Comparative Analysis of Stakeholder Integration in Education Policy Making: Case Studies of Singapore and Finland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting manuscript based on a comparative case study of stakeholder engagement in educational policy-making in Singapore and Finland. Comparative case studies are an effective research method for identifying patterns and commonalities. By comparing centralized and de-centralized outreach in 2 successful educational systems, the author(s) offer a perspective on successful stakeholder engagement strategies. With some revisions, the paper could make a contribution to the growing literature on stakeholder engagement.

 

First, the research methods need more explanation. How the author(s) arrived at the search terms, the databases they chose to search, their criteria for including or excluding documents should all be explained. One specific example — why did the authors choose to include documents from “UN-affiliated organizations”? And then, the authors should describe their method of analysis once they settled on the sample of documents in the study. Did they code the reports for the search terms? What was the coding scheme?

 

Second, it would probably be helpful to describe how the author(s) chose the cases of Singapore and Finland. It seems like they were chosen for their successful educational systems and similarly sized populations, but this needs explanation. Also, while they are both formally democratic countries and both enjoy what the authors call “political stability,” they have very different forms of democracy — something that seems relevant to the analysis.

 

(One might have expected the authors to use the comparative case method to draw some causal influences — why do 2 countries with successful educational systems have such different stakeholder engagement strategies? The answer probably lies in the very different ways that the countries achieve “political stability” — one through one-party dominance of politics (Singapore) and the other through multi-party coalition building. In that light the different stakeholder engagement strategies seem obvious. But I understand that is not necessarily the authors’ project.)

 

In the analysis itself, the author(s) make many generalizations about the nature of centralized and de-centralized policy-making, but I would have been interested in some of the mechanics of these stakeholder engagement processes. First, the method of recruiting stakeholders into these engagement opportunities should be made explicit. It is unclear in the Singapore case  who gets to participate in the stakeholder activities. Are opportunities made available to all parents, teachers, etc.? Or do the policy-makers in the Ministry of Education issue formal invitations? In the case of Finland, it seems that there is more of an open invitation to everyone who wants to get involved. This should be clarified.

 

Second, while the author's tables helpfully list the different groups that provide input into educational policy, it would have been helpful to know how some of these groups actually work. Who sets the agenda? On what issues do they give advice? Who convenes the groups? Some examples would effectively illustrate the difference policy-making environments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the insightful read on the two governance systems in education. I would like to emphasize that your language is very clear, and you convey your ideas very well. However, I would like to offer some constructive feedback that will help you to improve the theoretical depth and methodological clarity of your work.

My main concern with the current version of the article is the lack of theoretical presentation and discussion, which makes the article read more like a report than an academic publication. You discuss stakeholder engagement without explaining what it is. Stakeholder theory is a well-established field, and there are plenty of discussions to which you can contribute. Since engaging stakeholders is central to your title, I would expect more detailed work on this concept. Perhaps you can present some details, mechanisms, and cases of stakeholder engagement both in Singapore and in Finland, as in the current version, you focus on stakeholder mapping.

While your findings present the political dimensions of governance systems, they somewhat overshadow the discussion on stakeholder engagement itself. Integrating theoretical perspectives on stakeholder engagement in your analysis will allow for a more profound discussion of the issues outlined in the literature on stakeholder engagement.

As for the methods section, I believe there is room for further clarification regarding your data collection and analysis procedures. Specifically, the steps involved in transitioning from document collection to the presentation of results could be described in more detail. Providing a list of the documents used for analysis, perhaps as an appendix, would allow reader to see analytical processes and enable them to better understand the empirical basis of your findings. Additionally, outlining the specific steps of your "comprehensive analysis" process and referencing relevant sources describing this appraoch would increase the credibility of your study.

While your article offers valuable insights into governance systems in education, I would encourage you to deepen the theoretical foundation of your analysis and present more detailed description of your methodological approach. 

I wish you all the best as you continue developing your article further!

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes the author(s) made have greatly improved the manuscript by contextualizing the different policy approaches and by providing further background on the different mechanisms for stakeholder engagement in the two case studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your endorsement of the changes made to the paper. I have made some minor modifications to enhance the clarity of the paper's sections. The changes to the paper are highlighted in red for your easy reference.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), 

Thank you for providing an improved version of the article. Your changes in general and the addition of a theoretical section in particular has significantly enhanced the quality of your paper. However, there are still some elements that need to be addressed for further improvement.  

Overall comment 

The primary issue is the structure of the article. The parts are not numbered consistently, making it difficult to follow the sequence of the presentation. For instance, the section titled "1. Understanding Stakeholder Integration in Educational Policymaking" on line 72 is followed by an unnumbered "Methodology" section on line 123, which should be titled "Methods." Additionally, the section titled "The Singapore and Finland Models of Education Governance" on line 189 is unnumbered, but the next subtitle is "1.1. The Singapore Model: Centralized Governance System." This inconsistency disrupts the flow and readability of the article. 

Comments to specific parts 

1. 1. Methodology: 

The methodology section requires clarification. You described using 'explicit, predefined criteria’ (line 126) for your search, which suggests a systematic literature review. It would be helpful to specify whether you were searching for frameworks or data regarding stakeholder engagement specifically in Singapore and Finland. Was the search limited to these geographical areas, or was it broader?  

Additionally, you mention databases (line 139) without specifying which ones you used. Providing this detail is crucial.  

You might need to provide an overview of the documents that you used for the data analysis, maybe specify the number or type of documents for each country? I needed to go through the next part and References to understand what were the results of your search. 

Line 155 ‘The coding scheme’ - where is it? ‘Stakeholder engagement strategies, policy initiatives, and outcomes’ (line 180-181) – is this the coding scheme? 

2. 2. The Singapore and Finland Models of Education Governance: 

• You present the educational and political systems on pages 4-5 and use Figure 1 to demonstrate your case. Move Figure 1 to page 5. 

• Line 246 ‘4.1.1. Stakeholder Engagement Strategies:’ is the only subtitle – where does this number come from? 

• Line 310 ‘1.1. The Finland Model: Decentralized Governance System’ and line 391 ‘4.1.1. Stakeholder Engagement Strategies:’. What has happened to the numbering? 

3. 3. Results and Discussion: 

Line 433 ‘Results and Discussion’ - results of what? I would say the previous part included the results of your search.  

This part might need some structuring. What are the main results and discussion points? The text is presented as one piece, which makes it difficult to concentrate on various themes. It reads as some general characteristics of two systems and engagement of different stakeholders – if you add some reader guidance, it will be easier to navigate this part.  

Incorporate the elements of the theory part into the discussion. You might consider using more of the theory (like levels of decentralization – lines 91-105) in the discussion part.  

On page 11 – lines 476-481, align the style of the text (check the rest of the text – there were more places where the style of the text was different). 

4. 4. Conclusion: The conclusion tends to repeat the ideas from the presentation of the systems. Try to make it more conclusive and reflective of your findings. 

By addressing these points, your paper will be more coherent and easier to follow. Thank you for your efforts and I look forward to seeing the revised version.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf