PREreview of Corpo, mídia e comportamento alimentar: grupos de escuta psicológica com meninas adolescentes em contexto escolar

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant contemporary topic—the relationship between body, media, and psychological distress in adolescence—and does so through a concrete experience with female students from a public school, which gives the study particular social, ethical, and scientific value. The choice of this empirical field is appropriate and necessary, as it increases the visibility of groups that are often underrepresented in academic research and contributes to a more situated understanding of adolescents’ experiences. Moreover, the proposal to create collective spaces of listening within the school context is sensitive, socially responsible, and potentially transformative, representing an important strength of the work.

1. Self-reported body measurements and their limitations

The manuscript reports participants’ weight and height based on self-reported data collected through an online form, which introduces relevant methodological limitations, especially considering the study’s focus on body image, distress, and relationships with the body. Such data are subject to well-documented biases, including underestimation of weight, overestimation of height, and uncertainty about one’s own measurements—an issue partially acknowledged in the study itself, as some participants were unable to provide this information. It is recommended that this limitation be discussed more explicitly in the limitations section and that interpretations relying on these measures be presented with greater caution.

2. Characterization as action research

The study is presented as action research and mobilizes references to justify this choice in general terms. However, the methodological description seems closer to a qualitative intervention study than to action research in a stricter sense. Core elements of action research—such as co-construction of the problem with participants, explicit reflective cycles (planning–action–observation–reflection–replanning), and participants’ active role as co-agents in the process—are not sufficiently clear in the manuscript. This observation does not undermine the value of the experience itself, but rather suggests the need for greater conceptual precision in the methodological characterization.

3. Listening groups as a methodological device

The manuscript provides a definition of “listening groups” and cites a bibliographic reference to support the device, which is a positive aspect. Nevertheless, the description remains relatively general and more descriptive than technical. Further clarification would strengthen the methodological transparency of the study: for example, how do these listening groups differ from focus groups, psychoeducational interventions, or brief therapeutic groups? How were the sessions conducted and managed? What criteria guided the facilitation and closure of the groups? Greater detail in this regard would enhance the rigor of the methodological approach.

4. Use of Merleau-Ponty and phenomenological grounding

The inclusion of Merleau-Ponty in the discussion is theoretically appropriate and potentially fruitful for understanding the body as lived, relational, and situated experience. However, the phenomenological framework does not appear to consistently structure the empirical analysis. The philosopher is mobilized mainly in the discussion section, while phenomenological concepts are not clearly used as interpretative tools throughout the analysis of participants’ narratives. The articulation between theory, method, and data interpretation could be strengthened by more systematically engaging with concepts such as lived body, intercorporeality, embodied perception, or lived world when analyzing the empirical material.

5. Limited analytical use of sociodemographic data

Although the manuscript presents relevant sociodemographic information about the participants—such as being students from a public school and belonging to a specific income bracket—these data remain largely descriptive. Given that experiences related to body, distress, and media are deeply shaped by social class, cultural context, and inequality, it would considerably enrich the analysis to incorporate these dimensions more explicitly into the interpretation of the findings. The absence of such discussion limits the critical depth of the study and tends to universalize experiences that are in fact socially situated.

Overall, this is a sensitive, socially relevant, and ethically committed manuscript, grounded in a valuable empirical experience with adolescents from a public school. Its contributions are particularly evident in the emphasis on listening practices and the creation of supportive spaces within the school context. The points raised above do not invalidate the study but highlight opportunities for strengthening its theoretical and methodological consistency, especially in the alignment between conceptual framework, research design, and data analysis. With these refinements, the manuscript has strong potential to make an even more robust and impactful contribution to the field.

Conflitos de interesse

O autor declara que não possui conflitos de interesse.

Uso de Inteligência Artificial (IA)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.