Young Children’s Play and the Role of Grandparents as Play Partners during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the chance to review your paper. Overall I find this is a highly original piece of work which explores intergenerational play(child-grandparents) in the COVID-19 context. While I appreciate the originality and the significance of the work, a couple of areas listed below would require further consideration/clarifications from the authors. 

1) I feel that there is a misalignment between the reported context -'big qualitative study with six family groups from two large cities' and the actual reported cases with two family groups. If the bigger project is where these two case studies were built upon, the introduction of this 'bigger' project could be expanded/explained further. What is the overall profile picture of 'six family groups' that 'two cases' were derived from?

2) Alternatively, if the 'bigger project' is not the focus or the context for two cases, the sample selection for the case study approach would need further clarification or justification on why and how two family groups have been identified for case studies. 

3) On page 4, you mentioned about 'data saturation', which suggested that after two cases, no new themes would have been added by analysing data from further cases. My question is: are these the first two cases to undertake data analysis? How do you define 'data saturation' in your study? It is an evolving process, or do you have a pre-specified framework of themes? 

4) I can see for each family group you have 4-5 videos, plus a variety of other types of data. I feel that the data analysis strategy here is not quite clear to me. Have you used data triangulation in your research?

5) You describe two cases to illustrate each of Rogoff's plane stages, beyond reporting/describing findings from each case, it is unclear to me how two cases are connected or intertwined with each other. 

6) Just reconfirm with the authors: you intend to use Rogoff's three planes to analyse your data as an overarching framework, not simply mapping your findings from your cases to denote each planes. Sorry, I am a bit confused here. 

7) A clear statement of the research questions/aims, and then reviewing back in the conclusion and discussion section might be helpful. I feel that the report of findings, and the conclusions do not fully match your intended research aims as staged in the abstract and introduction section.

Thanks and I hope the feedback is helpful. 

Author Response

Please find in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I am grateful for the opportunity to review this paper. In general terms, I find the topic interesting and a contribution to science in the field of education.

Introduction: I think it is good

Method: It would have been interesting if the interviews had been coded and then triangulated with the data obtained from the videos and photographs. Such triangulation would allow for an effective multi-method approach. 

Results and Discussion: I would consider separating the presentation of the results from the discussion for organisational and ordering issues. Since, little discussion with other studies associated with the topic is evident.

Conclusions: Both the conclusions and discussion lack limitations and projections of the study. It is necessary to incorporate these.

Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations are unclear, considering that the study provides photographs of minors.

Author Response

Please find in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for revising your manuscript. 

I only have two minor comments: 

1. Good to mention/report the use of AI to support the analytic process, you also mention about the sorting and coding of the text and images; does the code refer to programming code, or pre-defined/selected code to analyse the data? 

2. I feel that the section 3.3 Rogoff’s Community Plane is not as rich as the other two part. There is a sense of imbalance between the three planes. Just a thought. 

Thanks again for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I read it with great pleasure. 

Author Response

Comment 1. Good to mention/report the use of AI to support the analytic process, you also mention about the sorting and coding of the text and images; does the code refer to programming code, or pre-defined/selected code to analyse the data? 

Response We did not use an AI program for coding. We used Braun and Clarke’s six stages of analysis for coding and thematizing data. The AI use confirmed the codes.

Comment 2. I feel that the section 3.3 Rogoff’s Community Plane is not as rich as the other two part. There is a sense of imbalance between the three planes. Just a thought. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-With regard to the discussion, I believe that it could be further strengthened with more literature according to the results.

-The authors respond to most of the comments made in the previous review.

-I still have doubts about the ethical considerations (use of images, photographs of underage children and adults). However, I leave this part to the editor's discretion. In the absence of an ethics committee that has approved the research, I suggest rejection.

-In the event of such ethical considerations, I consider it to be an excellent piece of work and a significant contribution to the field of play as an educational tool.

Author Response

Comment: With regard to the discussion, I believe that it could be further strengthened with more literature according to the results.

Response: Further discussion has been added to the Community Plane section. See highlighted section.

Comment:-I still have doubts about the ethical considerations (use of images, photographs of underage children and adults). However, I leave this part to the editor's discretion. In the absence of an ethics committee that has approved the research, I suggest rejection.

Response: A sentence has been added to p.7 – see highlighted section “Child assent was given where applicable and by the six year old participant in this paper.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf