Navigating Wellbeing Through Youth Work and Participatory Research: Insights from Post-COVID-19 Scotland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very good paper on the whole that is written and structured at a high standard, clearly, convincingly and compassionately argued, and that concludes with straightforward but vitally important recommendations for practice moving forwards. Much of what you argue here is not 'new', but is nevertheless highly significant and important in relation to young people's wellbeing and guarding against the tokenism that can be inherent in youth participatory initiatives. We know that much of what is promised to young people, or what young people assume or hope will flow from their participation in initiatives, is unrealistic - constrained, as you discuss here, by numerous structural failings, slow/problematic institutional dynamics, and systemic inequalities. What you do brilliantly in this paper is go beyond just stating this and focus on how this feels for the young people involved and what could be done to address this. I can tell from the way you write throughout this paper, and in the selection of your methods, that you are passionate about this. I commend you on your research design and on the ethos and general ethics of care that has clearly underpinned this project. I was really pleased to see you acknowledge the tension in your own participatory research around the potential of creating an expectation among young people of effecting significant improvements and changes to socio-structural conditions. This is a sophisticated piece of research and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your paper. That being said, I do think there are a few areas where your paper - and its impact - could be improved. 

1. The major issue, from my perspective at least, is that you haven't actually presented the data here. Your findings section/sub-sections are interesting, but no quotes from the participants are included. You discuss photovoice, photo elicitation, semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires in your methods section, but no actual data is presented from any of these methods to give expression to the arguments you are making. Given that your sample of young people is small, and the focus of your paper is primarily on their lived experiences/perceptions, it is important to hear from them. Saying 'many of them felt this', 'some felt this' - it just doesn't provide enough information about what came out in your data. You have used a wonderful array of methods to engage with your participants here, and make good arguments, but without the data illustrating this, it falls a bit flat and weakens your overall argumentation. Your findings, discussion and conclusion are quite repetitive in places, so I think there is scope for you to free up space for the addition of more data and detailed discussion of data. 

2. I was a bit confused in your methods section where you describe the open-ended questionnaire issued to stakeholders and mention it being used to explore their responses to the 'young people's experiences, perceptions, and feelings'. Can you provide some more information about this? I'm not sure if you mean that you provided them with information from your data collection with the young participants. If so, did this throw up any ethical questions? Were the young people known to the stakeholders?  Moreover, in your findings, we don't hear much from the stakeholders. I'm assuming their responses were behind some of your discussion of youth workers stepping in to fill gaps, but it isn't clear. You mention in your methods section that you are using the two samples to make comparisons and access insights about that tension between the potential and challenges of participatory approaches/community engagement with young people, so it would be good to see this come out more clearly in the second half of your paper. 

3. Some more information about what your young participants were actually asked/asked to do with their photography and in interviews would be useful for clarifying the findings. 

4. Finally, I think you could make a stronger argument around socio-structural factors relevant to youth work and your research. In your discussion of structural barriers preventing sustainable change, you could make the point a bit more strongly about constraints imposed upon youth work itself. You do allude to this a couple of times, but the addition of even a couple of sentences to note how underfunded youth work is, while being expected to fill these gaps, would just help to underline the argument - and, obviously, is very relevant to what you discuss here in that it gets at that tokenism around youth participation but also there is a real threat of closure to many youth services in Scotland. Given how important youth work is to young people's wellbeing, this seems like a good point to make. As I'm sure you are aware, this is all part of a neoliberal approach that is slashing public services/spending while expecting social services/third sector to plug gaps. 

I hope these suggestions are helpful. This really is a strong first draft. In my view, the addition of some data and detail will really help to elevate the important arguments you make here. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary
   Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive feedback on my manuscript. Your thoughtful evaluation has been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and depth of the paper, particularly regarding the inclusion of participant data, methodological transparency, and contextual framing. I have made substantial revisions in response to your suggestions, which I believe significantly improve the manuscript's quality. Please find my responses to your points below and the corresponding revisions reflected in the resubmitted manuscript.
2. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions

Comment 1:
The major issue, from my perspective at least, is that you haven't actually presented the data here. Your findings section/sub-sections are interesting, but no quotes from the participants are included. You discuss photovoice, photo elicitation, semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires in your methods section, but no actual data is presented from any of these methods to give expression to the arguments you are making. Given that your sample of young people is small, and the focus of your paper is primarily on their lived experiences/perceptions, it is important to hear from them.

Response 1:
Thank you for raising this crucial point. I fully agree that including direct quotes from participants enhances the manuscript by grounding the findings in participants' voices. In the revised manuscript, I have included several participant quotes across the findings and discussion sections (e.g., pages 5–9, lines 256-410) to illustrate their perspectives vividly. These quotes are drawn from the photovoice sessions, interviews, and questionnaires. They emphasise vital themes, such as empowerment, systemic challenges, and the role of youth work in fostering wellbeing. Adding these quotes better contextualises the lived experiences of the young people involved and strengthens the manuscript's arguments.

Updated text in the manuscript: Quotes have been integrated into the findings sections. For example, the discussion of systemic barriers and empowerment through participation now includes participant perspectives such as, “Taking photos of my neighbourhood made me realise how much we’re ignored. It’s not just me, it’s the whole community.”

 

Comment 2:
I was a bit confused in your methods section where you describe the open-ended questionnaire issued to stakeholders and mention it being used to explore their responses to the 'young people's experiences, perceptions, and feelings'. Can you provide some more information about this? I'm not sure if you mean that you provided them with information from your data collection with the young participants. If so, did this throw up any ethical questions? Were the young people known to the stakeholders?

Response 2:
Thank you for flagging this point. I have revised the methods section (pages 3 and 4, lines 180-223) to clarify that stakeholders did not have direct access to the raw data or private discussions from the photovoice sessions or interviews. Instead, the exhibition provided a mediated space for stakeholders to engage with curated findings chosen by the youth participants. This approach ensured that the young people retained control over their narratives while allowing stakeholders to critically reflect on systemic challenges and institutional practices. I have also discussed the ethical considerations associated with this process, mainly how anonymity and confidentiality were maintained. These revisions ensure greater transparency in the methodology and address potential ethical concerns.

Updated text in the manuscript: The methods section now includes a detailed explanation of the anonymised summaries and their purpose, along with a discussion of the ethical safeguards implemented to protect participants’ identities.

 

Comment 3:
Some more information about what your young participants were actually asked/asked to do with their photography and in interviews would be useful for clarifying the findings.

Response 3:
I appreciate this suggestion and have expanded the methods section (pages 2 and 3, lines 129-172) to provide more detail about the prompts and activities given to participants during the photovoice sessions and interviews, including open-ended prompts. This additional detail helps clarify the participatory process and how it informed the findings.

Updated text in the manuscript: The methods section now includes descriptions of specific prompts and questions used in the photovoice sessions and interviews to enhance clarity.

 

Comment 4:
Finally, I think you could make a stronger argument around socio-structural factors relevant to youth work and your research. In your discussion of structural barriers preventing sustainable change, you could make the point a bit more strongly about constraints imposed upon youth work itself.

Response 4:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised discussion section (pages 9 and 10, lines 460-494), I have expanded on the socio-structural barriers constraining youth work, particularly chronic underfunding, austerity policies, and the resulting pressures on third-sector organisations. Drawing on MacLeod and Emejulu [41] and Ginwright and Cammarota [40], I have highlighted how these constraints limit the transformative potential of youth work while simultaneously increasing the burden on practitioners. This expanded discussion underscores the urgency of systemic reforms to address these challenges and supports the manuscript’s broader argument about aligning youth work practices with institutional change.

Updated text in the manuscript: The discussion section now includes a detailed exploration of how neoliberal austerity policies and funding constraints impact youth work, incorporating insights from relevant literature and stakeholder feedback.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While arguments are presented, there is little concrete evidence and explanations offered.  Specifics on the process of the program and how assessments were carried out would have been helpful and more convincing of the conclusions.  The lack of specificity is concerning.  If we are talking about youth work programs with disadvantaged groups, resources will generally be limited, and it is important to set realistic goals within these constraints, hence the emphasis on localized issues is relevant, but should be further explored.  Selection of projects that have direct local impact could be chosen to lessen the disillusionment that larger institutional changes can generate as they go against larger social processes.  Working on developing programing within local agencies with targeted groups can provide opportunities for not only engagement, innovation and leadership, but also to make an immediate impact while requiring less resources.  Self efficacy comes from not only exercising agency, but in being able to effect outcomes, hence taking on small projects that can demonstrate immediate outcomes would seem indicated.  Setting realistic goals is a lesson for not just the clients of the program, but for those running the program itself.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary
   Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and valuable insights on this manuscript. Your comments have been instrumental in refining the paper and ensuring that it provides clearer, more specific explanations and practical implications. Below, I address each of your comments in detail and outline the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript.
2. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:
While arguments are presented, there is little concrete evidence and explanations offered. Specifics on the process of the program and how assessments were carried out would have been helpful and more convincing of the conclusions.

Response 1:
Thank you for raising this point. I have revised the methods section (page 3 and 4, lines 118-172) to include detailed descriptions. This section clearly accounts for the photovoice methodology, interview prompts, and how data from open-ended questionnaires were analysed. I have also referenced these methods throughout the findings and discussion sections to strengthen the link between the evidence and the conclusions drawn. These revisions ensure greater transparency and enhance the rigour of the research design.

Updated text in the manuscript: The methods section now includes detailed descriptions of the processes and assessments, such as examples of photovoice prompts (“How can youth work support my wellbeing?”). The results and discussion sections now explicitly refer to connections between methods and findings.

 

Comment 2:
If we are talking about youth work programs with disadvantaged groups, resources will generally be limited, and it is important to set realistic goals within these constraints.

Response 2:
I appreciate this critical observation. I have revised the discussion section (pages 9 and 10) to explicitly address the resource constraints faced by youth work programs, particularly those serving disadvantaged groups. The revised text emphasises the need to set realistic, localised goals that balance immediate outcomes with broader aspirations for systemic change. These adjustments also reflect the importance of managing expectations to prevent young people's disillusionment, a theme highlighted in the findings.

Updated text in the manuscript: The discussion now includes an expanded analysis of the resource limitations inherent in youth work, alongside examples of how realistic, community-level projects can offer meaningful, actionable outcomes while accommodating resource constraints.

 

Comment 3:
Self-efficacy comes from not only exercising agency, but in being able to effect outcomes. Taking on small projects that can demonstrate immediate outcomes would seem indicated.

Response 3:
Thank you for this insightful suggestion. I have revised the findings and discussion sections (pages 5-10) to focus more on how small-scale, localised initiatives can foster self-efficacy. These projects enhance their sense of agency and accomplishment by providing young people with opportunities to achieve tangible outcomes. Examples from the data, such as a community clean-up initiative led by participants, illustrate this dynamic.

Updated text in the manuscript: The discussion now emphasises the importance of small-scale projects that provide immediate, visible outcomes, with illustrative examples such as participants organising a local clean-up effort and the resulting impact on their sense of empowerment and self-efficacy.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading the revised version of your manuscript and I'm so glad you found my suggestions helpful. I think you have responded to the revisions fantastically well and want to commend you on the hard (and high quality) work you have put in. You have substantially revised your paper for the better. It was excellent to be able to read the data from the research - the inclusion of this has really elevated your arguments and made your paper significantly stronger. Additionally, the revisions you have made to your methodology section have really enhanced the clarity of the research design as well as contextualising your findings. I am satisfied that this paper is now ready for publication - well done! One very minor comment - you have repeated a quote from one of your participants (Lalo); it's used in both sections 3.1 and 3.3, so just remember to edit one out. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I like the adjustments to the text and explanations.  The samples included provided good evidence to support the conclusions and were linked to them in useful ways.  The explanation of the methodology was greatly improved and made more clear the basis for the conclusions made.