Education and Other Factors Influencing Women Migrants’ Employability and Entrepreneurship
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with an interesting and very topical subject from the point of view of women's international migration. However, it is a text systematising the literature and not a presentation of an article disseminating empirical research results.
Without detracting from all the work done to systematise and analyse references, the fact is that the strategy of narrowing down the field in terms of the sources analysed and the time period may contribute to a certain bias when it comes to global perspectives on international migration and female migration. Although there is no one "world theory" of migration, there are several theories that help to substantiate and deepen the analysis, for example the labor segmentation theory, among others.
As this is a literature review article, the approach is somewhat abstract and there is not much intersection with the object of study. Given that in this field of research the differences between countries and continents are enormous, in terms of the reception of immigrants and integration policies, I felt there was a lack of differentiation between immigration spaces and immigration statuses (is it regulated immigration? Is it legal or illegal?).
In short, the text presents a good summary of what has been produced in scientific terms in the thematic area, but the presentation is a little hermetic. In the presentation of results, the text would benefit from a more structured organisation of the results.
There is a section discussing the results, although this is not an article presenting the results, which seemed a little strange to me since it is "discussing" data from scientific articles" with another bibliography. It doesn't make much sense to me!
The article doesn't have a conclusion section, which should be included to make the content easier to understand as the text is quite long.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below the answers to your comments. We hope that your concerns will be addressed.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions
Comments 1: The article deals with an interesting and very topical subject from the point of view of women's international migration. However, it is a text systematising the literature and not a presentation of an article disseminating empirical research results.
Response 1: It is true that this manuscript does not disseminate the results of original empirical research but is a systematised review of the literature. Although this is obvious when reading the full text, we have substituted references to the text as if it were an article. You can see the corrections in sentences 1, 88, 99, 107, 111, 133, 140, 154, 222, 622, 651, 655, 671, 688, 724 and 756.
Comments 2: Without detracting from all the work done to systematise and analyse references, the fact is that the strategy of narrowing down the field in terms of the sources analysed and the time period may contribute to a certain bias when it comes to global perspectives on international migration and female migration. Although there is no one "world theory" of migration, there are several theories that help to substantiate and deepen the analysis, for example the labor segmentation theory, among others.
Response 2:
As it is a systematised review there is no intersection with the object of study, and instead we work with other studies. On the other hand, as this article is a systematised review, we had to establish a series of exclusion and inclusion criteria. One of the inclusion criteria is the period of years considered in the search for articles, as we were looking for the most recent ones. We agree that this period and the cultural contexts in which the studies are conducted cannot represent the totality of migration realities and may generate certain biases in terms of overall perspectives on female migration. This has been clarified as a limitation of the review on page 20, in the second and third paragraph.
With regard to the theories you mention, we have included them on pages 18 and 19, from sentence 643 to 670 and on page 20 from sentence 750 to 753 and from page 761 to 767.
Comments 3: As this is a literature review article, the approach is somewhat abstract and there is not much intersection with the object of study. Given that in this field of research the differences between countries and continents are enormous, in terms of the reception of immigrants and integration policies, I felt there was a lack of differentiation between immigration spaces and immigration statuses (is it regulated immigration? Is it legal or illegal?).
Response 3: The intention of this review is to understand the factors that affect the female migrant population in a generalised way. The actual presence and intensity with which they are present will depend on the specific case, as mentioned on page 3, in the first paragraph, and reiterated on page 19, from sentence number 688 onwards.
Thus, the issue of the administrative status of migrant women was considered as one of the factors that may affect employability, on page 15, in the fifth paragraph, sentence number 472.
Comments 4: In short, the text presents a good summary of what has been produced in scientific terms in the thematic area, but the presentation is a little hermetic. In the presentation of results, the text would benefit from a more structured organisation of the results.
Response 4: We regret that you find the presentation a little hermetic. After analysing the results of the systematised review, we considered, in the first drafts of the article, to present the results of the analysis through a SWOT matrix or to structure these factors by differentiating between individual factors and factors of the context of origin and destination. However, given that these factors overlap with each other and that one of the requirements that the categories established in the content analysis must fulfil is that they are mutually excluding (Fernández 2002), we consider it more appropriate to start from the theory of double discrimination and build on it by adding the factors that influence the employability of immigrant women identified in the studies analysed and that may give rise to multiple discrimination.
Comments 5: There is a section discussing the results, although this is not an article presenting the results, which seemed a little strange to me since it is "discussing" data from scientific articles" with another bibliography. It doesn't make much sense to me!
Response 5: The template provided by the journal has been used to present the results of the analysis carried out. As RMIT University (2023) points out "a primary function of [...] (the) discussion [...] is to help readers understand the main findings and implications of the review". One of the elements that the discussion may present is "comparison with previous review findings or general literature" (RMIT University 2023).
Comments 6: The article doesn't have a conclusion section, which should be included to make the content easier to understand as the text is quite long.
Response 6: As RMIT University (2023) points out, it is sometimes common for systematic or, in this case, systematised reviews to present the discussion or conclusion in a combined form.
For example, several systematic reviews have been published in this journal in which only the discussion section appears without a conclusions section (see, for example, the systematic reviews of Adeeb and Mirhoseini 2023 or Botero-García et al. 2023).
However, in order to improve the article and respond to your comment, we have included a conclusion section on page 20.
Thank you again for taking the time to review the article. We appreciate your feedback and hope your concerns have been addressed. Your suggestions will also be taken into account for future contributions.
References
Adeeb, Rana Ali, and Mahdi Mirhoseini. 2023. The Impact of Affect on the Perception of Fake News on Social Media: A Systematic Review. Social Sciences 12: 674. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120674.
Botero-García, Carolina, Daniela Rocha, María Alejandra Rodríguez, and Ana María Rozo. 2023. "Posttraumatic Growth and Resilience on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: A Set of Systematic Reviews of Literature" Social Sciences 12, no. 5: 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12050291
Fernández, Flory. 2002. El análisis de contenido como ayuda metodológica para la investigación. Ciencias Sociales 96: 35-53. Available online: https://www.revistacienciassociales.ucr.ac.cr/images/revistas/RCS96/03.pdf
RMIT University. 2023. Library subject guides: Systematic reviews. Available online: https://rmit.libguides.com/systematicreviews/write
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article provides a structured literature review of female migration experience. I think the "double disadvantage" is a critical aspect and a good organizing principle for the article. I would suggest the authors explore Victoria Lawson's work on migration and gender. While it is older than 5 years, it would provide some more theoretical structure for the organization of their literature review.
I also am not sure I understand why the authors excluded studies of return migration from their analysis. Following Ravenstein's work, this is one of the critical aspects of migration, the creation of a counter current. In addition, most return migrations have an element of dissatisfaction with the original destination. This could provide more support for your "double disadvantaged" theory for female migration.
Overall, I think your approach to the literature review is outstanding. Your approach adds scientific rigor to the traditional literature review. I think the topic is compelling and well researched. I enjoyed reading your paper. Best of luck in your future research.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below the answers to your comments. We hope that your concerns will be addressed.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions
Comments 1: This article provides a structured literature review of female migration experience. I think the "double disadvantage" is a critical aspect and a good organizing principle for the article. I would suggest the authors explore Victoria Lawson's work on migration and gender. While it is older than 5 years, it would provide some more theoretical structure for the organization of their literature review.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. In the first drafts we contemplated the idea of incorporating all the theories on which the studies are based but, in order not to overwhelm the reader as the text itself is quite extensive, we decided to start from the theory of double discrimination and build from there the discourse on the factors that are actually taken into account by the recent literature concerning the employability of migrant women. Other theories, such as segmentation theory, are now considered in the discussion section, starting in the fourth paragraph on page 18, from sentence number 643 onwards.
However, we have taken Victoria Lawson into account to qualify the concept of work used in the article, as can be found in the first paragraph of the discussion, on page 18.
Comments 2: I also am not sure I understand why the authors excluded studies of return migration from their analysis. Following Ravenstein's work, this is one of the critical aspects of migration, the creation of a counter current. In addition, most return migrations have an element of dissatisfaction with the original destination. This could provide more support for your "double disadvantaged" theory for female migration.
Response 2: We agree with you. Although the two rejected studies on female returnees are mainly concerned with domestic work and very little with labour market insertion or entrepreneurship, we also thought it appropriate to consider the contributions of these studies in relation to these phenomena. The changes can be found in table 1.
Table 1. Index of changes
|
Page number |
Paragraph number |
Sentence number |
|
9 |
- |
- |
|
11 |
1, 3 |
249, 250, 259, 260, 261, 283-292 |
|
12 |
5 |
324, 329 |
|
14 |
4, 6, 7 |
421, 437, 443 |
|
15 |
3, 4 |
455, 463, 468 |
|
16 |
6 |
554 |
|
17 |
2 |
570 |
|
20 |
1 |
726 |
Source: Own elaboration
Comments 3: Overall, I think your approach to the literature review is outstanding. Your approach adds scientific rigor to the traditional literature review. I think the topic is compelling and well researched. I enjoyed reading your paper. Best of luck in your future research.
Response 3: Thank you again for taking the time to review the manuscript, for your suggestions and for your kind words.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a rigorous literature review that has chosen the relevant articles systematically and has delved into the theoretical and empirical challenges of the underlying research projects.
I want to recommend a few minor changes:
- - Substitute the following tautological statement by a more nuanced reference to Bourdieu’s capitals: “Class resources contribute to social class”.
- - Remark the relevance of the theoretical conclusions. For example, the literature does not fully account for the social dimension of employability. Moreover, women migrants are one of the most notable exceptions of human capital theory. These are very substantial theoretical conclusions.
- - If possible, comment that the literature does not conceive of employability and entrepreneurship in the same terms for the general population and migrant women. Generally, the literature on these themes discusses work-based learning, business models and active labour market policies. In contrast, the focus moves to socio-demographic features when women become the target of discussions about employability and entrepreneurship.
My final comment does not address a shortcoming of the manuscript as such. The review strongly suggests that research on migrant women’s employability has overlooked their agency. Margaret Archer’s theory of reflexivity, Richard Sennett’s use of the concept of character and many other approaches have spelt out how agency and structure are intertwined and how individuals elaborate on their concerns. Apparently, further research on this theme would benefit from exploring these aspects instead of discussing ethnicity, gender, age, migration status and other socio-demographic factors as independent variables.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing needed
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below the answers to your comments. We hope that your concerns will be addressed.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: I want to recommend a few minor changes: Substitute the following tautological statement by a more nuanced reference to Bourdieu’s capitals: “Class resources contribute to social class”.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made a corresponding amendment, which can be found on page 16, from sentence number 511 onwards.
Comments 2: Remark the relevance of the theoretical conclusions. For example, the literature does not fully account for the social dimension of employability. Moreover, women migrants are one of the most notable exceptions of human capital theory. These are very substantial theoretical conclusions.
Response 2: We have included this point in the conclusions on page 20, in the fourth paragraph, from sentence number 746 onwards.
Comments 3: If possible, comment that the literature does not conceive of employability and entrepreneurship in the same terms for the general population and migrant women. Generally, the literature on these themes discusses work-based learning, business models and active labour market policies. In contrast, the focus moves to socio-demographic features when women become the target of discussions about employability and entrepreneurship.
Response 3: This point has been reflected in the conclusions on page 20, in the sixth paragraph, from sentence number 756 onwards.
Comments 4: My final comment does not address a shortcoming of the manuscript as such. The review strongly suggests that research on migrant women’s employability has overlooked their agency. Margaret Archer’s theory of reflexivity, Richard Sennett’s use of the concept of character and many other approaches have spelt out how agency and structure are intertwined and how individuals elaborate on their concerns. Apparently, further research on this theme would benefit from exploring these aspects instead of discussing ethnicity, gender, age, migration status and other socio-demographic factors as independent variables.
Response 4: This observation has been included in the conclusions section on page 20, in the seventh paragraph, from sentence 763 onwards.
Thank you again for taking the time to review the article. We appreciate your feedback and hope your concerns have been addressed. Your suggestions will also be taken into account for future contributions.
