Family Chains: Kinship as a Mechanism of Labour Exploitation Among Bangladeshi Migrant Workers in Manufacturing and Labour-Intensive Sectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers valuable insights into the topic on Family Chains. It shows that the existing labour mechanism is challenging for Bangladeshi workers, which needs strict attention from the host country to reduce disparities such as cultural obligations, minimum wages, restricted movements, and harsh working conditions.

Strengths of this article:

• Original Contribution: The study addresses an under-researched area—kinship-based labor exploitation—which adds a novel perspective to migration and labor studies.
• Methodological Rigor: Strong ethnographic design, with participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. The use of triangulation strengthens the study's credibility. Detailed thematic analysis supports the propositions with compelling qualitative data.
• Theoretical Integration: The research is well-anchored in New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM), Transnationalism Theory, and cultural norms of izzat, allowing for a multi-layered interpretation.
• Policy Relevance: The study offers concrete policy recommendations for governments, NGOs, and stakeholders, which could inform real-world interventions.
• Ethical and Empathetic Engagement: Researchers engaged closely with participants in a culturally sensitive and ethical manner, adding emotional depth and authenticity to the findings.

Weaknesses of this paper:

• Sampling Limitations: The use of purposive non-probability sampling and a small sample size (12 participants) limits generalizability. The study could benefit from a broader or more diversified sample.
• Over-reliance on Anecdotal Evidence: While rich in narratives, the study sometimes leans heavily on individual cases without enough comparative context or cross-validation with other communities or regions.
• Limited Gender Analysis: Though female voices are included, the gendered dimensions of exploitation (especially differences between male and female experiences) could be more thoroughly explored.
• Geographic Specificity: Focusing only on Northern Emirates restricts the study's applicability to other regions in the GCC or broader international contexts.
• Editorial Issues: The paper contains repetitive phrasing, grammatical inconsistencies, and occasional overstatements (e.g., "ivory towers" critique of academics), which detract from academic tone.

Recommendation: Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions)

While the article is conceptually strong and makes an important scholarly and policy contribution, it requires revision for clarity, tone, and depth. Specifically:

• Improve editorial quality (grammar, flow, and academic tone).
• Broaden contextual comparison (e.g., other migrant groups or GCC regions).
• Deepen gendered analysis.
• Consider expanding the discussion around limitations and potential biases.

If revised accordingly, this article would be a valuable addition to Societies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Recommendation: Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions)

While the article is conceptually strong and makes an important scholarly and policy contribution, it requires revision for clarity, tone, and depth. Specifically:

• Improve editorial quality (grammar, flow, and academic tone).
• Broaden contextual comparison (e.g., other migrant groups or GCC regions).
• Deepen gendered analysis.
• Consider expanding the discussion around limitations and potential biases.

If revised accordingly, this article would be a valuable addition to Societies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Kindly find the comments accompanied by the appropriate response. 

Reviewer Comments and Author Response

1. Sampling Limitations:
Reviewer Concern: The use of purposive non-probability sampling and a small sample size (12 participants) limits generalizability. The study could benefit from a broader or more diversified sample.

Author Response:
Thank you for this observation. I would like to clarify that this paper forms part of a wider three-year research project exploring intra-community exploitation through seven distinct studies. Each paper addresses a different dimension of the issue using separate samples and research questions. While this particular study includes 12 participants, the broader research effort captures wider representation and context. Additionally, in qualitative and ethnographic research, depth and thematic saturation are prioritised over generalisability. Nonetheless, I fully acknowledge the limitations and have now stated them more explicitly in the revised version.

2. Over-Reliance on Anecdotal Evidence:
Reviewer Concern: While rich in narratives, the study sometimes leans heavily on individual cases without enough comparative context or cross-validation with other communities or regions.

Author Response:
This is a valuable point. Due to the ethical sensitivity of the subject and the vulnerability of some participants (some of whom may lack formal documentation), expanding the study for broader comparisons was ethically and logistically constrained. Given these constraints, the ethnographic method was intentionally chosen to provide rich, contextual insight into lived experiences. I have added clarification in the manuscript to explain this rationale more clearly and transparently.

3. Limited Gender Analysis:
Reviewer Concern: Though female voices are included, the gendered dimensions of exploitation could be more thoroughly explored.

Author Response:
I appreciate this suggestion. Unfortunately, female workers were rarely present in the observed labour sites, and I made every reasonable effort to include them. While the sample includes some female participants, their visibility in this sector is genuinely limited in the context studied. Expanding their numbers in the sample would have compromised the accuracy of field representation. I have clarified this point in the methodology section.

4. Geographic Specificity:
Reviewer Concern: Focusing only on the Northern Emirates restricts the study's applicability to other regions.

Author Response:
Thank you for this observation. The Northern Emirates were selected due to logistical feasibility and access constraints in neighbouring GCC states, where research permits are more restrictive. As mentioned earlier, this study is part of a series, with other papers addressing different regions, demographics, and sub-topics. I agree that generalisability is limited and have now acknowledged this more clearly in the discussion section.

5. Editorial Issues:
Reviewer Concern: The paper contains repetitive phrasing, grammatical inconsistencies, and overstatements that detract from the academic tone.

Author Response:
Thank you for highlighting this. I have taken the comment seriously and engaged professional editing services to refine the language and remove any overstatements or repetition. The final version will reflect a more concise and academically aligned tone

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is well constructed. Good research and interesting.

In the conclusions, in the first part, revisit the theoretical part and the research questions in order to explore the various issues and focal points that have emerged.

Author Response

All Comments are reflected in the paper. Thank you. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers valuable insights into the topic of family chains and has improved after a major revision.

Strengths

• Clear Research Focus and Gap Identification: The article addresses a novel and underexplored issue — the role of kinship networks as a mechanism for labor exploitation among Bangladeshi migrant workers. It fills a clear gap in the existing literature, which mostly concentrates on employer-driven exploitation rather than family-controlled labor systems.
• Rich Ethnographic Approach: The use of ethnographic methods (in-depth interviews, participant observation, case studies) offers rich, first-hand insights into the nuanced realities of workers. Data triangulation (interviews, observations, and official statistics) supports credibility and trustworthiness.
• In-Depth Thematic Analysis: The article is well-structured around six coherent themes (e.g. Moral Blackmail, Familial Control, Informal Hierarchies) that clearly highlight the different facets of exploitation. Quotes and interview excerpts bring the findings to life, allowing readers to understand the lived experiences of participants. Contextual and Theoretical Strength: The integration of concepts like izzat (family honor), moral obligations, and transnationalism theory adds a strong theoretical grounding. Discussion of South Asian cultural and socio-economic dynamics enriches the study’s value for migration and labor studies.

Weaknesses

• Limited Sample Size & Scope: The research is based on only 12 participants and eight cases — this small, non-representative sample restricts the generalizability of findings. The article acknowledges this as a limitation, and could benefit from clearer discussion on how future research could address this.
• Policy Recommendations Lack Specificity: The suggestions for mitigating exploitation (e.g. legal protections, educational programs) feel general and underdeveloped. Concrete examples or successful models from other contexts would strengthen this section in the future research.

Publication Suggestion

After major revision this article is a valuable addition to Societies.