Regulating Emotions through Cogenerative Dialogues to Sustain Student Engagement in Science Internships: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

please complete relevant literature from 2016 to 2021

Author Response

Dear reviewer: Thank you very much for your review and feedback. Relevant literature from 2016-2021 was added to the current manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript studies the effectiveness of cogenerative dialogues (cogen) in addressing specific issues and sustaining student engagement in science internships. This study is important for the development and implication of cogen for organizational health. The core idea is an interesting and significant contribution. However, the paper should be improved in some regards:

1. The abstract should be improved. Could you briefly explain the research methodology and data collection technique? What is the scope of the study area? What is the gap that has been addressed?

2. The structure of the paper should be improved. Please clearly differentiate what should be discussed in the Introduction and some sections that related to Literature Review. Would it be better if only to discuss the related topics with some latest literature review? Would it be possible to separate the discussion and conclusion from Section 6? Conclusion and Discussion? Please restructure the paper presentation.

3. The background / literature review of the study is still lacking. What is the current state of research in this area, especially related to regulating emotions through cogenerataive dialogues? Any recent research work on this topic?

4. Methodology: More information about the data collection should be given. Research design should be explained clearly. How had the data collection been conducted? It could be better if more explanation about the research methods.

5. More explanation should be given for the results & findings. Would it be possible to conclude the results in a table or figure?

6. Conclusion: Need to rewrite this section so that it really reflects the results and findings from this paper. Please don’t draw conclusions based on other work or general statements. If so, please support the statements with references. What are the findings and contributions of this paper? What is the impact & suggestion or future work? Etc.

7. References must be improved. If possible, this paper should include more up-to-date references. Currently, the latest is 2016.

8. The English/grammatical is good, but some typos or mistakes. Proper proofreading would be helpful to improve the quality of the paper. (e.g., title for Section 5.8. sou should be soul? ; etc.)

Author Response

Dear reviewer: Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I am grateful for having the opportunity to respond and thank you for your comments on this manuscript. I considered all of these comments and incorporated them into the revisions. I found that the manuscript is vastly improved In what follows, I respond and explain the revisions.

1. The abstract was further revised. The methodology, research scope, and research gap are captured in the current abstract.
2. A better paper structure was provided in the current manuscript. The conclusion and discussion sections are separated now.
3. I considered adding more literature about emotion (e.g., social support, communicating emotion, emotion management) in the “literature review” section. However, since I mainly use the emotion regulation framework to guide data analysis for this study, I worried that having more theoretical concepts in the literature review might complicate this case study and confuse readers. Thus, literature about other theoretical concepts of emotion was discussed further in the “discussion” section (instead of the literature review section).
4. The method section was further revised and greater details in terms of data collection and data analysis were provided.
5. The word of “case study” was added to the title and the concept of case study was reflected in the manuscript to avoid overgeneralization issues.
6. The IRB detail was provided in the methods section as well.
7. The definition for “Title I” was provided.
8. The researchers’ relationship to the participants in the study was provided.
9. A new section of “An Overview of Emotion Regulation Strategies Involved in Cogen” was added to provide a conclusive overview about this case study.
10. Figure 1 was added to illustrate the emotion regulation framework visually. Figure 2 was also added to outline the findings based on this Michel’s breakdown event. By comparing Figure 1 and Figure 2, readers might have a comprehensive understanding about this case study and can learn how this case study guilds up the emotion regulation framework.
11. The implications of cogens on “sustainability” and “organizational health” was further discussed in the discussion section.
12. Suggestion for future work was added at the end of the manuscript.
13. Relevant literature from 2016-2021 was added to the current manuscript.
14. The limitation of the case study was discussed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. As a scientist, I was excited to read this paper. I believe that we have the responsibility to engage young people in science, and finding a way to do that with students who are less science-confident is of central importance.

I found the manuscript to be generally well-written and engaging; however, I was disappointed in the lack of results. My expectation from the title and abstract was that research was going to “demonstrate how cogen could be used as a powerful tool to reveal emotion suppression, share emotion regulation strategies, and transform negative emotions into positive emotions. The results show that cogen played an important role in addressing specific issues one at a time and sustaining student engagement throughout the internship program. The implications of cogen for organizational health are discussed.”

Instead, the study focuses on one student, “Michelle”, who wished to drop out of the program. While the dialogue from interactions with “Michelle” suggests that cogen allowed for more open and direct conversations to occur, I wouldn’t think that one case is sufficient to conclude this premise. What about students who are too shy to speak up, or those who are not comfortable or honest about their emotions in a group setting?

I would suggest that the study is best to signal up front that this is a case study – either in the title or abstract so as not to mislead the reader.  

The introduction is well written. The context for the research is clearly articulated.

Methods:

• Although the IRB detail has been provided in the statement at the end of the manuscript, I suggest including this in the methods section as well, especially the use of pseudonyms.
• P4 L167 – Please explain what Title I means for international audiences
• What is the researcher's relationship to the participants in the study?
• Data sources and analysis – How was the data analyzed? I suspect as a case study, there wasn’t an analysis as such – this needs to be explained.

Results:

The results are very long and detailed, and the description of the dialogue doesn’t add anything to what participants have said, it merely paraphrases the conversation. I would suggest this be shortened with more context or discussion built into the dialogue.

Conclusion and discussion

The discussion repeats much of the results, and there is very little actual discussion of the findings.

What are the limitations of this study?

The abstract says that “the implications of cogen for organizational health are discussed” – I have not found this discussion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer: Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I am grateful for having the opportunity to respond and thank you for your comments on this manuscript. I considered all of these comments and incorporated them into the revisions. I found that the manuscript is vastly improved In what follows, I respond and explain the revisions.

1. The abstract was further revised. The methodology, research scope, and research gap are captured in the current abstract.
2. A better paper structure was provided in the current manuscript. The conclusion and discussion sections are separated now.
3. I considered adding more literature about emotion (e.g., social support, communicating emotion, emotion management) in the “literature review” section. However, since I mainly use the emotion regulation framework to guide data analysis for this study, I worried that having more theoretical concepts in the literature review might complicate this case study and confuse readers. Thus, literature about other theoretical concepts of emotion was discussed further in the “discussion” section (instead of the literature review section).
4. The method section was further revised and greater details in terms of data collection and data analysis were provided.
5. The word of “case study” was added to the title and the concept of case study was reflected in the manuscript to avoid overgeneralization issues.
6. The IRB detail was provided in the methods section as well.
7. The definition for “Title I” was provided.
8. The researchers’ relationship to the participants in the study was provided.
9. A new section of “An Overview of Emotion Regulation Strategies Involved in Cogen” was added to provide a conclusive overview about this case study.
10. Figure 1 was added to illustrate the emotion regulation framework visually. Figure 2 was also added to outline the findings based on this Michel’s breakdown event. By comparing Figure 1 and Figure 2, readers might have a comprehensive understanding about this case study and can learn how this case study guilds up the emotion regulation framework.
11. The implications of cogens on “sustainability” and “organizational health” was further discussed in the discussion section.
12. Suggestion for future work was added at the end of the manuscript.
13. Relevant literature from 2016-2021 was added to the current manuscript.
14. The limitation of the case study was discussed.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your work on reworking the paper and taking recommendations onboard. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time in reviewing this manuscript and providing your feedback.