Misogynistic Influences of Female Managers in Local Governments: A Social Construction or Lived Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for submitting the article. The article writing is not bad. But I think there are a few things that need to be fixed.

First, in the introduction section of the article you need to indicate which country the cited study is from, especially lines 73-84. Because there are some examples that do not apply in European and American countries.

Research question three needs to be split because you are asking two questions.

I can't see you showing how to use textual data, field annotations and direct observations in your research.

Please explain what city level C is.

You point out that the question is asked in English because the respondent is highly educated. But having a higher education does not mean being fluent in English. They may be more able to express themselves in their native language.

Respondents' background information needs to be displayed.

You should have collected quite a bit of data (if each visit is at least an hour). But the access content you show in the article is relatively small, and you basically just make a simple classification. Can you try to theorize access content? Otherwise, this study is a bit like a report.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your service, I have attached my submissions to your concern.

Cheers,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article talks about an important topic, but there are some important aspects, related to scientific documents, that need to be revised by authors.

Theoretical frame.

- Authors should decide which theoretical notions are really important in that “major revision” I propose. 

- The theoretical framework is developed in a very general way: some ideas are excessively summarized, which makes understanding difficult. I have selected some sentences that can be improved: “extreme masculine qualities” (which qualities?) (36); “country’s historical experience plays a critical role in shaping women’s lived experience” (can authors give more details?) (38-39); “recent studies...” (authors mention three references but it would be better to know more details of each of them) (73-75); “preliminary studies” (where and when have they been conducted? Why are considered as preliminary? Did they been conducted in South Africa?) (80); “women have seen improvement in their participation” (can authors give more details?) (195). It would be necessary to review the sources mentioned and offer more information - if it is possible. For example, about “reports” (47) or “Thobejane and Thobejane (2017) in their study...” (information like the size of the sample it would be useful)(54).

- The theoretical framework does not seem to focus on aspects directly related to the object of study: consistent with the results, it should speak of “Female managers/leadership”. Instead, Misogyny is the main notion in the text and curiously the title and introduction do not reflect that importance.

- I suggest to separate political context of South Africa and Theoretical Frame. We consider it would be useful for, in one hand, to give a more clear outlook of the context and, in the other, to talk deeply about African feminist theory (mentioned as objective in 89 line). Is “male boss syndrome” a theoretical notion? It only appears on results and it seems an important notion.

Methodology

- It would be necessary to explain why the empirical work is important and original and why the results are interesting. In (277) authors talk about “validity of the result”, but there are other questions that are also important. For example, which make “Dr Kenneth Kaunda District municipality” the better place to do the study?, how was the sample selected?, limitations of the work?, can analysis variables be applied for the analysis of the results?

Results

- It is necessary to review the way of exploiting the results. For example, it would be useful to separate between ideas supported by almost the entire sample and individual opinions.

- Also, we suggest to separate Results and Theoretical Frame. Each of the sections dedicated to the results finishes with theoretical questions, given them an important number of lines. Here the results should be used more.

Conclusions

- They are a generic summary, which do not take into account the results. It has to be reviewed. 

Other suggestions:

- It must be clear where participation’s quotations begin and finish (using “”)

- Missing information on the methodology in the abstract

- Authors should check the keywords (for example, misogyny seems an important notion and it does not appear in the title or they include “Female manager” and “Female leadership” and it would be enough with one of them”)

- Methodology. Authors say: “We adopted a semi-structured personal interview within the qualitative paradigm. The researchers field 93 note and direct observation and offers the thematic analysis for the research” (92-94). But it is not clear if notes/directed observation are related to the situations on interviewed persons did not accepted to be register.

- Sometimes the text seems repetitive, specially when it repeats information in the same way that they have been introduced at introduction (168-175)

- Some times authors give opinions about important issues related to the study without relying on sources or the study itself. For exemple: 112-115 and 413-415. 

- Review errors in writing: for example sentence (238), Because (294).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your service, I have attached my submissions to your concern.

Cheers,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. While the subject addressed in this paper is timely and important, some changes are necessary:

- The abstract was vague. You should have sentence on the background on what this research is founded on and what were the several opinions. This could be better presented.

- It is recommended to make the questions and objectives more explicit.

- I have some questions around your methodology: 1.- Why did you choose this methodological approach? 2.- What were the results of the analysis?

- Establish the origin of the categories that support the instruments and guide the structure of the outcomes.

Congratulations to the authors and I encourage you to undertake further research. 

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your service, I have attached my submissions to your concern.

Cheers,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for your article. It has improved a lot. 

Nevertheless, it is necessary a review related to index:

A) Please review the number of each point taking into account all the document (for example in 2., we can find 2.1, 2.1. (again),2.1.1.1, 2.3,…. )

B) About “3. Materials and Methods”, I think it can improve.

b.1. First paragraph (234-241). I do not know if it has been eliminated. If do not, here can be added 315-318 lines and 238-241 can be eliminated (are repetition).

b.2. It can be divided in three parts: Sample (not introduction) / Interview - The semi-structured personal interview format, procedure, and arrangement / Analysis.

b.3. The research questions (304-309) are repeated in 227-232 (I think it is allright the last option, 227-232)

 

C) Conclusions. It is not necessary 5.1, all can be included in point 5 (without 5.1.)

 

Author Response

Hi 

For the point by point repose, kindly find attached.

Cheers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf