Actions to Promote the Employment and Social Inclusion of Muslim Women Who Wear the Hijab in Catalonia (Spain)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a superb study that should reach the readers as soon as possible.
Author Response
Thank you for your revision and for your interest in the study.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article. It is an interesting presentation of an important problem. The article may appear in either form.
Author Response
Thank you for your revision and for your interest in the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a good document. Text is very clear. It talks about a very important question that it is usually studied from men’s perspective. We can find a lot of interesting ideas (for exemple: hijab and job opportunities) and it explains a reality that it is difficult to find. Nevertheless we consider that some subjects should be revised.
GENERAL FEATURES
Text highlights that it is about employment and workplace, but studies (university and school) are important too as part of the content. And, when it talks about education, it does not talk about training, so it is not clear if employment is really the key question. It can be considered that text talks about women’s live experiences related to wearing veil in general. We consider to review redaction in order to improve it, because it reduce the coherence of the article in some way.
And in “2.3.Data analysis”, text introduces a new question, the role of religious entities. We ask authors if it is necessary. If they decide to continue talking about that, it would be necessary to clear if that entities must do that or not. There is a lot of kind of entities and it is necessary to take into account if that entities have to do that or not or how they are defined. This question also moves the text away from what is presented as the main topic (workplace). The sample does not include persons from religions entities.
INTRODUCTION/THEORETICAL FRAME
The content is contextualized, but it could be improve theoretical frame, taking into account specially authors who have been working in Catalonia about Muslim population (for exemple, works of Jordi Moreras/intercultural-religion, Silvia Carrasco/Education or Amparo Huertas/mass media and consumption; or studies of GEDIME - UAB or GRITIM-UPF, two important groups).
It can help to improve the interpretation of results.
METHODOLOGY
a) Actors relevant in the field of employment
The study explores the perspectives of diverse actors with a relevant role in the field of employment (coordinators of university internship programs, providers of employment, policy makers, etc.), but it is strange that in the report of the results they are treated similarly to sample of Muslim women interviewed. Women talks about them and this group talks about their responsibilities or about what they think in relation to racism at workplace. It is not clear. That group includes members of different areas, many of them are working at universities. This characteristic make them a particular sample. And, in some cases, it seems they have direct relation with women interviewed, so sometimes it seems more a complement than a global and representative perspective from the field of employment.
What criteria have been aplicated to choose them?
What is exactly the function of that sample?
Are they really “relevant actors in the management of religious diversity in the workplace as text says”? It does not matter if do not, but it must be clear the function of that sample in the empirical work. If the profile interviewed is that one, to give the real name complet (and professional position) is the usual way to introduce the sample.
b) Local religions associations
“the contact was established through local religious associations that collaborate with the research team”. At the end (Acknowledgments) we can read about that, but we consider that it is important to mention all of them at methodology
c) Empirical process
Methodology should include more information about the development of the interviews, more information about empirical process. For example, how long did the interviews last? face to face? where?
d) Advisory Board
“an Advisory Board was created at the beginning of the study, composed by members of a Muslim youth association”. It is very interesting, but text does not take into account that advisory board at results/conclusions.
DISCUSSION
It is rather a final summary. If the theoretical framework is improved and the objectives are better specified, it could improve.
Structure
“2.3. Data Analysis” It is seem the first point of results.
Another details.
a) Us of bold letters: “3.1.2.2. Prohibition (…) participants’ experience is the prohibition to wear the
hijab during the work activity”
b) “, ,”: “3.2.3.1. Support when combating discrimination (…)
employment, ,any participants”
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments, which have allowed us to improve the quality of the manuscript. In what follows, a response is given to each of the comments. You could see them in the document attached.
|
We greatly appreciate the comment, which has given us the opportunity to enhance the manuscript. Given that secondary and post-compulsory education (with a special focus on university and vocational training) have a determining role in subsequent job opportunities, when designing the study it was considered pertinent to give relevance to the study of the prior academic trajectories within the study of experiences in the workplace. In order to clarify this connection and better justify the focus of the study, the Introduction section has been revised. |
|
We are grateful for the reviewer's comment, which has allowed us to review the manuscript to clarify the relevance given in the study to the role played by religious organizations, and the importance that the study gives them when exploring the career paths of Muslim women wearing the hijab. This effort can be reflected both in the Introduction and the Discussion sections. |
|
Thank you very much for the comment. This has led us to expand and enrich the Introduction, collecting contributions from some of the suggested authors, as well as other recent studies focused on the Catalan and Spanish context. |
|
We appreciate the comments of the review, which have allowed us: - to clarify and explain in greater detail the relevance of collecting the views and perspectives of some relevant actors related to the field of training and employment within the study. - to better explain the criteria used for the selection of participants - to clarify the role of members of a local religious association - to offer more detailed of the empirical procedure - to better describe the role played by the Advisory Board |
|
Thank for the comment, which has allowed us to improve the Discussion section (in line with the improvements made on the Introduction and throughout the manuscript). |
|
Following the comment of the reviewer, we have improved the Subsection 2.3. |
|
Thank you form the comment, which has invited us to further revise the manuscript to ensure clarity, and to correct the use of bold letters. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
