Perception of the Figure of the Social Educator in Rural Contexts in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

In general the paper is well written, presents a relevant topic and the theoretical framework and discussions presented are correct for the topic they develop. However, for publication there are certain aspects that could be improved: 

 

- In the theoretical framework they make a good contextualization of the situation of the social educator in Europe, however, there is an aspect that I think can confuse the lectos referring to the role they have in educational centers, which in the Spanish case is highly limited. 

 

- On the other hand, in the methodology they explain: 

In the qualitative interview study, the sample of key informants was purposive. The 165

selection criteria were: 1) to be a social educator; 2) to practice the profession in rural en- 166

vironments; 3) to be a social educator; 4) to be a social educator; and 5) to be a social edu- 167

cator

 

It seems that a criterion is repeated three times, this confuses the reader. 

 

- Figure 3 is not readable.

 

Best wishes in the revision process. 

Best regards, 

Reviewer.

Author Response

Review report                                                                                                                             17/03/2023

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript entitled ‘Perception of the figure of the Social Educator in rural contexts’ for publication in Education Sciences.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

We appreciate your review of the manuscript and the contribution of your suggestion to the improvement of the paper. We hope you find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Thank you once again for your consideration.

Sincerely

Reviewer 1

Dear Authors,

Comment 1: In general the paper is well written, presents a relevant topic and the theoretical framework and discussions presented are correct for the topic they develop. However, for publication there are certain aspects that could be improved:

- In the theoretical framework they make a good contextualization of the situation of the social educator in Europe, however, there is an aspect that I think can confuse the lectors referring to the role they have in educational centers, which in the Spanish case is highly limited.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out and your kind reminders. We fully agree with this assessment. Therefore, it has been clarified the role and fields of intervention of social educators in Spain in the main text (page 2; lines 54- 56).

Comment 2: On the other hand, in the methodology they explain:

In the qualitative interview study, the sample of key informants was purposive. The selection criteria were: 1) to be a social educator; 2) to practice the profession in rural environments; 3) to be a social educator; 4) to be a social educator; and 5) to be a social educator.

It seems that a criterion is repeated three times, this confuses the reader.

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation. The repeated criterion has been eliminated in page 4, line 175. 

Comment 3: Figure 3 is not readable.

The figure in high definition (300px) and .tiff format was provided in the supplementary material. Attached again (Figure 3.tif).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. The perception of social educators is an important consideration as the profession develops globally. I was intrigued with this analysis of rural perceptions, and have made the following observations:

1. Your excellent overview of global approaches to social education reflect the diversity of approach and perception. (In that section you should talk about Scotland along with the English-speaking countries). Given social education's diversity I felt this article needed to be contextualised within its location, i.e. Spain (?). Is it the "Perception of.... in rural context in Spain"? Therefore, the historical context of Social Education in Spain needed to be expanded upon as the results cannot be generalised to rural locations universally.

2. The rationale for undertaking this research needs further clarity. I am uncertain as to the importance of undertaking this research in respect to rural locations. Perhaps this again, is something particular to Spain. 

3. On first reading, I assumed this article was the general public's perception of social educators in rural locations. What the research explores are social educators' perceptions of how they have been perceived. This may or may not be the public's perception. Thus, social educators will bring an informed and nuanced understanding of their roles which I believe needs acknowledging in the analysis/ and be reflected in the abstract, etc. 

4. Some of the English words are obscure and technical. For example I am not sure what 'de-virtualization' means. The use of the word 'diagnoses' (p. 2,. line 54) is a medical term and seems at odds with social education ethos. 

5. Page 4 - review the selection criteria. Repeats 'to be a social educator.' 

Some consideration was made to the importance of this research, such as highlighting the invisibility of the profession and its lack of social recognition (albeit from a social educator's perspective). I think this article would benefit greatly from it being contexualised in the Spanish context. 

Thank you

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. The perception of social educators is an important consideration as the profession develops globally. I was intrigued with this analysis of rural perceptions, and have made the following observations:

Comment 1. Your excellent overview of global approaches to social education reflect the diversity of approach and perception. (In that section you should talk about Scotland along with the English-speaking countries). Given social education's diversity I felt this article needed to be contextualised within its location, i.e. Spain (?). Is it the "Perception of.... in rural context in Spain"? Therefore, the historical context of Social Education in Spain needed to be expanded upon as the results cannot be generalised to rural locations universally.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. As you point out, the study was developed in a rural context in Spain, so following the reviewer's recommendations, we included this specification in the title. On the other hand, as evidenced in the theoretical introduction, we have tried to analyze the international literature on the functions and professional profiles of the social educator at present, precisely with the aim of highlighting the scarce literature on this subject in contrast to the multiplicity of functions attributed to this professional figure. In this sense, we have tried to show the specificities of each country, since, as we explain in the text, the approaches differ depending on the political-institutional context and even among English-speaking countries the approaches are sometimes different.

Comment 2. The rationale for undertaking this research needs further clarity. I am uncertain as to the importance of undertaking this research in respect to rural locations. Perhaps this again, is something particular to Spain.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. As we have shown by comparing our results with others reported in the literature, our results are somehow also reflected in other rural settings for other professional profiles. We agree with the reviewer that our data are not fully generalizable to other countries, especially considering the various trajectory between different countries already reported in the review of the introduction, but it can serve as a first exploratory evidence in Spain that could help in the analyses applied to other contexts. In addition, we propose, through the analysis of the results, how a series of factors may be associated with a more accurate view of the professional figure of the social educator.

 

Comment 3.On first reading, I assumed this article was the general public's perception of social educators in rural locations. What the research explores are social educators' perceptions of how they have been perceived. This may or may not be the public's perception. Thus, social educators will bring an informed and nuanced understanding of their roles which I believe needs acknowledging in the analysis/ and be reflected in the abstract, etc.

Response: Thank you very much for your contribution which allows us to improve the clarity of our research. Indeed, this study presents an analysis from two different approaches. On the one hand, the study analyses the perception of the rural population (the inhabitants of this area) through a measurement scale. On the other hand, it also analyses, through interviews, the perception that professionals working in this rural area have of the social image of the job profile of the social educator. This double approach, provided by the quantitative-qualitative methodological triangulation (scale-interview) has been clarified has been clarified in the abstract (page 1, lines 9-10) and in the discussion (page 13, lines 475-477)

Comment 4. Some of the English words are obscure and technical. For example I am not sure what 'de-virtualization' means. The use of the word 'diagnoses' (p. 2,. line 54) is a medical term and seems at odds with social education ethos.

Response: Thank you very much for the comments. Following your input, we have carried out a complete grammatical and syntactical revision of the text. We agree that the word ‘de-virtualization' maybe could lead to confusion, so the text has been modified to make it more understandable with less technical language- (page 3, line 145).

With regard to the term ‘diagnoses’, we respectfully disagree, as it is widely used in the field of social intervention . However, the reviewer's comment has led us to consider replacing it in the text with synonymous terms such as ‘evaluation’ or ‘assessment’, but we consider that these terms do not fully capture the descriptive aspect we wish to allude to, so we have chosen to specify that it is a ‘social valuation and diagnosis’ (page 2, lines 60-61; 77).

Comment 5. Page 4 - review the selection criteria. Repeats 'to be a social educator.'

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation. The repeat criterion has been eliminated in page 4, lines 165-166. 

 

Comment 6. Some consideration was made to the importance of this research, such as highlighting the invisibility of the profession and its lack of social recognition (albeit from a social educator's perspective). I think this article would benefit greatly from it being contexualised in the Spanish context.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to improve this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf