FROM : Ethnic Identity of Urban Indigenous Adolescents in Taiwan

Reviewer-1 comments

1. The researcher(s) has done good field work. But the article’s organization and writing require more integrity

Response: We are grateful for the guidance and affirmation from the reviewer. The article has been strengthened with improvements to its organization and writing.

2. Lack of ConclusionThe authors have not included a conclusion. The “Discussion” section is good, but the article needs to transform the discussions into a conclusion.

Response: The article has added a conclusion section.

3. Specificity issue, “Discussion” section Here the article presents 4 recommendations. They are too general. Why/How are they special? Compared to other countries around the world? Compared to earlier studies? Compared to different age groups? Compared to other settlement contexts (rural or small towns)? Compared to other possible suggestions? Compared to usual or existing policy approaches?

Response: This article has been revised to make the discussion section more specific in its arguments. The discussion section primarily involves engaging the research findings in dialogue with earlier studies and theories and providing recommendations regarding the shortcomings of existing institutions and policies.

4. Specificity issue, “Method” section Here the article explained methodology only in a general way. Please explain: How, specifically for this group interviewees and specifically for the subject matter, did the researchers designed their research efforts and field work?

Response: The first paragraph of the methodology section has been revised to provide a clearer explanation of why qualitative research methods are more suitable for this study's subject and interviewees.

5. The use of grounded theory

A) Please explain the researcher’s presumptive understandings, before the interviewing.

B) Please explain the researcher’s resulting understandings, after the interviewing. (This may be easier for 

journal readers to understand if it is written in comparable forms of the A.)

C) Please compare the A and the B.

Response: In the application of grounded theory in this study, besides following the procedural guidance outlined by Charmaz, the textual analysis also underwent dual review by the two authors to validate the process of concept development. This explanation has been added to the article for further clarification.

6. Specificity issue, the choice of semi-structured interview Please explain: How and why, specifically for this group interviewees and specifically for the subject matter, did the researchers designed the “semi-structure” of interview?

Response: The article has been revised to provide specific explanations for the three reasons behind the choice of using semi-structured interviews.

7. Research ethics issue, semi-structured interview Please include the “semi-structure” of the interview in the article. To list it in a table in the main body of article is OK. It is also OK to list it in appendix.

Response: The article has been revised to include the interview outline in the appendix.

Reviewer-2 comments

1. The abstract will be revised to include following: Background, Context, Method, Data collection and conclusion. The author has written a lengthy sentence, therefore please modify the abstract.

Response: The abstract of this article has been revised for conciseness based on the suggestion of the reviewer.

2. Recommend the authors to think in detail what new insight is your study offering to readers?

Response: The paper has been revised in the discussion section to present the unique insights of this paper more clearly.

3. Please strengthen the theoretical perspective to explain arguments in your study.

Response: We are grateful for the suggestions from the reviewer. The paper has been enhanced in the discussion section to strengthen the dialogue between theory and research findings.

4. Qualitative research is a research paradigm, not a research method. The reviewer recommend that authors use case study.

Response: The sentences that may have led to the misconception that qualitative research is a research method have been revised. The article now presents more clearly that the research method employed in this study is in-depth interviews.

5. In the section of the discussion, I suggest the author should provide more theoritical literatures to dialogue with the results.

Response: The paper has been revised with improvements to the discussion section, enhancing the dialogue between the research findings and theoretical literature.

6. Please strengthen the conclusion and implications. Good finding suggestions for future practitioners and researchers.

Response: The article has added a conclusion section.

7. This study is interesting and innovative.

Response: We are grateful for the guidance and affirmation from the reviewer.