The Study of Gender-Based Violence through a Narrative Approach: Evidence from the European Project IMPROVE

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

These are my comments:

My first concern is the statement on Lines 182-183 where the Authors inform that “intersectional narratives” were collected. What is meant by intersectional? If the Authors mean that they interviewed people with a diversity of identities, then they should write that. As pointed out further along in the comments having a multitude of identities is no guarantor of oppression. Everything depends on time, place, and context. My suggestion is to not use intersectional if an intersectionality analyse is not to be performed. If various identities play a role in participant marginality, then they can be presented and explained when the narratives are presented (please see literature recommendations, they could prove helpful!).

 

Lines 211 - 213 clarify what is meant by ”interview script. A discussion of how interview scripts might affect the way the women decide to tell their stories – what do they include and what is left out. Who the interviewer is etc. A reference for choice and consideration of these factors should be included. Two texts that may be helpful are: Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2012). Narrative practice and the transformation of interview subjectivity. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 2, 27-44 and Muylaert, C. J., Sarubbi Jr, V., Gallo, P. R., Neto, M. L. R., & Reis, A. O. A. (2014). Narrative interviews: an important resource in qualitative research. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 48, 184-189.

 

I am concerned about the ethical issues of including pictures. What is the value-added of including pictures? The Authors need to explain their justification as pictures may create expressions of shame and guilt generate unwanted ethical concerns. Including pictures is also contra to the ethical statements made in the methods section. My suggesting is that the pictures be removed and that the Authors find another way of presenting the interviewees.

Lines 267-268 The Authors write: The intersectionality of the different systems of oppression that act on the victim-survivor. How is this captured? What do the Authors mean with “different systems of oppression”? I suggest that the Authors revisit intersectionality theory. The McCall article is a good starting point but nowhere do the Authors link intersectionality theory with the advantage of narratives as method! Merely stating that the women interviewed belonged to various categories of marginality is not proof in itself of intersectional oppression. The literature in this field is extensive, one recent article that may be helpful is: William et al (2019) Systemic Factors Explain Differences in Low and High Frequency Shelter Use for Victims of Interpersonal Violence, DOI: 10.29173/cjfy29413. An older but interesting text: Aldridge, J. (2013). Identifying the Barriers to Women's Agency in Domestic Violence: The Tensions between Women's Personal Experiences and Systemic Responses. Social Inclusion, 1(1), 3-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v1i1.109

 

This paper could make and novel contribution to the study of GBV using narratives. However, when new methods are introduced, their presentation demands rigor in structure, clarity and in the argument in the article All of which should be supported with good referencing. This article has the potential to do that.

Further, the article requires a strenuous English language editing. The language is good but spelling errors and word usage should be corrected.

The Authors should also review the reference list for completeness and correct format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper need moderate English editing. The primary problems are spelling due in part to translation. 

Some wording also creates problems and due to translation. A good English editing should correct these errors.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers' suggestions have been developed in the uploaded PDF file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good explanation of qualitative narrative methods utilizing in the project. Although individual narratives are important and compelling, I suggest more work be done to synthesize narratives and to identify emerging themes across narratives. It would also be helpful for readers and decision makers to have emergent themes compared and contrasted across GBV women-identified survivors who participated in the project. 

Author Response

Responses to the suggestions made by reviewer 2 are developed in the uploaded PDF file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article is well crafted, displaying a clear and organized structure. It introduces a novel approach to tackling GBV through narrative interviews, underscoring the significance of qualitative methods in this context. Each section is meticulously laid out, making for a compelling read. To enhance the depth of analysis, incorporating verbatim quotations from the interviews and subjecting them to interpretative methods like thematic analysis could enrich the narrative. Additionally, expanding upon the current qualitative literature on the subject would add further depth. Despite these minor suggestions, the article stands as a publication deserving of dissemination.

Author Response

Authors response to the reviewers' suggestions are uploaded as a PDF file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Satisfied with revisions and the authors' explanation