Water Conservation and Environmental Sustainability from a Community Clinical Psychological Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments. I commend the authors for their constructive engagement with the review process.

Author Response

We would thank the reviewer for her/his kind appreciation

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented manuscript was carried out as part of the international cooperation project "Agua Futura" for the improvement of water resource management in rural communities of Central America and it concerns the important issue of the problem of water shortage, especially in El Salvador, the aim was to detect some key factors affecting water conservation and environmental sustainability from a community clinical psychological perspective. Ninety rural inhabitants (Mean age = 46.84, SD = 17.05) of El Salvador were administered a structured interview exploring their symbolizations about water conservation. Remarks: Give some more information about provided qualitative analysis. Also some more data of the obtained findings should be presented. 

Author Response

More detailed information have been already provided about the used method that is not entirely qualitative but entails a computer-aided thematic analysis. The data of the obtained findings are complete. In previous revisions, we have entirely rewritten the method and results sections.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in the present form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1 The title "Water Conservation and Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Unconscious Psychosocial Dynamics from a
Community Clinical Psychological Perspective" is a bit complex. Please revise your title to focuse the key point with no more than 12 words.

2 Abstract
2.1 Please add the age of Ninety rural inhbitants.
2.2 It is not necessary to introduce information of method too much in the section of Abstract. I suggest the authors to address the findings and highlight. 
"Ninety rural inhabitants of El Salvador were administered a structured interview exploring their perceptions about community attitudes towards water management, adopted practices of water conservation, and potential improvement proposals. Data were analyzed through computer-assisted thematic analysis, then complemented by a qualitative analysis, allowing the detection of implicit sense-making processes based word co-occurrence. Different themes were identified with regard to the perception of community’ attitudes toward water (i.e., resentment, devaluation, irresponsibility, proactivity, sense of abandonment, and care), adopted practices
of water conservation (i.e., harm reduction, saving, accumulation, and strategic use), and potential
improvement proposals (i.e., environmental awareness, need for funds, daily care, and supervision)."

3 Introduction
I am sorry that the authors' reasoning is hard to follow. 
I really suggest the authors revise the introduction completely, and submit the manuscript again.
Emotion is a big word in psychology, and it contains

4 Method and results.
Both method and results need more improvement. Especially for the section of results, it needs emprical evidence.

Author Response

1 The title "Water Conservation and Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Unconscious Psychosocial Dynamics from a Community Clinical Psychological Perspective" is a bit complex. Please revise your title to focuse the key point with no more than 12 words.

R: As suggested, we have changed the title as follows “Water Conservation and Environmental Sustainability from a Community Clinical Psychological Perspective”

2 Abstract
2.1 Please add the age of Ninety rural inhbitants.

R: As suggested, we have added the age of participants in the abstract (p. 1)

2.2 It is not necessary to introduce information of method too much in the section of Abstract. I suggest the authors to address the findings and highlight. 
"Ninety rural inhabitants of El Salvador were administered a structured interview exploring their perceptions about community attitudes towards water management, adopted practices of water conservation, and potential improvement proposals. Data were analyzed through computer-assisted thematic analysis, then complemented by a qualitative analysis, allowing the detection of implicit sense-making processes based word co-occurrence. Different themes were identified with regard to the perception of community’ attitudes toward water (i.e., resentment, devaluation, irresponsibility, proactivity, sense of abandonment, and care), adopted practices of water conservation (i.e., harm reduction, saving, accumulation, and strategic use), and potential improvement proposals (i.e., environmental awareness, need for funds, daily care, and supervision)."

R: As suggested, we have shortened the methological part of the abstact and highlighted the main findings without too many details (p. 1).

3 Introduction
I am sorry that the authors' reasoning is hard to follow. 
I really suggest the authors revise the introduction completely, and submit the manuscript again.
Emotion is a big word in psychology, and it contains

R: As suggested, ve have revised the entire introduction by adding new paragraphs about the community clinical psychological perspective we rely on. Besides, we have clarified what the word “emotion” stands for from such a perspective, especially when dealing with sustainability and water-related issues (pp. 2-3).

4 Method and results.
Both method and results need more improvement. Especially for the section of results, it needs emprical evidence.

R: We have added further details about the method section (pp. 3-5), especially when discussing the theoretical basis for interpretation. The results section has been consistently expanded to better show how our interpretivist approach is used to identify the emotional core underpinning participants’ statements for each emerging theme so as to understand their main affective symbolizations on the issue (pp. 7-10).

Reviewer 2 Report

The study focuses on a critical sustainability and human rights issue: the availability of drinking water. Its focus is on rural El Salvador, an area significantly affected by water insecurity.

The authors make the argument that household participation in water conservation practices is determined by a range of factors, but notably, that emotions, which motivate automatic processing, are significant (and perhaps under-researched) predictors of PEB and long-term sustainable practices. While I think this premise is very interesting, my main concern is that the interviews ostensibly do not at all focus on emotions. Participants are asked about the community’s attitudes, behaviours, and potential solutions to the problem of poor access to potable water. I do not see how this would inform the role of emotions in water conservation behaviour as it is not explicitly addressed in the questions, and it isn’t clear from the examples provided that any specific emotion themes emerged from the data. Perhaps the rationale for this study, its objectives, and hypotheses need to be reframed. Currently, there is a mismatch between the setup in the introduction and the actual execution and implications of the study. It is potentially an interesting case study, but its contribution to the development of coherent theory on water conservation behaviour is arguably quite limited. This should be clarified.

It is also not clear to me, nor presumably to many readers of Sustainability, what a community clinical psychology approach entails. When I think about clinical psychology, I understand this as the study and evidence-based practice that aims to understand, prevent, and relieve psychological problems or disorders. However, this study claims to examine the role of emotions (presumably adaptive, normal emotions) in determining responses to water scarcity and water conservation, studied at the level of the individual-community interface. From my perspective, the authors need to expand on the theoretical basis for this study and explain the premise for taking a community clinical psychology approach, what assumptions underpin this, and what approach was taken (beyond just describing the interview method). Was there any further engagement with the community and what position do the researchers hold within the community (if any)?

The methods themselves appear adequate and well-substantiated, with pragmatic decisions made around sample size and recruitment strategies. I did have some questions about the sample. Because water conservation is usually implemented at the household level, was there a single informant per household? If we assume that an interviewee represents a household, what percentage of households within the communities of San Marcos and Colima were included in the study? The authors provide solid background information on the geographic characteristics of the study areas, which is relevant to the water conservation question, but insufficient data on the communities involved. In particular, some more demographic features for the two pilot sites would be useful (not demographics of the sample, but of the populations overall), so the reader can judge to what extent the sample represents the community, and perhaps also whether the communities in the pilot might be representative of other communities.

With respect to the interview questions, could the authors explain why they asked informants to comment on community attitudes to water conservation rather than asking them about their own attitudes? Perhaps this is common in community psychology research, but it should not be assumed that the reader has this background.

With regard to the results, I felt that the community attitude themes of “irresponsibility and “care” could be merged into a single overarching theme as they represent opposite ends on the same scale, i.e. not taking care, vs taking care with water resources. The theme of “harm reduction” in the adopted practices category seemed oddly phrased. I assumed it meant harm reduction in the public health sense, but what it actually indicates is environmental damage reduction?

I understand separate themes were generated for each of the 3 questions, but some of the emerging themes seem to overlap or be near-identical. For instance “harm reduction“ in the adopted practices category and “environmental awareness” in the potential improvements category seem to reflect similar sentiments, even the examples given are very similar in meaning (e.g. importance of not throwing garbage in the rivers is mentioned in both themes). I don’t know if this is the most efficient or clearest way of representing the qualitative data and its meaning and wondered whether this was the result of the automated coding.

In terms of the interpretation of the findings, I think the authors over-extend themselves and draw conclusions that – at least in my mind, and from what is presented in the results – are unsubstantiated. For instance, they argue that (some) respondents express feelings of resentment over the lack of access to water resources, while at the same time devaluing the water due to its low quality. The authors then interpret the latter as an attempt by residents to attenuate anxiety, although no clear justification is given. None of the interview excerpts provided even mention anxiety. Why is this leap made? I also do not think that the two positions outlined here represent feelings that are “heterogeneous”. It seems entirely logically consistent to me for someone to be both resentful for not having access to good water and to have a negative evaluation of the current situation, where the water provision is deemed inadequate. Maybe I am misunderstanding the reasoning here, but I do not interpret this as reflective of an ambivalent attitude, as the authors suggest.

The authors also argue that the community is perceived as proactive, empowered, and able to participate in decision-making (by some?), while feelings of powerlessness are also expressed. In this case, the two emerging positions are clearly incompatible, thus leading me to wonder to what extent one of the other is specific to sub-samples within the interviewees. While most of the respondents were community members, the authors also interviewed other informants (including health promoters, environmental guards, and representatives of water management cooperatives). These represent quite distinct stakeholder groups, which one might expect to hold different attitudes. So rather than concluding that there are ambivalent attitudes, further investigation into whether different stakeholder groups hold differing attitudes would be warranted. Alternatively, given that the sample is almost entirely composed of community members, a focus on these participants only might be more useful to avoid muddying the waters, so to speak.

In the final paragraph of the discussion, the authors argue that the main added value of the present study relies on the use of narratives that can allow the inspection of emotional, automatic, and implicit processes underlying water sustainability at a community level. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this statement, as it is entirely unsubstantiated by the data presented. What I think the study achieves is the presentation of an interesting case study that highlights prevalent community attitudes which could inform future interventions in that specific context. The authors outline this when they reflect on the practical implications, which I do think are warranted and well thought through.

Likewise, the conclusions feel overwrought and, again, not clearly or thoroughly supported by the findings. This requires significant rewriting to more accurately reflect the key conclusions from this investigation of community attitudes.

 

Overall, I think this study needs to be reframed as a case study about perceived community attitudes towards water conservation in rural communities in El Salvador. If it is to be represented as taking a community clinical psychological approach, the authors need to provide more context. Currently, I do not think the methods – as described – are consistent with a clinical (?) community psychology approach. Other than that, it provides potentially useful insights but does not make a specific theoretical contribution (nor would I expect this from a relatively small case study).

 

 

Author Response

The study focuses on a critical sustainability and human rights issue: the availability of drinking water. Its focus is on rural El Salvador, an area significantly affected by water insecurity.

The authors make the argument that household participation in water conservation practices is determined by a range of factors, but notably, that emotions, which motivate automatic processing, are significant (and perhaps under-researched) predictors of PEB and long-term sustainable practices. While I think this premise is very interesting, my main concern is that the interviews ostensibly do not at all focus on emotions. Participants are asked about the community’s attitudes, behaviours, and potential solutions to the problem of poor access to potable water. I do not see how this would inform the role of emotions in water conservation behaviour as it is not explicitly addressed in the questions, and it isn’t clear from the examples provided that any specific emotion themes emerged from the data. Perhaps the rationale for this study, its objectives, and hypotheses need to be reframed. Currently, there is a mismatch between the setup in the introduction and the actual execution and implications of the study. It is potentially an interesting case study, but its contribution to the development of coherent theory on water conservation behaviour is arguably quite limited. This should be clarified.

Reply: As suggested, we have revised the premises within the introduction section and clarified our theory of emotions, intended as feelings that stem from social dynamics involving affective symbolizations, not as individual responses pertaining to the inner world (e.g., anger, happiness, sad-ness) (pp. 2-3). As better explicited in the method section (p. 4), the study aim was not inspecting the participants’ factual knowledge or concrete behaviors about water management and conservation. Instead, open-ended questions served as triggers to explore the interviewees’ symbolizations on the issue from their thinking about other community members’ mental states, giving meaning to their direct experience, and imagining possible future scenarios.

It is also not clear to me, nor presumably to many readers of Sustainability, what a community clinical psychology approach entails. When I think about clinical psychology, I understand this as the study and evidence-based practice that aims to understand, prevent, and relieve psychological problems or disorders. However, this study claims to examine the role of emotions (presumably adaptive, normal emotions) in determining responses to water scarcity and water conservation, studied at the level of the individual-community interface. From my perspective, the authors need to expand on the theoretical basis for this study and explain the premise for taking a community clinical psychology approach, what assumptions underpin this, and what approach was taken (beyond just describing the interview method). Was there any further engagement with the community and what position do the researchers hold within the community (if any)?

R: As suggested, we have clarified our thereotical framework within the introduction (pp. 2-3), with specific regard to our community clinical psychological perspective and underlying theory of emotions. As well, in the results section, our interpretivist approach has been clarified to identify the emotional core underpinning participants’ statements for each emerging theme so as to understand their main affective symbolizations on the issue (pp. 7-10). About the position of researchers within the community, further details have been added on p. 4 (in the data collection section).

The methods themselves appear adequate and well-substantiated, with pragmatic decisions made around sample size and recruitment strategies. I did have some questions about the sample. Because water conservation is usually implemented at the household level, was there a single informant per household? If we assume that an interviewee represents a household, what percentage of households within the communities of San Marcos and Colima were included in the study? The authors provide solid background information on the geographic characteristics of the study areas, which is relevant to the water conservation question, but insufficient data on the communities involved. In particular, some more demographic features for the two pilot sites would be useful (not demographics of the sample, but of the populations overall), so the reader can judge to what extent the sample represents the community, and perhaps also whether the communities in the pilot might be representative of other communities.

R: We agree with the reviewer but more information is not available. We have clarified it in the sampling and recruitment section (pp. 3-4). The sample cannot be considered as representative of the involved communities (this has been also added about the study limitations), given the voluntary participation and the lack of demographic information at the local level. Indeed, the pilot sites include small rural villages, mostly without access to primary services (e.g., utilities, transport, healthcare), where it is difficult to enter without the intermediation of local leaders because of public safety problems.

 

With respect to the interview questions, could the authors explain why they asked informants to comment on community attitudes to water conservation rather than asking them about their own attitudes? Perhaps this is common in community psychology research, but it should not be assumed that the reader has this background.

R: Open-ended questions served as triggers to explore the interviewees’ symbolizations on the issue from their thinking about other community members’ mental states, giving meaning to their direct experience, and imagining possible future scenarios. Besides, whereas participants could directly tell about their concrete experience in terms of adopted water conservation behaviors, they could have some difficulties in telling about others’ behaviors (e.g., I don’t know what others actually do). Therefore, the word “attitude” was preferred so as to grasp how participants represented and felt about the community’s inhabitants, rather than their factual knowledge.

With regard to the results, I felt that the community attitude themes of “irresponsibility and “care” could be merged into a single overarching theme as they represent opposite ends on the same scale, i.e. not taking care, vs taking care with water resources. The theme of “harm reduction” in the adopted practices category seemed oddly phrased. I assumed it meant harm reduction in the public health sense, but what it actually indicates is environmental damage reduction? I understand separate themes were generated for each of the 3 questions, but some of the emerging themes seem to overlap or be near-identical. For instance “harm reduction“ in the adopted practices category and “environmental awareness” in the potential improvements category seem to reflect similar sentiments, even the examples given are very similar in meaning (e.g. importance of not throwing garbage in the rivers is mentioned in both themes). I don’t know if this is the most efficient or clearest way of representing the qualitative data and its meaning and wondered whether this was the result of the automated coding.

R: As suggested, we have changed the term “harm reduction” (p. 7). The extracted themes (albeit similar) are the result of automated coding allowing the detection of isotopies shared by participants, which may help grasp those affective symbolizations on the issue underlying their discourses (this has been better clarified on pp. 4-5). Beyond a mere content analysis, an interpretivist approach is used to identify the emotional core underpinning participants’ statements for each emerging theme so as to understand their main affective symbolizations on the issue. The results section has been revised accordingly; as well, in the discussion more overarching issues have been highlighted regarding the emotional salience given to water resources as a primary good, the sense of responsibility for the sustainability of water resources at the community level, as well as diverse motivations and purposes affecting water use in households  (pp. 7-10).

 

In terms of the interpretation of the findings, I think the authors over-extend themselves and draw conclusions that – at least in my mind, and from what is presented in the results – are unsubstantiated. For instance, they argue that (some) respondents express feelings of resentment over the lack of access to water resources, while at the same time devaluing the water due to its low quality. The authors then interpret the latter as an attempt by residents to attenuate anxiety, although no clear justification is given. None of the interview excerpts provided even mention anxiety. Why is this leap made? I also do not think that the two positions outlined here represent feelings that are “heterogeneous”. It seems entirely logically consistent to me for someone to be both resentful for not having access to good water and to have a negative evaluation of the current situation, where the water provision is deemed inadequate. Maybe I am misunderstanding the reasoning here, but I do not interpret this as reflective of an ambivalent attitude, as the authors suggest.

R: This interpretation has been expanded and better discussed on p. 9. According to community clinical psychology, community is intended as a whole where polarized positions can be expressed. Indeed, at a community level, water seems to be symbolically represented as a both good/desirable and bad/devalued object, something one is forced to pay despite not being apt for human consumption. Thus, even if water waste behaviors appear as apparently illogic, they may emotionally express a form of contempt towards something one feels dependent on so as to regain control.

The authors also argue that the community is perceived as proactive, empowered, and able to participate in decision-making (by some?), while feelings of powerlessness are also expressed. In this case, the two emerging positions are clearly incompatible, thus leading me to wonder to what extent one of the other is specific to sub-samples within the interviewees. While most of the respondents were community members, the authors also interviewed other informants (including health promoters, environmental guards, and representatives of water management cooperatives). These represent quite distinct stakeholder groups, which one might expect to hold different attitudes. So rather than concluding that there are ambivalent attitudes, further investigation into whether different stakeholder groups hold differing attitudes would be warranted. Alternatively, given that the sample is almost entirely composed of community members, a focus on these participants only might be more useful to avoid muddying the waters, so to speak.

R: It is possible that some themes can be more present in specific groups; however, it is difficult that they are exclusively hold from such groups. The employed automatic text analysis method allows the detection of shared themes based on word co-occurrences across all participants’ narratives. However, in accordance with the suggestion, we have added some sentences in the discussion  stating that future studies could thus deepen some potential differences and inspecting whether community inhabitants hold diverse perspectives on the issue compared to community leaders or other stakeholder groups.

In the final paragraph of the discussion, the authors argue that the main added value of the present study relies on the use of narratives that can allow the inspection of emotional, automatic, and implicit processes underlying water sustainability at a community level. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this statement, as it is entirely unsubstantiated by the data presented. What I think the study achieves is the presentation of an interesting case study that highlights prevalent community attitudes which could inform future interventions in that specific context. The authors outline this when they reflect on the practical implications, which I do think are warranted and well thought through.

Likewise, the conclusions feel overwrought and, again, not clearly or thoroughly supported by the findings. This requires significant rewriting to more accurately reflect the key conclusions from this investigation of community attitudes.

 

Overall, I think this study needs to be reframed as a case study about perceived community attitudes towards water conservation in rural communities in El Salvador. If it is to be represented as taking a community clinical psychological approach, the authors need to provide more context. Currently, I do not think the methods – as described – are consistent with a clinical (?) community psychology approach. Other than that, it provides potentially useful insights but does not make a specific theoretical contribution (nor would I expect this from a relatively small case study).

R: We thank the reviewer for his/her precious suggestions that allow us to improve the clarity of the text and the focus of the theoretical framework. We think that after the revisions, our conclusions are better substantiated and can be better understood. As reported in the discussion section on p. 10 we stressed that ours can be considered as a case study, in agreement with what suggested.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This study was carried out as part of the international cooperation project "Agua Futura" for the improvement of water resource management in rural communities of Central America.

Abstract:

1

This study was carried out a part of the international cooperation project "Agua Futura" for the improvement of water resource management in rural communities of Central America.

This study was carried out as a part of the international cooperation project "Agua Futura" for the improvement of water resource management in rural communities of Central America.

 

2

Ninety rural inhabitants (Mean age = 46.84, SD = 17.05) of El Salvador were administered a structured interview exploring their symbolizations about water conservation.

Ninety rural inhabitants (mean age = 46.84, SD = 17.05) of El Salvador were administered a structured interview exploring their symbolizations about water conservation.

 

3

As well, the individualist/collectivist logic is confirmed as a significant matter to be taken into account for the understanding of effective pro-environmental behaviors on the long run.

Why is this logic “individualist/collectivist logic” from？

 

Introduction

1 Is this sentence clear? “thus making the sustainability of water supply system the most significant challenge for the country [3,4].”

2 Do we need both the two words “However” and “albert”?

However, albeit a large body of evidence has confirmed the strong correlation between psychological factors and water use [9],

3 Could you revise this sentence to make it clear?

This study was carried out in two pilot sites of San Salvador, San Marcos and Colima, as small rural areas characterized by scarce residential connections to potable water with a local economy mostly based on agriculture and itinerant trade.

And others

 

Results

I think the authors need to provide some quantitative analyses with their data. Please do not mere provide these descriptive sentences for results. I am sorry that I cannot consider this is a scientific method.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Abstract:

1

This study was carried out a part of the international cooperation project "Agua Futura" for the improvement of water resource management in rural communities of Central America.

This study was carried out as a part of the international cooperation project "Agua Futura" for the improvement of water resource management in rural communities of Central America.

R: As suggested, we have corrected it.

2

Ninety rural inhabitants (Mean age = 46.84, SD = 17.05) of El Salvador were administered a structured interview exploring their symbolizations about water conservation.

Ninety rural inhabitants (mean age = 46.84, SD = 17.05) of El Salvador were administered a structured interview exploring their symbolizations about water conservation.

 R: As suggested, we have corrected it.

3

As well, the individualist/collectivist logic is confirmed as a significant matter to be taken into account for the understanding of effective pro-environmental behaviors on the long run.

Why is this logic “individualist/collectivist logic” from？

 R: As suggested, we have rephrased the sentence.

Introduction

1 Is this sentence clear? “thus making the sustainability of water supply system the most significant challenge for the country [3,4].”

 R: As suggested, we have rephrased the sentence for more clarity.

2 Do we need both the two words “However” and “albert”?

However, albeit a large body of evidence has confirmed the strong correlation between psychological factors and water use [9],

R: As suggested, we have eliminated the word “however” that is redundant.

3 Could you revise this sentence to make it clear?

This study was carried out in two pilot sites of San Salvador, San Marcos and Colima, as small rural areas characterized by scarce residential connections to potable water with a local economy mostly based on agriculture and itinerant trade.

 R: As suggested, we have rephrased the sentence for more clarity.

 

Results

I think the authors need to provide some quantitative analyses with their data. Please do not mere provide these descriptive sentences for results. I am sorry that I cannot consider this is a scientific method.

R: As stated in the Mehod section, a computer-assisted thematic analysis was used, which employes the T-Lab software (for further details see https://www.tlab.it/). T-LAB processes textual data quantitatively and enables a qualitative interpretation for a contextual understanding of the output. By using T-LAB, we can calculate the co-occurrence relationship among key-terms and cluster textual units using unsupervised learning. As follows, an article previously publihed on Sustainability, where the same method is used https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/2082/htm. As suggested, we have expanded the method  regarding the use of the software. As well, for each open-ended question, in the results section, we have added the table reporting the most significant words/lemmas for each thematic cluster as indicated by chi-square test.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have engaged with my critique and have provided additional clarification on the community clinical psychology perspective, as well as the (limitations) of the methodology. 

I have to admit that I still have certain reservations about the utility of the psychodynamic approach and interpretivist methods. While the recent edits have clarified how the authors arrived at their conclusions, in my mind, there are significant liberties taken with the interpretation step. However, I accept this is part of the method, and appreciate that suitably cautious language is used in describing the emerging themes (e.g. "Participants
SEEM TO enact a rational control dynamics), rather than a deterministic framing. 

The fact that I remain somewhat in doubt about the validity of this approach should not be taken as a dismissal, but rather as a legitimate difference of opinion around epistemology and methodology. I accept the plurality of scientific approaches and it is not up to me to decide what is ultimately acceptable or not. What was important to me, as a reviewer, was that the approach was clearly articulated and its caveats were recognised. I think the authors have largely achieved that with this revised manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The authors have engaged with my critique and have provided additional clarification on the community clinical psychology perspective, as well as the (limitations) of the methodology.

 

I have to admit that I still have certain reservations about the utility of the psychodynamic approach and interpretivist methods. While the recent edits have clarified how the authors arrived at their conclusions, in my mind, there are significant liberties taken with the interpretation step. However, I accept this is part of the method, and appreciate that suitably cautious language is used in describing the emerging themes (e.g. "Participants

SEEM TO enact a rational control dynamics), rather than a deterministic framing.

 

The fact that I remain somewhat in doubt about the validity of this approach should not be taken as a dismissal, but rather as a legitimate difference of opinion around epistemology and methodology. I accept the plurality of scientific approaches and it is not up to me to decide what is ultimately acceptable or not. What was important to me, as a reviewer, was that the approach was clearly articulated and its caveats were recognised. I think the authors have largely achieved that with this revised manuscript.

 

R: We would thank the reviewer for his/her acceptance. Anyway, in accordance with the firrt reviewer’s suggestions, we have provided more details about the employed method and expanded the results section to improve the qualitative interpretation and the contextual understanding of the output.