Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In aiming to document research on the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace, this paper undertakes a valuable task. The authors correctly identify that existing research is strong on recommendations but weak on describing practical strategies for implementing those recommendations. They are no doubt also correct in suggesting that the linkage between the social sciences and neoliberal processes and institutions may have something to do with this deficit, but this argument is not sufficiently supported with reference to research on methodologies. (The authors might consider exploring the field of trandisciplinary research — perhaps Transdisciplinary Feminist Research by Taylor, Ulmer and Hughes? – in order to develop a clearer argument along these lines.) Overall, the paper's argument and contribution to knowledge is not as clearly defined as it needs to be for publication. This is particularly evident towards the conclusion of the article, where the use of 'etc.', some sketchy or awkward phrasing, some unanswered rhetorical questions, and the introduction of new ideas (e.g. the work of Adorno) that were not previously flagged, all conspired to leave me feeling that I was reading a draft of something that needs much further refinement.

As it stands, the paper also falls into the same trap as the research it critiques. Particularly on p.10, it ends up with some (routine?) recommendations for how to do better research, rather than offering any useful pointers on how to do better prevention. (The authors' recommendation to 'adopt more intersectional approaches' is particularly 'routine' and is arguably much easier said than done!) At the very least, perhaps the article could report in more detail on what the two prevention-focused articles by Pétursdóttir and Hjálmarsdóttir, and Salin, had to say about prevention.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English is passable, but could be improved, particularly with respect to the use of key terms which are repeated: 'spot on' and 'routine-like'. (I have suggested better words and phrases for both terms in the attached document.) 

Author Response

Thanx for a thorough review. We have done adaptations in line with the review recommendations.

It is important to acknowledge the aims of the paper n o t being to summarize or suggest pathways for prevention of sexual harassment - as is clearly stated in the introduction, the aims, and also recurring in the paper - but to thematically analyze the limitations of research on prevention per se. We find this to be the main reason for the reviewers comments on for ex "falling into" the same trap as the articles analyzed, the overall pointers to tendencies in the research analysed rather than focused and detailed analysis, etc. Therefore, we have adjusted the text from the premise of more clearly stating the aims, continuously return to them in different paragraphs, and being more to the point in the language use when dicussing the consequences for theory especially.

Major adjustments in the text, apart from the above mentioned clarifications, are also:

• A new paragraph on the relevance of Adornos critical theory for the paper in the introduction. This way we introduce the relevance of this perspective, as it is crucial for understaning the way we end the paper.
• We kept with the current content on Pétursdóttir and Hjálmarsdóttir, and Salin, as it is clearly enough with these descriptions as they are formulated due to the specific aim of the paper n o t being to suggest preventive measures, but to delevop new ways of thinking and performing social science research as such on sexual harassment.
• An external proof reading was perfomed, so the language use, spelling and grammar is corrected throughout.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My general evaluation of the study is as follows;

 

1- The authors should increase their own multiples in the introduction section,

2- There are formal errors in table-1, it should be corrected.

3- Table-2 between lines 151-162 cannot be understood, also it should be shown as a figure instead of a table.

4- New tables and figures should be added within the scope of the study. It is quite incomplete.

5- The results section is kept quite short, another contribution should be made.

6- The Prevention in focus section should be improved a little more.

7- The Summary and Analysis sections are also kept quite short.

8- The study generally has problems in dividing into sections and needs to be reviewed.

Author Response

Thanx for a thorough review. We have done adaptations in line with the review recommendations.

Major adjustments in the text are:

• A new paragraph on the relevance of Adornos critical theory for the paper in the introduction. This way we introduce the relevance of this perspective, as it is crucial for understaning the way we end the paper. The introductory påart is also rewritten to better adjust to the overall content of the paper.
• Table 1 is corrected.
• Table 2 is corrected
• We do not find it relevant to include any other tables or figures for the purpose of the article - it is not a quant text at all, but a qual analysis of a set of publications in a specific research field.
• We tried to add on some sentences in the results/prevention part to make it more readable and adjusted some explanatory parts. The same goes for the Discussion part.
• The headlines and structure has been corrected so it followes a more convenient IMRAD structure to enhance the readability of the paper.
• An external proof reading was perfomed, so the language use, spelling and grammar is corrected throughout.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The additional paragraph on Adorno at the outset helps greatly to clarify the intent of the paper, as does the conversion of the sub-headings from bold to italics in the Analysis and Discussion sections (this seemingly minor change of formatting serves to position the various sections as subsets of a single broader concern). The paper now reads more clearly as a discourse analysis rather than an attempt to progress knowledge of sexual harassment prevention.

As a feminist scholar trained in the humanities I feel compelled to point out that the paper's call for more systemic and cultural analysis is not new (and I wish that the authors would draw on more explicitly feminist scholarship such as the work of Rosalind Gill or Alison Phipps, rather than relying on Adorno). Rather than claiming a 'visionary' approach that seeks to 'reimagine' how research is done, I would therefore greatly prefer to see a humbler acknowledgement that research in feminist cultural studies or pedagogy (for example) has long explored the concerns outlined here. Further, I would prefer to see clearer recognition that social science cannot 'do it alone' and may benefit from transdisciplinary collaborations with other fields and domains. This would bring a more generous, open and collaborative dimension to the paper's claims of originality.

With regards to the written expression, I still think this work could be polished. While I do not expect authors to take on all my editorial suggestions, I do note that all of the edits I offered to clarify written expression in the first version have been ignored, which I think is a shame.