Hate-Speech Countering by Immigrant and Pro-Immigrant Associations in Almeria (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper which examines the work and experiences of immigrant and pro-immigrant associations in the Almeria region of Spain. The work is clearly important given the current socio-political context, the project appears to have been carried out diligently, and there is much to commend in the paper. On the other hand, the paper has some structural problems that occasionally prevent the narrative from being clear, and has some materials that are descriptive rather than analytical or critical. I therefore recommend that the authors are asked to address the following points:

·         In my view the paper has some structural issues. It is not clear where the literature is reviewed, or where the presentation of the findings begin (and the methodology ends), or where the contribution to literature is set out. In my view we need to move from the present three main sections to six: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Findings, Discussion, Conclusion. The existing content can then be redistributed accordingly.

·         The paper promises an investigation into “capacities”, but this term is not problematised. What does this term mean, why has it been chosen, and how does it influence the study? These questions need to be considered on the page.

·         The Abstract would benefit from being clearer about the nature of the contribution to academic literature that the paper aims to make.

·         The Introduction would benefit from some more specific information about why the paper focusses on *associations* and why doing so can make a contribution to the literature.

·         The Introduction might also state a definite research question or objective to which the paper is oriented, and explain the motivation for focussing on that.

·         In my view, the ‘background’ section really provides a description of the research site. It might be better placed inside the Methodology section, where one key task will be to explain why this site was suitable for this study.

·         The section ‘hate speech against immigrants’ seems more like a literature review. It would benefit from being more critical of arguments in the literature, therefore setting up why this paper is needed. In particular, it might want to establish that a focus on the capacities of associations is an important gap in the existing literature.

·         The Methodology section would benefit from separating out some descriptions of the overall research design, the research site, the instruments, data analysis, and ethics.

·         The section from page 5 onwards appears to be the Findings and so a new section heading would appear to be required.  That section should commence with some signposting of the structure of the section and how it addresses the research objectives.

·         I wasn’t entirely sure of the value of Tables 1 and 2, which appear very descriptive. Either argue on the page about why they are important or else perhaps move them to Appendices.

·         The rest of the findings presents interesting information but often doesn’t link the argument to the underlying data. Show on the page how the various assertions arise from the analysis of data. Cite your own interviews, or observation fieldnotes, or other data, in the text.

·         The Discussion section needs to focus more on how the Findings *contribute to* the literature, rather than simply “corroborating” it.

Author Response

The attached text contains the detailed response to each of the reviewers' comments, as well as the article with the changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses a topic which is highly relevant: incidences of hate speech and hate crime are on the rise in all European countries and the case study in this paper is an interesting illustration of the fact. There are some aspects, which could be included in the paper to increase the overall merit:

1.) the paper is embedded in a literature addressing hate speech, the relation between hate speech and hate crime and the connections between right-wing populist rhetoric and hate speech. But it seems to me that it rather addresses literature on reactions to hate speech or coping strategies with hate speech. There is literature concerning incidences of anti-semitism and coping and reaction strategies, which could be included and addressed.

2.) while the first part of the paper only talks about immigrant organisations in the second table pro-immigration associations pop up and are discussed. This should be clarified in the the research question as these groups might have different experiences and different reactions strategies and also different resources. So is the paper about the coping strategies of immigrant organisations with hate speech, or is it about the differences between immigrant associations and pro-immigration associations? Do pro-immigration associations then become the spokespersons for immigration associations as they hold more and better resources and are probably also better connected on the political level?This should be addressed.

3) In connection to this, the empirical analysis so far seems a bit anecdotal. The text moves along the lines: association a does x, association b does y, association c does z...; do present the results in a more generalisable manner it would be interesting to see an analysis according the lines: associations under the condition "A" resort to strategies x and y; associations under condition "B" rather choose strategies y and z; in this way specific characteristics of the associations or conditions the different associations find themselves in are related to specific strategies they can choose;

4) the fact, that immigrant association do not experience hate speech online but rather "offline" seems counter-intuitive, as the inhibitions to hate speech seem lower in a more anonymized area. Are there any explanations why this is the case?

5) do any common political demands arise from experiences of hate speech? Is there a demand for better protection by legal means? Do immigrant associations team up in order to counter hate speech and which alliances are formed?

There are a few language or spelling issues that catch the eye: e.g. page 5 "The table includes the date when they their social media activity". (obviously a word missing); page 2 : "Strategies to address hate speech need to “balancing...." either "need "balancing" or "need to balance"; a repeated language editing would be recommended.

Author Response

The attached text contains the detailed response to each of the reviewers' comments, as well as the article with the changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf