Refugees’ Arriving through the Lens of Fiction: Unveiling the Ambivalences of Hegemonic Expectations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract is too vague: can the reframing be characterized? from what to what? which specific insights were gained?

"migration society" does not really have a cognate in English, at least in the US--this is a concept that needs some explaining.

The concept of "arrival" also needs unpacking when first introduced. Without this, sentences such as the one on p. 2, line 56-57 are difficult to parse.

What are the "interesting insights" that Sievers and Mijic/ Frühwirth offer? Can these be briefly characterized?

Often it is unclear what pronouns are referring to. For example, p. 2, line 80, does "its analysis" refer to the creation of the artwork, the artwork, or the interpretation of the artwork? If all three, then make that clear.

There is an unidiomatic use of "therefore" on p. 2, line 91. Perhaps "To this end" would work better here.

On p. 3, line 98, it would be helpful if the "hegemonic expectations" could be briefly characterized.

A big methodological problem for me is the creation of a "real-world" fiction creation and reception "lab." Why not use the "real-world" fiction and creation and reception "lab" that is the literature industry? It is not clear what benefits there are of commissioning a piece and recruiting readers over examining already-published texts and responses to them. What is gained? Does the piece created for the study differ from texts already extant? How can conclusions be drawn about the sociological impact of fictional texts when the object of study is created and received seemingly in isolation from the literary sphere in which works are created and received?

Were the artists compensated for their work? How much time did they spend on their work? This must be spelled out, I feel.

p. 4, line 165: I am not sure what is meant by replicable artworks; can you define this?

p. 4 line 171-2: was refugee experience a requirement for the audience? or not?

p. 4, lines 186-195--I did not understand this explication of data interpretation, it remained too abstract

The hegemonic narratives of arrival could be spelled out more explicitly in the piece.

The piece presents an interesting case for the value of fiction in analyzing distinct experiences related to "arrival." However, the value of "lab-created" fiction in doing so remains unclear.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

The abstract is too vague: can the reframing be characterized? from what to what? which specific insights were gained?

We have specified the abstract to some extent. However, due to the word limit, we unfortunately cannot go into more detail about the findings.

"migration society" does not really have a cognate in English, at least in the US--this is a concept that needs some explaining.

Thank you for this feedback; we have decided to refrain from using the term, since it is apparently actually only used in German-speaking countries.

The concept of "arrival" also needs unpacking when first introduced. Without this, sentences such as the one on p. 2, line 56-57 are difficult to parse.

We have changed the manuscript accordingly.

What are the "interesting insights" that Sievers and Mijic/ Frühwirth offer? Can these be briefly characterized?

We included one paragraph to outline the findings of Frühwirth and Mijic (2018a) and Sieveres (2019, 2021).

Often it is unclear what pronouns are referring to. For example, p. 2, line 80, does "its analysis" refer to the creation of the artwork, the artwork, or the interpretation of the artwork? If all three, then make that clear.

We changed the manuscript accordingly.

There is an unidiomatic use of "therefore" on p. 2, line 91. Perhaps "To this end" would work better here.

Thank you! We changed it.

On p. 3, line 98, it would be helpful if the "hegemonic expectations" could be briefly characterized.

Thank you for this comment. We added a sentence to explain what we mean by hegemonic expectations and hegemonic narratives:

“By hegemonic expectations, we are referring to the dominant societal attitudes that shape the discourse surrounding refugees in the arrival society. These expectations might refer to how arrivals would have to behave in the process of their arrival, but also to questions of belonging and legal and political aspects of social participation. They have a powerful influence on how refugees are categorised and evaluated and play a crucial role in shaping the prevailing (the hegemonic) narratives about them.”

A big methodological problem for me is the creation of a "real-world" fiction creation and reception "lab." Why not use the "real-world" fiction and creation and reception "lab" that is the literature industry? It is not clear what benefits there are of commissioning a piece and recruiting readers over examining already-published texts and responses to them. What is gained? Does the piece created for the study differ from texts already extant? How can conclusions be drawn about the sociological impact of fictional texts when the object of study is created and received seemingly in isolation from the literary sphere in which works are created and received?

In our research project, we focused on the concept of "real-world labs", which originates from transdisciplinary and transformative social science research, precisely because this mixture of real world and artificial space offers a number of advantages over both pure real-world settings and pure labs. The great advantage of this conception is that we could also take into account the creation of an artwork in situ in the analysis process. This is a part of the process of creating artworks that is normally not visible (to researchers). However, it is precisely in this process that meanings are generated (and also negotiated), which are highly relevant for our project and represent an important supplement to the meanings inherent in the artwork as well as the meanings generated in the process of reception.

Were the artists compensated for their work? How much time did they spend on their work? This must be spelled out, I feel.

We included a sentence to clarify this question.

4, line 165: I am not sure what is meant by replicable artworks; can you define this?

We included an explanation.

4 line 171-2: was refugee experience a requirement for the audience? or not?

We included a sentence to clarify this question.

4, lines 186-195--I did not understand this explication of data interpretation, it remained too abstract

We have made some changes to the paragraph that we hope will help make it easier to understand

The hegemonic narratives of arrival could be spelled out more explicitly in the piece.

Thank you for this comment. We added a sentence to explain what we mean by hegemonic expectations and hegemonic narratives (p.3, 122):

“By hegemonic expectations, we are referring to the dominant societal attitudes that shape the discourse surrounding refugees in the arrival society. These expectations might refer to how arrivals would have to behave in the process of their arrival, but also to questions of belonging and legal and political aspects of social participation. They have a powerful influence on how refugees are categorised and evaluated and play a crucial role in shaping the prevailing (the hegemonic) narratives about them.”

Reviewer 2 Report

I really enjoyed reading this article. I find it very well written and clear in its structure. The research is original and complex, and compiles numerous sources of data which makes it a strong study. With this said, I believe that more details would help readers to better understand the research process as well as the main results and conclusions. Some sections appear somewhat unclear, especially when describing the project. This raises some methodological questions that should be clarified and that I list hereafter.

I particularly advice to expand/deepen on the following: 

1.     The selection of the artist with no refugee experience needs to be clarified in line #162. Is this person a migrant, a local, a second-generation migrant?

2.     The procedure for the artists’ selections should be explained.

3.     How did they select the participants for the discussion groups? The information appearing in lines #171-172 is too ambiguous. It should be more specific.

4.     Moreover, in the section on Reception, the authors must clarify the number of participants. Since they only talk about discussant A and discussant B, it seems like no other people were involved. Some questions arise then: only two people participated in this focus group? If no, what was the position of the other participants? Did they mostly agree with discussant A or with discussant B? how did that made feel discussant A/B?

5.     The artists were video and audio recorded, as it is said in line #159. Did the authors analyze also the visual images from those recordings or only the audio transcripts?

6.     Regarding the procedure of data interpretation, the authors mention two levels of analysis without specifying which one they use. It needs to be spelled out for the readers, as it is written right now is unclear.

7.     At the end of the sentence, “The following section mainly refers to the findings from the analysis of the first group discussion, which used the short story as an impulse” (lines # 432-433), I suggest adding, “to discuss (or explore/reflect) on the concept (or meaning/sense making) of arrival”. This addition would help readers to remember the purpose of the discussion group, which was stated at the very beginning of the manuscript.

8.     The discussion on language in lines #467-472 needs to be deepen or to include references since it has been long studied. Perhaps authors would benefit from reading Cathy Caruth in her discussions of trauma and language.

9.     In the discussion section, the authors refer to expectations as coming only from the receiving/dominant group. However, migrants and refugees also come with a set of expectations on their own.

10.  Also, the connection between cultural repertoires and expectations appears a bit forced and needs to be more referenced and grounded. In particular, I find problematic the fact that authors mention expectations without clarifying about what. This is, expectations about citizenship, about belonging, about integration, about becoming part of, about fitting in, about everyday behavior…. This is important since the concept of expectation has numerous layers.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

1. The selection of the artist with no refugee experience needs to be clarified in line #162. Is this person a migrant, a local, a second-generation migrant?

This was not further specified. It could have been migrants, immigrants, or descendants of migrants.

2. The procedure for the artists’ selections should be explained.

We included a footnote (1) to give more information on the selection procedure.

3. How did they select the participants for the discussion groups? The information appearing in lines #171-172 is too ambiguous. It should be more specific.

Thank you for this feedback. We changed the paragraph accordingly.

4. Moreover, in the section on Reception, the authors must clarify the number of participants. Since they only talk about discussant A and discussant B, it seems like no other people were involved. Some questions arise then: only two people participated in this focus group? If no, what was the position of the other participants? Did they mostly agree with discussant A or with discussant B? how did that made feel discussant A/B?

Thank you for this comment. We clarified this issue in our revision. According to Bohnsack’s documentary methods, we can speak of group discussions as soon as at least 2 people participate.

5. The artists were video and audio recorded, as it is said in line #159. Did the authors analyze also the visual images from those recordings or only the audio transcripts?

We analyzed only the audio transcripts. The video recordings were actually the recordings of the zoom meetings (some of the meetings had to take place remotely due to covid). To avoid misunderstandings we deleted the specification here.

6. Regarding the procedure of data interpretation, the authors mention two levels of analysis without specifying which one they use. It needs to be spelled out for the readers, as it is written right now is unclear.

Thank you. We changed the paragraph accordingly.

7. At the end of the sentence, “The following section mainly refers to the findings from the analysis of the first group discussion, which used the short story as an impulse” (lines # 432-433), I suggest adding, “to discuss (or explore/reflect) on the concept (or meaning/sense making) of arrival”. This addition would help readers to remember the purpose of the discussion group, which was stated at the very beginning of the manuscript.

Thank you. We included the clarification as suggested.

8. The discussion on language in lines #467-472 needs to be deepen or to include references since it has been long studied. Perhaps authors would benefit from reading Cathy Caruth in her discussions of trauma and language.

Thank you for sharing this valuable reference. We appreciate your input and will definitely consider it for our future endeavors. Regrettably, given the constraints of the manuscript's word limit, we are unable to incorporate Cathy Caruth's research within its scope

9. In the discussion section, the authors refer to expectations as coming only from the receiving/dominant group. However, migrants and refugees also come with a set of expectations on their own.

This is true, but our analysis shows that above all the (unclear) expectations of the arrival society are seen as the central challenge of arrival. It seems plausible to assume those people who are arriving also have specific expectations, but these could not be elaborated concisely on the basis of the available material.

10. Also, the connection between cultural repertoires and expectations appears a bit forced and needs to be more referenced and grounded. In particular, I find problematic the fact that authors mention expectations without clarifying about what. This is, expectations about citizenship, about belonging, about integration, about becoming part of, about fitting in, about everyday behavior.... This is important since the concept of expectation has numerous layers.

Unfortunately, we do not have the space for a detailed theoretical explanation, but we have specified in the revision that it is about expectations of refugees with regard to their arrival, which includes the question of belonging as well as legal and political aspects of social participation, but also how arrivals would have to behave in the process of their arrival.