Purpose and Mattering as Dimensions of Meaning for Young People in Residential Care from Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this article has conducted a valuable investigation. It is an honor to be invited to review this article. The article presents interesting results, but it is nevertheless believed that, given the organization and description of the content, the manuscript cannot be published in its current form. I would like to encourage authors to consider several issues to be improved.

1.The introduction needs improvement. There is no academic structure of the paragraphs. The paragraphs must have an academic structure with an opening sentence, support sentences, and closing statement (sandwich structure). The “Introduction” should provide an overview of past and recent research on this topic, by reviewing and comparing the differences between them, and by emphasizing the historical importance of past research on the one hand, and recent research developments on the other hand, as a guide to their milestones. After the overview, a research gap or motivation for research is sought. 

2. The words adolescents, teenagers, young people, young adults are respectively used in the article to refer to the research object. Do the objects referred by these words are directly consistent? If yes, the same name is recommended. Different types of groups have different characteristics. If there is any difference, it should be introduced at the beginning of the research, and the results and discussion of the research should be introduced in groups and compared.

3.Figure 1 and 2 are too carelessly drawn. They should be redrawn.

I suggest revising this article into a brief report and resubmitting it.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1.The introduction needs improvement. There is no academic structure of the paragraphs. The paragraphs must have an academic structure with an opening sentence, support sentences, and closing statement (sandwich structure). The “Introduction” should provide an overview of past and recent research on this topic, by reviewing and comparing the differences between them, and by emphasizing the historical importance of past research on the one hand, and recent research developments on the other hand, as a guide to their milestones. After the overview, a research gap or motivation for research is sought. 

Response 1: I reformulated and completed the introduction, adding context to make the researched problem more visible: the child protection situation in Romania, classic directions for intervention, re-approaching the case from a socio-ecological perspective (as an interaction between the environment and the individual), adding previous research in this direction (residential protection for adolescents and young people). From this reformulation, I wanted to show the need and the place of my research by identifying gaps both in the field of interest and in the small number of research.

2. The words adolescents, teenagers, young people, young adults are respectively used in the article to refer to the research object. Do the objects referred by these words are directly consistent? If yes, the same name is recommended. Different types of groups have different characteristics. If there is any difference, it should be introduced at the beginning of the research, and the results and discussion of the research should be introduced in groups and compared.

Response 2: Following your observation, I consistently specified the group the research refers to young people (10-21 years old). I mentioned this when I had to deal with teenagers (age 10 -19 years old). A clarification for the age of the participants also appears in new added Table 1, which describes the structure of the sample.

3. Figure 1 and 2 are too carelessly drawn. They should be redrawn.

Response 3: Figures 1 and 2 have been redrawn (Please see the attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting article. The authors clearly present a topic on a significant matter that occurs within EU. My suggestions for the improvement of the paper are the following:

1) "A broad review of the differences and similarities between meaning and purpose is in [4]." This sentence does not make sense to me.

2) The literature review should be focus more on the issue under study rather than a general discussion on meaning in life. The authors should use some references which will make the necessary connection between theory and the actual study.

3) Can you provide us with more information about the selection criteria for the focus groups? Was the selection of participants for each focus group random or was based on certain criteria (age, gender, etc.)

4) how many participants in each focus group?

5) I would feel more comfortable if the authors added a few more recent references (up to 5 years).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1) "A broad review of the differences and similarities between meaning and purpose is in [4]." This sentence does not make sense to me.

Response 1: 1 The wording "A broad review of the differences and similarities between meaning and purpose is in [4]" has been removed. The attempt to clarify it has led to an unnecessary complication of the debate concerning the relationship between meaning and purpose.

2) The literature review should be focus more on the issue under study rather than a general discussion on meaning in life. The authors should use some references which will make the necessary connection between theory and the actual study.

Response 2: I reformulated and completed the introduction, adding context to make the researched problem more visible: the child protection situation in Romania, classic directions for intervention, re-approaching the case from a socio-ecological perspective (as an interaction between the environment and the individual), adding previous research in this direction (residential protection for adolescents and young people).

3) Can you provide us with more information about the selection criteria for the focus groups? Was the selection of participants for each focus group random or was based on certain criteria (age, gender, etc.)

Response 3: We completed the Materials and Methods chapter with the sample selection procedure.

4) how many participants in each focus group?

Response 4: I added a table (Table 1) with the structure of the sample. (Please see the attachment)

5) I would feel more comfortable if the authors added a few more recent references (up to 5 years).

Response 5: I also modified the bibliography depending on my changes. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the editors and authors for the opportunity to review the article Purpose and Mattering as Dimensions of Meaning for Adolescents in Residential Care from Romania.

In general terms, I can state that the article presents one weak bibliographic base with not very recent citations (only 4 references (18%) are less than 5 years old), however specific, in the area of interest.

As I will comment below, I have the impression that the introduction section contains some basic and relevant information that could have a better articulation in relation to the population under study, based on recent studies.

I also note some methodological issues in the qualitative analysis, that should be corrected and elaborated with more precision.

The chosen topic is interesting one of greater importance, however the introduction and discussion should better reflect on this importance.

I will now offer my contributions or suggestions for improving the text:

TITLE AND ABSTRACT

The title presents a good description of the object of the study, but it only refers to adolescents and in the present study the sample also included young people. Even in the abstract this is not clear. In lines 4 to 14, adolescents are mentioned in the justification of the study and only in line 19 is it mentioned that the study also addresses young people.

1.- INTRODUCTION

The introduction needs more development. There are claims that are not supported by scientific evidence. For example, in lines 29 to 34, it is necessary to reinforce the idea with authors. And justify the importance of this study in these age groups, that is, the reason for choosing adolescents and young people and not a more homogeneous sample.

In addition to defining concepts and relating them to research on young students, it is also suggested that research on young people in residential houses be included, in order to inform us about the meaning of the studied phenomenon. It will still be important to justify the study in these age groups, that is, the reason for choosing adolescents and young people and not a more homogeneous sample.

2.- MATERIAL AND METHODS.

2.1. Study Setting and Sample

I continue to feel the need for the justification for carrying out the study on such heterogeneous samples (lines 117-119 - pre-adolescents, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 13 and 21 (M1 = 17.27 years). The periods in the protection system vary from a few months to 20 years). The composition of FG1, FG2 and FG3 is not described in detail. I suggest that the sociodemographic characterization of the participants be carried out by focus groups (such as average age, time in the protection system, etc.).

It is not described how many participants are distributed by group, if they are balanced with the same or similar number of participants, they should make a detailed table with the same variables distributing by FG1 FG2 and FG3.

This may be interesting to understand the level of depth with which the issues are addressed in the different FGs. Indicate how participants were selected, e.g., purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball, and how they were addressed.

If there were people who refused to participate or withdrew and for what reasons.

Indicate if there was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers, if field notes were taken during and/or after the focus group.

On lines 120-121, it is stated "On gender, 21 (60%) respondents were girls, and as studies, most (20) attended high school courses while the rest were working or looking for a job." what does refer (20) to, is it number, percentage?

2.2. procedure

The researchers' characteristics may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications/experience, relationship with participants. It is suggested that the authors who conducted the focus group be described, what credentials (e.g. PhD, MD), occupation, experience in the area.

It is also important to refer to the participant's knowledge of the interviewer and whether a relationship was established before the start of the study.

Indicate the date on which the focus groups were held, and how the study data were stored, how they were protected, who had access and how long until they were destroyed.

Also indicate the documentation number of approval by the ethics committee, and/or the date of approval.

2.3. Measures

Describe or put in a table the semi-structured interview questions or the topics discussed in the groups.

2.4. Data analysis

I miss the Kappa indicators that numerically reflect the level of consensus on the main themes identified.

3. RESULTS

It is suggested to improve figure 1 (line 218), in terms of aesthetics, as well as figure 2 which has multiple fonts (avoid handwritten lettering) (line 446).

The themes that emerged from the data analysis, presented in Table 1, should be the same names of the subchapters or vice versa. It seems to me that if the theme found in Table 1 were the same as the title of the subchapter of the results, it would be more noticeable.

For example, in table 1 it is described as a theme "The negative evaluation of the residential house and the family" is different from the nomination of point 3.1. "Social resources: the family and the foster home"

In section 3.1. Social resources: the family and the foster home, FG1 and FG3 were omitted, there is no expression of these participants. The same in 3.2. Self-image and self-worth, FG1 is underrepresented, and in section 3.3. Purpose and objectives, also happens in relation to FG3.

The three FGs must be given a voice in some way, this underrepresentation cannot occur, with the problem that the three FGs are unbalanced with different numbers of participants.

3. RESULTS

The themes that emerged from the data analysis, presented in Table 1, should be the same names of the subchapters or vice versa. It seems to me that if the theme found in Table 1 were the same as the title of the subchapter of the results, it would be more noticeable.

For example, in table 1 it is described as a theme "The negative evaluation of the residential house and the family" is different from the nomination of point 3.1. "Social resources: the family and the foster home"

4. DISCUSSION

I find it difficult to understand how the data of these participants, with different ages, different experiences, and maturity, appearing as if they were homogeneous groups.

In the results and discussion, they describe the differences in responses without explaining that these responses may be related to age or a different experience (some participants still studying and others working or looking for work), as well as, different experiences related to the periods in the protection system que vary from a few months to 20 years).It is necessary to see this explained and clarified.

When the authors refer (lines 411-414 ) (lines 411-414 ) "it follows from the above that there is a wide variety of ways in which young people in the protection system relate to themselves and give meaning to the reality they live in, the past, the present, and the future." and (lines 450-452) "Between two people who are on a path of development and one of whom has bold goals (he wants to become a lawyer) but does nothing to achieve them, and another person who has more modest goals (he wants to become a popular barber) but already applies them and evolves in achieving them every day, the development towards success belongs, most likely, to the latter." If the groups are not similar, it is not understandable how the authors reached this conclusion.

Many of the data do not appear discussed and contextualized with the existing literature. How they if connect, support, elaborate or challenge the conclusions of previous studies.

It does not mention the limitations of the study.

FINAL DECISSION:

The manuscript needs several important changes to be accepted.

I hope that my contributions will serve to improve this article and the study you propose.

I congratulate you for the effort made.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

TITLE AND ABSTRACT

The title presents a good description of the object of the study, but it only refers to adolescents and in the present study the sample also included young people. Even in the abstract this is not clear. In lines 4 to 14, adolescents are mentioned in the justification of the study and only in line 19 is it mentioned that the study also addresses young people.

Response:  Following your observation, I thought it would be more appropriate to change the title of the article, because it does not primarily refer to teenagers, but to young people. I have tried to be consistent with this approach throughout the article. Following the observation, I consistently specified the group the research refers to young people (10-21 years old). I specified this when I had to deal only with adolescents (age 10 -19 years old).

1.- INTRODUCTION

The introduction needs more development. There are claims that are not supported by scientific evidence. For example, in lines 29 to 34, it is necessary to reinforce the idea with authors. And justify the importance of this study in these age groups, that is, the reason for choosing adolescents and young people and not a more homogeneous sample.

In addition to defining concepts and relating them to research on young students, it is also suggested that research on young people in residential houses be included, in order to inform us about the meaning of the studied phenomenon. It will still be important to justify the study in these age groups, that is, the reason for choosing adolescents and young people and not a more homogeneous sample.

Response: I reformulated and completed the introduction, adding context to make the researched problem more visible: the child protection situation in Romania, classic directions for intervention, re-approaching the case from a socio-ecological perspective (as an interaction between the environment and the individual), adding previous research in this direction (residential protection for adolescents and young people).

2.- MATERIAL AND METHODS.

2.1. Study Setting and Sample

I continue to feel the need for the justification for carrying out the study on such heterogeneous samples (lines 117-119 - pre-adolescents, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 13 and 21 (M1 = 17.27 years). The periods in the protection system vary from a few months to 20 years). The composition of FG1, FG2 and FG3 is not described in detail. I suggest that the sociodemographic characterization of the participants be carried out by focus groups (such as average age, time in the protection system, etc.).

It is not described how many participants are distributed by group, if they are balanced with the same or similar number of participants, they should make a detailed table with the same variables distributing by FG1 FG2 and FG3.

This may be interesting to understand the level of depth with which the issues are addressed in the different FGs. Indicate how participants were selected, e.g., purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball, and how they were addressed.

If there were people who refused to participate or withdrew and for what reasons.

Indicate if there was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers, if field notes were taken during and/or after the focus group.

Response: I brought many additional data regarding the researched sample: the reasons I chose the selected group and the sampling method. Regarding the structure of the sample, I have added a table (Table 1) (Please see the attachment) that describes it more precisely for each group, number of participants, gender, age, and average period spent in the protection system. I brought clarifications regarding how the interviews were conducted.

On lines 120-121, it is stated "On gender, 21 (60%) respondents were girls, and as studies, most (20) attended high school courses while the rest were working or looking for a job." what does refer (20) to, is it number, percentage?

Response: In my attempt to clarify the the observation, I noticed a mistake that I corrected on this occasion. It is not about people attending high school, but people attending school (20 people = 57%). I have updated the text.

2.2. procedure

The researchers' characteristics may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications/experience, relationship with participants. It is suggested that the authors who conducted the focus group be described, what credentials (e.g. PhD, MD), occupation, experience in the area.

It is also important to refer to the participant's knowledge of the interviewer and whether a relationship was established before the start of the study.

Indicate the date on which the focus groups were held, and how the study data were stored, how they were protected, who had access and how long until they were destroyed.

Response: I made additions and clarifications regarding the background of the researchers, their relationship with the participants in the interviews, the preservation and protection of the records, their retention time.

Also indicate the documentation number of approval by the ethics committee, and/or the date of approval.

Response: I specified the number and date of the document by which The Scientific Research Ethics Commission from my University approved the study. (Adress Nr. 97/01.02.2023)

2.3. Measures

Describe or put in a table the semi-structured interview questions or the topics discussed in the groups.

Response: I have added a table (Table 2) with the initial themes and questions from the interview guide. (Please see the attachment)

2.4. Data analysis

I miss the Kappa indicators that numerically reflect the level of consensus on the main themes identified.

Response: During the analysis, we did not develop Kappa indicators to reflect the degree of consensus.

3. RESULTS

It is suggested to improve figure 1 (line 218), in terms of aesthetics, as well as figure 2 which has multiple fonts (avoid handwritten lettering) (line 446).

Response: Figures 1 and 2 have been redrawn. (Please see the attachment.)

The themes that emerged from the data analysis, presented in Table 1, should be the same names of the subchapters or vice versa. It seems to me that if the theme found in Table 1 were the same as the title of the subchapter of the results, it would be more noticeable.

For example, in table 1 it is described as a theme "The negative evaluation of the residential house and the family" is different from the nomination of point 3.1. "Social resources: the family and the foster home"

In section 3.1. Social resources: the family and the foster home, FG1 and FG3 were omitted, there is no expression of these participants. The same in 3.2. Self-image and self-worth, FG1 is underrepresented, and in section 3.3. Purpose and objectives, also happens in relation to FG3.

Response: The themes that emerged from the data analysis were described and presented under the same subtitles name as in Table 3.

The three FGs must be given a voice in some way, this underrepresentation cannot occur, with the problem that the three FGs are unbalanced with different numbers of participants.

Response: We have added relevant responses from underrepresented groups. However, I want to state that each focus group had its particularities, with specific themes developed by the participants. Not all focus groups focused on the same issues and therefore, not all aspects may be comparable.

3. RESULTS

The themes that emerged from the data analysis, presented in Table 1, should be the same names of the subchapters or vice versa. It seems to me that if the theme found in Table 1 were the same as the title of the subchapter of the results, it would be more noticeable.

For example, in table 1 it is described as a theme "The negative evaluation of the residential house and the family" is different from the nomination of point 3.1. "Social resources: the family and the foster home"

Response: The themes that emerged from the data analysis were described and presented under the same subtitles name as in Table 3.

4. DISCUSSION

I find it difficult to understand how the data of these participants, with different ages, different experiences, and maturity, appearing as if they were homogeneous groups.

In the results and discussion, they describe the differences in responses without explaining that these responses may be related to age or a different experience (some participants still studying and others working or looking for work), as well as, different experiences related to the periods in the protection system que vary from a few months to 20 years).It is necessary to see this explained and clarified.

Response: I particularized the findings for FG1, on the one hand, and for FG2 and FG3, on the other hand, as they resulted from Results. The research focuses on the challenges and difficulties of adolescence that decisively influence subsequent development. This was meant to be the common element of the three groups: the way each manages (FG1, FG2)/has managed (FG3) these challenges in terms of residential protection

When the authors refer (lines 411-414 ) (lines 411-414 ) "it follows from the above that there is a wide variety of ways in which young people in the protection system relate to themselves and give meaning to the reality they live in, the past, the present, and the future." and (lines 450-452) "Between two people who are on a path of development and one of whom has bold goals (he wants to become a lawyer) but does nothing to achieve them, and another person who has more modest goals (he wants to become a popular barber) but already applies them and evolves in achieving them every day, the development towards success belongs, most likely, to the latter." If the groups are not similar, it is not understandable how the authors reached this conclusion.

Response: In the reformulation of the Discussions chapter, the wording "it follows from the above that there is a wide variety of ways in which young people in the protection system relate to themselves and give meaning to the reality they live in, the past, the present, and the future" I removed them, being considered, indeed, too general and difficult to support, in this formulation, with data.

The wording "Between two people who are on a path of development and one of whom has bold goals (he wants to become a lawyer) but does nothing to achieve them, and another person who has more modest goals (he wants to become a popular barber ) but already applies them and evolves in achieving them every day, the development towards success belongs, most likely, to the latter." wants to express the idea, supported by statements of young people of similar ages (FG2 and FG3), that there are people who do something to achieve their goals and others who only formulate these goals without doing anything to achieve them.

Many of the data do not appear discussed and contextualized with the existing literature. How they if connect, support, elaborate or challenge the conclusions of previous studies.

Response: I contextualized the data in relation to the specialized literature and the qualitative research carried out in residential social services to which I had access. 

It does not mention the limitations of the study.

Response: I have added the theoretical and methodological limits of the study. 

            [Thank you for making the effort to go through the text and make thorough suggestions. These are of great use to me, not only for this article but also for the future.]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript.

This article investigates the connection between the individual and the social context regarding the development of adolescents protected in residential houses. The article is well written, topic  is absolutely within the scope of the journal. The hypothesis were approved on the appropriate focus group ( 35 volunteers).

However, authors should clarify some points:

1. Could you highlight the main purpose of your research? What's the main practical reason for it? 

2. What's the background of your research? You use only 10 citations that doesn't explain the the main problem

3. What're the future stage of your research? 

4. Could you clarify the result you've got? The design of your research needs to be improve 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Could you highlight the main purpose of your research? What's the main practical reason for it?

Response: We emphasized the purpose of the research and its practical reasons.

„Our research aims to explore two dimensions of meaning for adolescents and young people who are in or have grown up in the protection system from Iași County, Romania, respectively the way they perceive themselves and the value they think they have and on the other hand, how they design their future through the goals and objectives. If, as the specialized literature suggests, an important role is played by harmonizing the meanings of providers and beneficiaries of social services, in-depth knowledge of the latter's perspective would undoubtedly help to increase the quality of interventions in this field.

We consider these dimensions of meaning (purpose and mattering) outputs of social service intervention and the processing of complex, sometimes traumatic past experiences. The approach is motivated by the fact that little research focuses on the perspective of this category of social service clients; we believe that such an approach can bring relevant information regarding social intervention and the construction of young people’s identity in residential care. ”

2. What's the background of your research? You use only 10 citations that doesn't explain the the main problem

Response: I reformulated and completed the introduction, adding context to make the researched problem more visible: the child protection situation in Romania, directions for intervention, re-approaching the case from a socio-ecological perspective (as an interaction between the environment and the individual), previous research in this direction. In order to clarify our research interest, we shifted the focus from meaning to resilience and development. Mattering and purpose, as dimensions of meaning, are elements that describe the result of social intervention, of the interactions between individuals and the environment in which they had to live.

3. What're the future stage of your research?

Response: This research is part of a larger project that looks at the patterns and patterns of interactions that young people in the protection system have with the environment they live in and what the effects of these interactions are. A future direction of research, which, at your suggestion, I have added as a possible direction in the text of the article, is how success in development in the case of these young people also depends on how they interpret and capitalize on development opportunities. These opportunities are not resources in themselves but only potentialities for development, which implies the subjective involvement of the individual; knowing the sources of this involvement would lead to the improvement of social intervention.

My interest is to know the representations of these young people and their strategies for managing their challenges and not to compare these constructions with those of the adults they deal with in the residential home.

4. Could you clarify the result you've got? The design of your research needs to be improve

Response: I have highlighted the results obtained in the research, comparing them with previous findings of qualitative studies carried out with adolescents and young people in residential care. The main conclusion is that there is a gap between what social service providers think and what these young people think social intervention should be. This misunderstanding sometimes leads to unrealistic self-images and developmental goals (as components of meaning as they appear in the literature) that, instead of helping those concerned, accentuate their vulnerabilities and put them in potential risk situations. In addition, we have added the possible practical implications of the study as well as its limitations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It's ok to publish.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your response to my comments. The paper now looks much more clear to the reader.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the editors and authors for the opportunity toreview again the article "Purpose and Mattering as Dimensions of Meaning for Young People in Residential Care from Romania"

In general, I can confirm that the authors have re-drafted themanuscript in response to my modest suggestions forimprovement.

The current version of the article presents a more reasoned introduction that justifies the study. 

In the method section, authors introduce complementary information to facilitate the replication of the study. In addition,the results are presented in a clearer and more detailed manner.

The discussion in view of the results obtained, is better connected due to the introduction of bibliographic references.

I note that the authors have made an important effort and workfollowing my suggestions for improvement.

I honestly believethat the manuscript in its current situation meets the conditions for publication.

Therefore, my current proposal is to ACCEPT it for publication.

I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done and fortheir professional behaviour. 

Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report

all comments have been corrected