Socially Innovative Initiatives in Deprived Rural Areas of Germany, Ireland and Portugal: Exploring Empowerment and Impact on Community Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the excellent comments. We were able to understand them very well and we are grateful that they made us think about things and develop them further. It was an important input for us!

For the details of our revision please see the attached revision report. Our responses to both your and the other reviewer's comments are included, so the whole process is transparent to you.

Best regards,

the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the chance to review this manuscript looking at socially innovative actions across three EU countries. I think this is generally a solid, well-written manuscript, though some additions and clarifications are needed in order to ensure depth/precision. I provide section-by-section feedback below.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone well, but there are some statements that need further precision and supporting citations: 

- The opening statement requires a citation to support.

- What do you mean by 'places for communication'? 

- What positive aspects are recognised for rural areas? 

- The statements about the qualities of social enterprise come across as a 'boosterist' and need more precision, as well as supporting citations. 

Definitions

- I would find it interesting if you argued a bit more clearly as to why you choose to align with the second stream of social innovation definitions. 

- I find the definition of social enterprise questionable. There is a strong focus on the 'specialist' nature of social entrepreneurs and their apparent qualities. Yet, at its heart, SE is rather quite simply the use of a business/entrepreneurial approach to support and fund social goals. That, to me, does not per se imply that social entrepreneurs are by default specialist innovators... If you want to adopt your current definition, then you need to argue more strongly and clearly for it. 

- FYI: In the psychological literature, the two forms of empowerment you are referring to are 'personal empowerment' (skills, confidence, etc.) and 'interactional empowerment' (the ability to partcipate in and influence one's environment/context). 

- A table summarising the empowerment dimensions would be helpful for the reader. 

Methodology

- If these cases are 're-analysed' and there are existing papers/reports on the individual projects, you should transparently indicate those and provide references. 

- What was the volume of data collected for each location? You should clarify how many interviews, documents, etc. were concerned for each place. 

- You need to spell out your analysis procedure in more detail. Qualitative Content Analysis takes many forms, and it is incumbent on you to clearly indicate which process you used and detail each step of that process (e.g. coding, summarising, theme development, etc.). In particular, how you code and analyse for the dimensions of empowerment strikes me as important to specify here.  

Results/Conclusions

- The results/conclusion are generally interesting and read well. 

Minor proofing recommended. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the excellent comments. We were able to understand them very well and we are grateful that they made us think about things and develop them further. It was an important input for us!

For the details of our revision please see the attached revision report. Our responses to both your and the other reviewer's comments are included, so the whole process is transparent to you.

Best regards,

the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the edits and careful consideration of comments. I am happy with the change and looking forward to the final version! 

Minor proofing, especially of new text, is recommended. Otherwise, english is generally good.