Migrants in the Attic: The Case of Migrants with Disabilities and Resettlement Services in Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a case study examining how Serbian human rights organizations assist Syrian refugees with disabilities. The manuscript is well-written, with clear rationales given in the introduction, explicit research questions that help readers understand the scope of this study, and a clear methodology in answering the research questions. Here are some minor suggestions:

1. It is unclear why the authors deemed grounded theory to be an appropriate approach in this study context. A statement or two explaining why grounded theory is more superior to other designs is necessary. Also, judging from the results, it does not appear that the authors were forming theories. It appears more like thematic analysis, "Finally, a general inductive analysis was conducted in thematically analysing these categories in order to identify emergent themes from across the interview data. An inductive approach “primarily uses detailed readings of raw data to derive concepts, themes, or a
   model through interpretations made from the raw data by an evaluator or researcher” (Thomas, 2006, 238)".  Wouldn't thematic analysis be more appropriate given their description of analytic procedure?   
2. The description of the sample can be more detailed. The authors said that they interviewed 11 participants - but what are the characteristics of these people, particularly, their length of time working in the organization?  A simple statement summarizing their average and range of time working in the field will help. 
3. How long were the interviews in minutes or hours? This is a piece of the necessary information to determine whether the data are rich or representative enough. Given that there were only three main themes identified, were the data long enough to provide meaningful themes? 
4. For the coding, how many codes were generated that resulted in the themes? What were the examples of codes? The authors need to be clear about how they generated the codes, what codes they generated, and how they combined codes into themes. 

Author Response

Thank you Reviewer 1 for your your detailed and helpful comments. I have addressed your concerns regarding the methodology and criticism of the application of grounded theory. Additional details are now provided regarding the sample of participants used, the interviewees' demographics, and the generation of codes in the section entitled Key Findings. 

Thank you kindly again for your feedback!

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors address a very important research topic; the situation of migrants and especially asylum seekers with disabilities is indeed under-researched. Focusing on the Balkan region and in specific Serbia is also extremely relevant not at least due to the closure of the Balkan route, which the authors clearly describe. The topic is being looked at from a human rights perspective and the authors well present the legal and socio-political context (at EU-level, at national level, as well as from the perspective of Serbia as EU-accession country). The authors stipulate that looking at the specific situation of migrants with disabilities in Serbia is extremely important because of their immense vulnerability, but a better description of the social, economic, and mental/emotional situation of migrants with disabilities (and their families) would support the context and the relevance of the research question. (What do we already know about the situation of migrants with disabilities (in Serbia)? etc.)

The methodological approach is being described clearly and the qualitative case study approach is appropriate. The authors present general aspects of the case study approach and then further elaborate on their semi-structured interview study. It would be important to give a clearer picture of the `case`, it´s context and the interviewees (experts). (Which population? Which sample/sampling?) A presentation of the experiences throughout the research process would complete the methodological approach (Why have the interviews been conducted in English? What about ethical considerations?)

In terms of analysis, I would recommend to reflect on the method of grounded theory, as this is a very open method, whereas the interview strategy follows a more structured way.

The discussion directly relates to the presented findings. Furthermore, the authors very well refer to established concepts and theories in their discussion of findings. The conclusions, though, could be elaborated more on, e.g. differentiation between levels (legal, practical, socio-political).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you kindly for your feedback. I have addressed issues presented regarding the methodology and provided additional background and clarity in the methodology. I have addressed details concerning the sample of participants, the interview process and language considerations.

Thank you again for your helpful feedback.