (many studies have been conducted indeed).
c. The gaps in the existing studies and how your study will address these are not clear. Actually, many studies have explored the digital/social media use of (Chinese) older adults and their lived experiences. What will your study contribute? If the ‘empty nesters’ is the specified feature of groups, how are your findings different from other studies on older adults?
2. Method(s)
a. How did you design the research protocol? How many interview questions did you ask? All these should be clearly stated in the method section.
b. The research questions need to be narrowed down based on the conceptual framework. Also, what are the connections between them, and how about linkage with the gaps? This part may be put in the introduction section rather than the methods section.
c. Please justify why the participants have to be classified as responding to their media dependence by using self-reported and qualitative data. How does this will impact or be reflected in the findings/discussions?
d. What data have you collected from participant observations? More information should be provided in data analyses, such as thematic analyses. How did you do the coding and identify what (sub)theme? You may need to provide a figure of your identified themes and sub-themes. And how did you cope with the inconsistent findings with interview and observation data, if applicable?
3. The discussion section is weak, and it should be one of the most important parts of your work.
a. You seem to simply summarise ‘what’ you have identified, but the discussion should demonstrate ‘so what’.
b. It would be helpful if you could explain or argue what and how you understand the findings and link them to the existing literature.
c. This study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. How will this context bring more ideas to the present study?
4. Please do the editing to ensure writing accuracy
a. E.g., in Lines 105-110, citations are required.
b. Line 177, citation is inaccurate
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English Language is clear to read.
Author Response
Comments 1: [More information on ‘empty nester’ will help non-Chinese readers get familiar with Chinese ageing and social issues.]
Response 1: [I very much recognize this valuable comment you have made. In the process of writing the first draft, I only paid attention to how to present my views better and neglected the feelings of readers, especially non-Chinese readers. In this revision, I have added an introduction to China's aging, especially the empty-nester section, in the introduction. These sections present how aging and empty nesters have emerged in China and the problems they are currently facing. I believe that this revision can make non-Chinese readers more clearly recognize the urgency of this research. I have highlighted the revision in blue in the text, please refer to lines 88-119.]
Comments 2: [The concept of “mediatization” and media use seem too broad to conduct this qualitative study. First, it should be linked with the online environment or more focused (e.g., digital media or social media) since most findings are concerned with the digital/online space. Second, several issues, including networking, emotions, and identities, are involved in this study. However, this work did not conceptualise them well within the context of digital media. Each idea is complicated and dynamic when interplaying with users and (digital) technology, and worth further exploration (many studies have been conducted indeed).]
Response 2: [Concerning your comment that “mediatization” is not appropriate for this study, I would like to explain the following.
Firstly, along with the penetration of the Internet into the daily lives of human societies, media technologies themselves have become part of human societies. Mediatization has become a key concept in understanding the relationship between the media and the social sphere (Michelsen & Krogh, 2016), with everything from state institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social groups, and individuals being encompassed in the digital media landscape. Mediatization focuses on the processes and dynamics of interconstruction between media and society. The "mediatization" framework gives a new theoretical perspective to current explanations of cultural and social change (Stig Hjarvard, 2014). I have further elaborated on this section in this revision process, please refer to lines 44-69 in red in the paper.
Secondly, during the data collection before writing the thesis, I tried to explain the concept of “mediatization” and “mediatized society” to many empty-nesters through in-depth interviews and asked them whether they recognized that they were living in such a mediatized environment, and most of them agreed very much and thought it was the main trend of future social development. I asked them if they recognized that they were in such a mediated environment, and most of them agreed that it was a major trend in the future development of society. This inspired me to try to explain this social phenomenon from this theoretical perspective.
Thirdly, although empty-nesters participate in digital life on social media, it is only a way for them to broaden their social channels and participate in a mediatized society, and their social participation needs to take place in a wider social context. And in a wider range of social activities, the Internet has become an essential part of people's daily lives. In China, people are surrounded by a mediated social environment all the time, and this is especially true for empty-nesters. Empty nesters not only have to use social media to maintain family and friendship, but also have to buy groceries, go to the doctor, take care of their health, and go on transportation, all of which are shaped by mediatization. Such environments may be common for young people, but they are especially difficult for older people who are "Internet nomads," especially empty-nesters. I have further elaborated on this part of the paper in this revision process, please refer to lines 74-86 marked in red in the paper.
I chose such a theoretical perspective for this dissertation because I hope to include socially disadvantaged groups, including empty nesters, in the analysis of mediatized societies, to give them more social care and not let them be abandoned by society in the process of rapid media changes. I believe this is what researchers like you would like to see.]
Comments 3: [ The gaps in the existing studies and how your study will address these are not clear. Actually, many studies have explored the digital/social media use of (Chinese) older adults and their lived experiences. What will your study contribute? If the ‘empty nesters’ is the specified feature of groups, how are your findings different from other studies on older adults?]
Response 3: [The suggestions you have made here have been very informative for me to take a step forward in sorting out the structure of my dissertation. First, in line with your revisions, I have further refined the limitations of existing research and how my dissertation addresses them in this revision process. (Specifically, I refer you to lines 216-227). Second, I have added a discussion of the value of my dissertation's research, i.e., how my study differs from other studies, in lines 228-33, which I have highlighted in orange font. Third, I have reordered some of the paragraphs in the introduction section. please refer to lines 49-163. Fourth, in this revision, I have emphasized how the group of "empty nesters" has emerged in the social structure of China, and briefly introduced the differences between this group and other groups. Please refer to lines 88-119 for the revised section, which I have highlighted in blue.]
Comments 4: [How did you design the research protocol? How many interview questions did you ask? All these should be clearly stated in the method section.]
Response 4: [Thank you for your comments. In this revision, I have added a description of the interview outline in the "Instruments and data analysis" section, and I have included a table of summary questions in the article. I have highlighted the specific changes in orange, please refer to lines 319-325 and Table 2.]
Comments 5: [The research questions need to be narrowed down based on the conceptual framework. Also, what are the connections between them, and how about linkage with the gaps? This part may be put in the introduction section rather than the methods section.]
Response 5: [You mentioned that the research question should have been placed in the introduction section rather than the methodology section, which I strongly agree with. When I first wrote the first draft, I envisioned that the research question would be placed in a more prominent position so that it would get the reader's attention in the first place. However, as you have pointed out, this approach detracted from the overall structure of the article. Therefore, in this revision, I have placed the research question in the introduction section and further emphasized the value of the research by comparing the limitations between the research question and existing research. I have marked the revised section in orange font, and I refer you to lines 215-232 for details.]
Comments 6: [Please justify why the participants have to be classified as responding to their media dependence by using self-reported and qualitative data. How does this will impact or be reflected in the findings/discussions?]
Response 6: [Thank you very much for this question. As you said, "media dependency" is a very difficult concept to define because each person perceives "media dependency" differently. I also realized this problem during the interviews, for example, some participants were already very dependent on social media, and they thought that using it for 5-6 hours a day was not a heavy dependency at all, while others thought that 5-6 hours a day was already a heavy dependency. In this case, it was difficult for me to reach a consensus on "media dependency". Therefore, I used as a reference the "screen time" function that comes with the cell phone, which is available on almost all cell phones and gives a detailed picture of how much time the participant spends on different apps. Therefore, combining these two aspects, I completed the definition of "media dependence". Secondly, my research is mainly to analyze the impact of mediatization on the empty-nesters, so the first thing I need to consider when selecting participants is "what kind of people meet my requirements". After a lot of literature reading and research, I took "media dependence" as the basic condition for selecting interview participants. This is because only participants who are media-dependent can truly feel the impact of apps, including social media, on their psyche and their daily lives. The difference in findings between participants with two different levels of dependence did not show up very clearly, and it was not the focus of this piece of research. I am going to discuss this issue primarily in the next piece of research. Thank you for opening my mind to this research.]
Comments 7: [What data have you collected from participant observations? More information should be provided in data analyses, such as thematic analyses. How did you do the coding and identify what (sub)theme? You may need to provide a figure of your identified themes and sub-themes. And how did you cope with the inconsistent findings with interview and observation data, if applicable?]
Response 7: [Thank you very much for your constructive comments. The issue you mentioned is indeed something I overlooked during the first draft writing process.
Firstly, in the course of this revision, I have added this part to the research methodology section and added specific illustrative tables. I believe that these two revisions respond well to your revisions. I have marked the specific part of the revision in orange font, and I refer you to lines 319-325 and Table 2(lines 731-732).
Secondly, you mentioned the suggestion about coding, which I have also added during this revision process, mainly explaining how to code, which way to use, and so on. I have marked the specific changes in orange font, and I refer you to lines 319-325, Table 3.
Thirdly, you mentioned the need to provide charts for themes and sub-themes, which I have also completed adding in this revision Due to the large number of contents in the corresponding theme categories, I have only selected a few representative categories to present as examples. I have marked the specific part of the revision with orange font, please refer to Table 3.
Fourth, the problem you mentioned about the inconsistency between the interview data and the observation data I was aware of this problem during the data collection phase. That is why I designed a combination of both participant observation and interview methods. In the data collection stage, I first used the participatory room observation method to go deep into the middle of the empty nesters and observe how they use social media for social interaction to understand their living habits, in the process, I constantly adjusted my interview outline according to the collected data to make a match between the two. After observing for some time, I was in the process of finding suitable people to interview participants from the data recorded from my observations. No major inconsistencies were encountered during this process because the interview outline had been constantly revised during previous observations. If there was a small number of inconsistencies, I would expand the scope of observation and search further for participants to interview to further verify whether the "inconsistencies" that had occurred were isolated cases or generalized phenomena; if they were isolated cases, they only needed to be documented, and if they were generalized, they needed to be included in subsequent interviews to make the research findings more robust and credible. If it is a generalized phenomenon, this question needs to be added to the follow-up interviews to make the findings more robust and credible.
Comments 8: [You seem to simply summarise ‘what’ you have identified, but the discussion should demonstrate ‘so what’.]
Response 8: [Your comments on the revision are very inspiring to the summary of the discussion part of my paper. In this revision, I have mainly improved the discussion section by adding the discussion of "so what" in light of the existing research findings and the current aging situation in China. I have highlighted the specific changes in orange, please refer to lines 629-655.]
Comments 9: [It would be helpful if you could explain or argue what and how you understand the findings and link them to the existing literature.]
Response 9: [The comments you mention here are the main part that I have strengthened in this revision. At the time of writing the first draft, I did not explain this section in sufficient detail. In this revision process, I have integrated the findings of the study with the existing research in-depth, mainly in the discussion section, and thus triggered thinking about the broader social issues. I have highlighted specific revisions in orange font and refer you to lines 610-627.]
Comments 10: [This study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. How will this context bring more ideas to the present study?]
Response 10: [Thank you for your question. My research coincided with the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, a sudden healthcare disaster that also took a toll on empty nesters from the physical to the emotional. However, in the study, we found that although empty nesters were using apps such as social media much longer during this time, it did not have a significant impact on their daily lives. With the help of the government, social organizations, media, and volunteers, the social activities of many empty nesters have not been greatly disturbed, and it is easier than usual to get care from part of the level, and the empty nesters still use social media according to their established rhythm. As a result, I failed to bring this issue to the forefront during the writing of my dissertation. In this revision process, I have also accounted for this part of the process. I have marked the specific part of the revision in orange font and refer you to lines 619-627.]
Comments 11: [ E.g., in Lines 105-110, citations are required.]
Response 11: [Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with you about the lack of references between lines 105 and 110. In the first draft writing, I wanted to express a summary of the previous references here, but after your comments, I realized that there is a need for sufficient literature here to support the exposition. Therefore, I have made sufficient additions to this revision. The newly revised parts and the added literature I have marked in red font in the main text. I refer you to lines 195-205.]
Comments 12: [Line 177, citation is inaccurate]
Response 12: [Your rigor is something I should learn from, and in this revision, I verified line 177 and found this one to be a language error on our part. There is no citation involved here, but rather the process of finding participants. In this revision, I corrected the problem. The new revised section and the added literature I have highlighted in orange font in the text. I refer you to lines 263-265.]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have carried out the proposed improvements of the first revision with high quality and sufficiency, filling the gaps in the initial manuscript with reliability and providing a scholarly text with high standards.
The publication will help to better understand the social phenomenology it addresses and opens interesting topics for future researchers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your point-by-point response and revision. I am glad with the revised version and believe it is ready to be published.
