Adversarial Growth among Refugees: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript which describes scoping review of the literature on adversarial growth among refugees. It is an important topic and the paper has promise, but requires a major revision in my opinion.

1.       Making a link between adversarial growth and refugees being considered a threat is interesting, but the rationale provided is not very convincing and the point needs to be elaborated more in each section. How specifically could a shift in de-pathologizing refugees affect negative stereotypes? Is there some theory or research you could draw from here to make a stronger case? Were there any themes in the literature? This aspect of the paper seems to disappear in the results section. I suggest either elaborating much more, or take it out of the purpose of the study and make a case for it in the discussion as an area for further investigation.

2.       Many of the references are a bit outdated in the intro especially in section 1.3.

3.       There are several existing reviews of PTG among refugees (e.g., here is a recent one: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380231163641), it does not necessarily mean this will not contribute to the literature, but the others should be described in the introduction and the rationale for completing a new one should be justified.

4.       There needs to be more information on how the content of the studies was analyzed.

5.       I found it a bit difficult to get through the results and discussion as they are formatted…. Could the discussion in particular be more concise and related back to your original question?

6.       Results of existing reviews and yours should also be compared in the discussion section, especially in relation to associations that might have been statistically evaluated in previous meta-analyses.

Author Response

Dear editors,

Many thanks to the reviewers for valuable feedback for improvement, and thanks to the editorial team for your patience waiting for the revision.

In the revised version, all reviewer’s concerns, big and small, have been addressed. The revision involves a full working through the manuscript to meet what we perceived as the most significant feedback: Clearer formulation of research questions, more precise referencing and contextualisation in the results presentation (“Lack of context and hard to know where the finding comes from”), and improved presentation of arguments and discussion of findings, including justification of recommendations for further research (“hard for me to follow how you arrive at the aspects that you would like to see more research on”).

In the revised version the issue of media portrayal makes up a less prominent part of the introduction but is still there as one of the motivations for the review, alongside with the dominance of risk- and harm oriented psychological research. Both intro and discussion include reference to the concepts of good and bad refugees.   We hope that in this version the reader understands why the review is oriented towards psychological research.

The results section is reorganized in fewer themes and we have added a table with an overview of the results, as a reader’s guide.

Unfortunately, the review process had to be done while both authors were on sick leave, and with very limited capacity in first author. Hence, the revision is mainly done by the second author. Adding supplementary information (description of the research method lacks information about which of the studies listed in the Table 1 were longitudinal, prospective, or retrospective in nature) about the included studies were beyond my capacity. Besides, the table already has substantial information.

We hope that the review is found satisfactory and are looking forward to receiving further feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is overall the result of a rigorous and methodical review. As stated in the article, it is a field that has grown considerably in the later years, and a scoping review of the field is therefore very welcome. Thank you for letting me read it!

I think the article is well written and quite clear-cut. Although I have some issues, that I would like the authors to consider.

1.       Would it bring some value to present the different themes in the result graphically? For me it is a bit hard to sort between the different themes and I wonder if, and how, they might be interrelated. A figure would be one way of helping me understand that.

2.       In relation to that, it is also a bit hard for me to follow how you arrive at the aspects that you would like to see more research on. Although I very much agree with you on  which topics that need more research, it could be elucidated in what way that is a result of your scoping review.

3.       In the introduction, and in the discussion, the authors refer to three stereotypical representations of refugees (victim, potential threat and unusual survivor) and use it to contextualise their own review and wish to broaden the pathology-oriented view of refugees as a vulnerable group. This discussion would be even better if the stereotypes were discussed also in relation to the concept ‘good refugees’, which I see as a lack in the article. If some of these results in the studies are built on self-reported descriptions of their health status (or the like), the tendency to describe oneself as successful and fully fit (for work etc.) is probably present. That of course depends on how the studies were designed, …

4.       … which brings me to my next comment. There is sometimes a lack of context that makes it a bit hard to follow the arguments and thematization and what it stands for. I appreciate that the authors state that they will not evaluate the studies (which I personally think would have been a good thing to do) and therefore also leave out some details. One example of this is 3.3.3. This is a short paragraph, and a complete theme, where it is stated that refugees have expressed “gratitude for finding safety in their new country” (and not entirely clear how this connects to the growth of (?) compassion and empathy in themselves). In the end of the paragraph there is a general reference to the full table of studies reviewed. This way of writing it makes it hard for me as a reader to assess any of the information stated in the paragraph. Is it the result of qualitative or quantitative data? Is it something addressed in a majority of the studies (which would be an interesting fact in itself)? In short, the lack of context raises some central questions. (A discussion on the good refugee would also be a relevant context to this paragraph.) A good example of when there is sufficient context, in my opinion, is the paragraph starting on line 531.

5.       On a couple of occasions, it is referred to “folk-psychology” (line 356) and self-evident results (line 391-2). I don’t fully understand the function of bringing these in, especially in the first case. Folk-psychology is almost used as a criterion or guideline. Results are in line with it. These paragraphs need some work.

6.       It could be stressed earlier in the article that most studies derives from the field of psychology, now stated on line 849-850.

7.       In Table I, it would be helpful if key findings  would include information on which themes you have regarded the article relevant for.

Minor comments:

a.       I find the sentence on lines 472-3 a bit hard to understand.

b.       The sentence beginning on line 504 contains (or leaves out?) a lot of information and you lose me in the second half.

c.       What is meant by “a moral approach” on line 511?

Author Response

Dear editors,

Many thanks to the reviewers for valuable feedback for improvement, and thanks to the editorial team for your patience waiting for the revision.

In the revised version, all reviewer’s concerns, big and small, have been addressed. The revision involves a full working through the manuscript to meet what we perceived as the most significant feedback: Clearer formulation of research questions, more precise referencing and contextualisation in the results presentation (“Lack of context and hard to know where the finding comes from”), and improved presentation of arguments and discussion of findings, including justification of recommendations for further research (“hard for me to follow how you arrive at the aspects that you would like to see more research on”).

In the revised version the issue of media portrayal makes up a less prominent part of the introduction but is still there as one of the motivations for the review, alongside with the dominance of risk- and harm oriented psychological research. Both intro and discussion include reference to the concepts of good and bad refugees.   We hope that in this version the reader understands why the review is oriented towards psychological research.

The results section is reorganized in fewer themes and we have added a table with an overview of the results, as a reader’s guide.

Unfortunately, the review process had to be done while both authors were on sick leave, and with very limited capacity in first author. Hence, the revision is mainly done by the second author. Adding supplementary information (description of the research method lacks information about which of the studies listed in the Table 1 were longitudinal, prospective, or retrospective in nature) about the included studies were beyond my capacity. Besides, the table already has substantial information.

We hope that the review is found satisfactory and are looking forward to receiving further feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Adversarial Growth Among Refugees: A Scoping Review” submitted for review has many strengths. It is well written and the topic is current and important from the perspective of social sciences, especially psychology.

However, I noticed that the text could be improved in several places.

1. I suggest entering the number of ultimately analyzed studies in the abstract.

2. The description of the research method lacks information about which of the studies listed in the Table 1 were longitudinal, prospective, or retrospective in nature?

3. Lines 229-230: “….including which factors and circumstances that seem to influence growth” . In many places it is written that the analyzed factors "influance" growth. It seems that most of the presented studies are cross-sectional, so we cannot talk about impact. This issue must be made clear.

Author Response

Dear editors,

Many thanks to the reviewers for valuable feedback for improvement, and thanks to the editorial team for your patience waiting for the revision.

In the revised version, all reviewer’s concerns, big and small, have been addressed. The revision involves a full working through the manuscript to meet what we perceived as the most significant feedback: Clearer formulation of research questions, more precise referencing and contextualisation in the results presentation (“Lack of context and hard to know where the finding comes from”), and improved presentation of arguments and discussion of findings, including justification of recommendations for further research (“hard for me to follow how you arrive at the aspects that you would like to see more research on”).

In the revised version the issue of media portrayal makes up a less prominent part of the introduction but is still there as one of the motivations for the review, alongside with the dominance of risk- and harm oriented psychological research. Both intro and discussion include reference to the concepts of good and bad refugees.   We hope that in this version the reader understands why the review is oriented towards psychological research.

The results section is reorganized in fewer themes and we have added a table with an overview of the results, as a reader’s guide.

Unfortunately, the review process had to be done while both authors were on sick leave, and with very limited capacity in first author. Hence, the revision is mainly done by the second author. Adding supplementary information (description of the research method lacks information about which of the studies listed in the Table 1 were longitudinal, prospective, or retrospective in nature) about the included studies were beyond my capacity. Besides, the table already has substantial information.

We hope that the review is found satisfactory and are looking forward to receiving further feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf