Casilda Iturrizar: A Case of Overcoming the Invisibilization of Women Relevant for Their Religiosity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A brief summary

This article deals with a current and relevant topic, specifically, the visibility of women who have had an impact on the society, economy and culture of a country. In this case, the research aims to highlight the contributions of Casilda Iturrizar in 19th century Bilbao, a bourgeois, conservative and religious woman.

Aspects for improvement of the Article

In terms of aspects for improvement, I consider that if the novelty of this study is the conservative and religious character of the protagonist, it should appear as Keywords.

Introduction

The introduction seems to me to be balanced and appropriate.

Methods

In drafting this section, I consider it appropriate to present the characteristics of the sample first, followed by the techniques and instruments used to collect the information and analyse it. This order would facilitate a better understanding of how they were chosen and who was contacted according to which instrument.

It is recommended that the reasons for the choice of a park and not some other building related to the author be explored in greater depth.

As for the sample, it is not clear on what basis they were chosen according to the data collection instrument, nor is it clear how representative of the population they were chosen. It is recommended to justify these methodological decisions and to substantiate them with appropriate references. For example, what characteristics the key persons in the interviews had to fulfil.

It is recommended to clarify why the online questionnaire eliminates answers to open-ended questions, as this creates confusion.

It would be interesting if the hypotheses appeared at the beginning of the methodology section or at the end of the introduction, and it is recommended to explain the meaning of the hypotheses. For example, why is it stated that younger people have more information, and where is the hypothesis about trends or changes over time?

In general, it is recommended to clarify methodological choices and reinforce them with supporting references.

Results

Although the results of the instruments are well presented, it is recommended to organise them in relation to the hypotheses that give meaning to the research and that need to be answered.

Discussion

In this section, the results should be contrasted with what was stated at the theoretical level in the introduction, not the results of the hypotheses. These should be in their corresponding section. This section should be better organised.

References

It is recommended to reinforce the references of this research. Strengthen the introduction, methodologies and discussion.

Update the sources used. Less than half of the 24 references are from the last five years.

Revise the references with the APA Standards 7th ed.

Review

Although this study investigates a very relevant topic on the visibilisation of the role of women religious and conservators, it needs a great deal of improvement for publication.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your revisions, we have incorporated the suggested changes. We appreciate and hope have improved the quality of the manuscript

Aspects for improvement of the Article

In terms of aspects for improvement, I consider that if the novelty of this study is the conservative and religious character of the protagonist, it should appear as Keywords.

Reply: We have incorporated your suggestion by
including "Conservative Religious Women" in the Keywords section (Page 1).

Introduction

The introduction seems to me to be balanced and appropriate.

Methods

• In drafting this section, I consider it appropriate to present the characteristics of the sample first, followed by the techniques and instruments used to collect the information and analyse it. This order would facilitate a better understanding of how they were chosen and who was contacted according to which instrument.

Reply: As for the suggestions proposed for the methodology section, we have made the changes indicated to improve understanding, presenting first the characteristics of the sample, followed by the techniques and instruments used to collect and analyze the information, as it can be observed in Methods section (From line 135).

• It is recommended that the reasons for the choice of a park and not some other building related to the author be explored in greater depth.

Reply: As suggested, the reasons for choosing Doña Casilda Park have been explained in
greater detail, specifically at the second paragraph of the Methods section (line 143).

• As for the sample, it is not clear on what basis they were chosen according to the data collection instrument, nor is it clear how representative of the population they were chosen. It is recommended to justify these methodological decisions and to substantiate them with appropriate references. For example, what characteristics the key persons in the interviews had to fulfil.

Reply: Taking your recommendations into account, we have added the inclusion criteria for
participants in each data collection, what can be found in 2.2. Sample section (from
line 165). According to the representation of the population, it has been specified in the
manuscript that due to the characteristics of the study, there is no statistical
representativeness of the sample. To reinforce this part, it has been explained how we have sought diverse interviewees, some by chance. These changes can be found in 2.2. Sample (from line 165) and 2.3. Data collection (from line 242)

• It is recommended to clarify why the online questionnaire eliminates answers to open-ended questions, as this creates confusion.

Reply: After reviewing the process, we were unable to find any references supporting the
claim that the online questionnaire eliminates responses to open-ended questions. We have specified in the text that, in fact, the responses to the open-ended questions are preserved in the online
survey, which can be found in 2.3.1. Surveys (line 258).

• It would be interesting if the hypotheses appeared at the beginning of the methodology section or at the end of the introduction, and it is recommended to explain the meaning of the hypotheses. For example, why is it stated that younger people have more information, and where is the hypothesis about trends or changes over time?

Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have moved the section on
hypotheses to the beginning of the methodology, as recommended, and we have also provided an explanation of the rationale behind them. It can be found in 2.1. Research Hypotheses (line 149). To clarify, the hypothesis regarding trends over time is related to Hypothesis 1, which posits a greater incorporation of prominent female figures into the educational system and an increasing social recognition of these figures over time.

• In general, it is recommended to clarify methodological choices and reinforce them with supporting references.

Reply: Thank you. The methodology section has been further explained: In all, 442 individuals participated in the study. In 2017 a total of 27 participants completed an oral survey, and in 2024 28 participants took an oral survey, 386 an online questionnaire, and 5 a communicative interview. The study used convenience sampling because it allowed
for efficient and practical data collection by selecting participants who were readily available at a specific location as explained below. The data collection methods for
2017 and 2024 vary significantly in their approach and purpose. In 2017, an oral survey was conducted with 27 participants, as the survey was not conducted for further research purposes at the time. This contrasts with the 2024 data collection method, which also involved an online questionnaire.

Results

Although the results of the instruments are well presented, it is recommended to organise them in relation to the hypotheses that give meaning to the research and that need to be answered.

Reply: Regarding the results, as suggested, they have been organized in relation to the hypotheses to which they provide answers. However, some of the results obtained provide relevant information for the contribution of this study without directly addressing the hypotheses proposed. Therefore, we have presented all the results obtained and, in addition, those that respond directly to the hypotheses,
organized as suggested. It can be found in 3.Results (line 307) and 3.2. Results to the hypotheses (line 434).

Discussion

In this section, the results should be contrasted with what was stated at the theoretical level in the introduction, not the results of the hypotheses. These should be in their corresponding section. This section should be better organised.

Reply: The Discussion section has been reorganized to improve its comprehension.
The results that respond to the hypotheses proposed have been transferred to the corresponding Results section. In addition, the contrast of the results with the
theoretical information presented in the introduction has been included in this
Discussion section, as recommended.

References

It is recommended to reinforce the references of this research. Strengthen the introduction, methodologies and discussion.

Update the sources used. Less than half of the 24 references are from the last five years.

Revise the references with the APA Standards 7th ed.

Reply: The sources used have been updated. Now, 51.6% of the references are from the last 5 years, since 2019, that is, specifically 16 of the 31 references. We also highlight the use of older references as historical information was required. It can be found in the References section (line 704).

References have been revised according to APA Standards 7th ed, both in the references section and when cited in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers valuable insights into an often-overlooked aspect of feminist discourse—the contributions of conservative religious women. By focusing on Casilda Iturrizar, the paper challenges dominant narratives within feminism and opens the door to more inclusive approaches. However, there are areas that would benefit from further refinement to enhance the paper’s scholarly impact and accessibility.

The contextualization of Casilda Iturrizar’s life and contributions requires deeper integration with existing feminist literature. While the paper acknowledges the marginalization of conservative women within feminist movements, it does not fully engage with the broader debates surrounding inclusivity and ideological diversity in feminism. Incorporating comparative examples of similarly overlooked figures could strengthen the manuscript’s argument.

The methodology is well-detailed but could be more transparent about potential limitations. For instance, the unequal sample sizes between the oral and online surveys may introduce biases that affect the reliability of comparisons. Additionally, the choice of participants for the communicative interviews should be justified more explicitly, as their perspectives play a significant role in the findings.

The discussion section effectively highlights the invisibilization of Casilda’s contributions but would benefit from a more robust analysis of the role educational systems play in perpetuating this trend. Exploring specific examples of curricular omissions or biases in historical narratives could provide actionable insights for educators and policymakers.

Furthermore, the paper’s conclusion is compelling but could go further in addressing the practical implications of the findings. How might feminist movements or educational institutions integrate figures like Casilda Iturrizar into their frameworks? Offering concrete suggestions would enhance the paper’s relevance to both academic and non-academic audiences.

Although the manuscript’s language is generally clear, certain sections could be revised for conciseness and clarity. 

This manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to feminist scholarship. By addressing the areas outlined above, you can further enhance the clarity, coherence, and impact of your work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript’s language, while generally clear, could benefit from professional editing to improve conciseness and readability. Some sections, particularly the abstract and introduction, contain complex sentences that may obscure the core arguments. Ensuring linguistic clarity will make the paper more accessible to a diverse readership.

Author Response

We appreciate the time of reviewing and hope have improved the quality of the manuscript:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers valuable insights into an often-overlooked aspect of feminist discourse—the contributions of conservative religious women. By focusing on Casilda Iturrizar, the paper challenges dominant narratives within feminism and opens the door to more inclusive approaches. However, there are areas that would benefit from further refinement to enhance the paper’s scholarly impact and accessibility.

Reply: Thank you very much for your feedback. We are grateful for the recognition of the
paper's contribution and for highlighting areas that could be refined. We have worked to address these points and improve the clarity of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insights and recommendations.

The contextualization of Casilda Iturrizar’s life and contributions requires deeper integration with existing feminist literature. While the paper acknowledges the marginalization of conservative women within feminist movements, it does not fully engage with the broader debates surrounding inclusivity and ideological diversity in feminism. Incorporating comparative examples of similarly overlooked figures could strengthen the manuscript’s argument.

Reply: In order to improve the Introduction section, the suggested changes have been introduced, specifically, incorporating comparative examples of overlooked figures in terms of feminism's inclusivity and ideological diversity. In the first section of the Introduction (1.1. Invisibilization of certain women by some ‘feminist’ movements) a third paragraph has been
added (line 45) specifying the debate about inclusivity and ideological diversity in feminism by giving comparative examples of two women who have made great contributions to feminism, while being believers or advocates of thought considered traditional; compared to a woman who was heavily promoted as a reference for feminism by identifying her with a certain ideology, despite her actions having been shown to be contrary to feminist principles. Also, in the section of the introduction presenting Casilda Iturrizar (1.3. Casilda Iturrizar's contributions to the transformation of a city), the contextualization of this woman within the existing feminist literature has been enhanced (line 99).

The methodology is well-detailed but could be more transparent about potential limitations. For instance, the unequal sample sizes between the oral and online surveys may introduce biases that affect the reliability of comparisons. Additionally, the choice of participants for the communicative interviews should be justified more explicitly, as their perspectives play a significant role in the findings.

Reply: In response to their comments, we have included additional information in the methodology section, specifically on the choice of sample and the numerical disparity between the oral and online surveys. It can be found in 2.2. Sample in from line 165. We have also more explicitly justified the selection of participants in the communicative interviews. It can be found in 2.2. Sample in from line 165. In addition, we have expanded the “limitations” section at the end of the article. It can be found in 5. Conclusion section (line 649).

The discussion section effectively highlights the invisibilization of Casilda’s contributions but would benefit from a more robust analysis of the role educational systems play in perpetuating this trend. Exploring specific examples of curricular omissions or biases in historical narratives could provide actionable insights for educators and policymakers.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated your feedback into the discussion section. Specifically, we have expanded on the role of the educational system in perpetuating the invisibilization of Casilda Iturrizar’s contributions. We explored how certain figures, like Casilda, have been excluded or overlooked due to ideological biases, particularly those linked to her religious and conservative values. Additionally, we discuss how some feminist movements, by not being inclusive, have further marginalized women with differing ideologies. It can be found in 4. Discussion (line 532).

Furthermore, the paper’s conclusion is compelling but could go further in addressing the practical implications of the findings. How might feminist movements or educational institutions integrate figures like Casilda Iturrizar into their frameworks? Offering concrete suggestions would enhance the paper’s relevance to both academic and non-academic audiences.

Reply: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We have addressed this point by expanding
the conclusion to include concrete recommendations for how feminist movements and educational institutions could integrate figures like Casilda Iturrizar into their frameworks. It can be found in 5. Conclusions (line 649).

Although the manuscript’s language is generally clear, certain sections could be revised for conciseness and clarity. 

Reply: To ensure the English language, we have submitted the manuscript with the changes to the MDPI English review service.

This manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to feminist scholarship. By addressing the areas outlined above, you can further enhance the clarity, coherence, and impact of your work.

Reply: We have carefully reviewed and incorporated the suggested changes, and we hope that these revisions have enhanced the article's clarity and coherence, thereby strengthening its
contribution to feminist scholarship.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript’s language, while generally clear, could benefit from professional editing to improve conciseness and readability. Some sections, particularly the abstract and introduction, contain complex sentences that may obscure the core arguments. Ensuring linguistic clarity will make the paper more accessible to a diverse readership.

Reply: Following your recommendation to enhance the language of the manuscript, we have decided to engage professional editing services to improve its conciseness and readability.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the revision is a significant improvement on the original draft, it still has methodological shortcomings.

It is recommended in the methodology section 2.1. when talking about the issues (Q1 -Q4), to indicate what these issues are. There is a lack of information that would help to understand the hypotheses put forward.

The explanation of the choice of the sample is still very vague in some respects. What does it mean to have some kind of connection with the city of Bilbao (line 277)? What is meant by knowing the city of Bilbao (line 278)? Are you referring to having heard of it, having visited it, having seen it for x years, ...?

The sample of the interviews is small and not very diverse, they are all people related to education. Why didn't you interview part of the sample that did the questionnaires? Moreover, it remains unclear why these participants are key to exploring the issues you raise. The requirements for their selection were the same as for the other participants.

Why does line 466 only mention the 2024 sample?

On lines 496 and 510, when presenting interview excerpts, include the participant to whom they belong by means of a code (see APA Standards or other reference articles that use it).

If in section 3.1 you are presenting the results of each technique, you should not present the comparison of results in Table 7 (line 471). Either the results are presented or they are compared.

The explanation for the elimination of the 2017 data (line 532) is not understood, when you have used it for comparison in Table 7.

I do not understand the explanation for the removal of the 2017 data (line 532), when you have used it for comparison in Table 7. If this data is ultimately not useful, there is no hypothesis that affects it, you should not include it in the study. Correct the title of Table 8.

Support the assertions made in the discussion with research references (line 685, 732).

Indicate the year in the quotation on Arriaga Theater and the University of Deusto (line 703).

Why these results (line 753) do not appear in the presentation of interview results.

The discussion section should be more engaged and discussed, knowledge gained from the hypotheses and research that support or contradict it. Do not abuse the same quote, University of Deusto study.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the time you dedicated to reviewing the manuscript. Below, we provide responses to the points you highlighted:

Comment 1: It is recommended in the methodology section 2.1. when talking about the issues (Q1 -Q4), to indicate what these issues are. There is a lack of information that would help to understand the hypotheses put forward.

Reply: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the need for additional context about questions Q1–Q4 in the methodology section. In response, we have clarified and added the necessary context in lines 205–211: "First, we hypothesized that the percentage of participants answering “yes” to questions Q1 (knowledge of the park’s name), Q2 (awareness of Casilda’s figure), Q3 (understanding of Casilda’s contributions), and Q4 (recognition of Casilda beyond the city of Bilbao) would be higher for younger respondents than for those answering “no” due to the increase in the incorporation of feminist figures or women referents in the educational system and an increasing social recognition of these figures over time (Giner et al., 2016)."

This addition explains the questions and links them to our hypotheses, thereby addressing the issue of insufficient information. We hope this revision meets your expectations and improves the clarity of our methodology section.

Comment 2: The explanation of the choice of the sample is still very vague in some respects. What does it mean to have some kind of connection with the city of Bilbao (line 277)? What is meant by knowing the city of Bilbao (line 278)? Are you referring to having heard of it, having visited it, having seen it for x years, ...?

Reply: Regarding the explanation of the choice of the sample, we agree that the phrase "some kind of connection with the city of Bilbao" can be clarified. We have provided more detail: having a connection with the city implies frequent visits, being from there, or having lived there for a certain period of time.

Comment 3: The sample of the interviews is small and not very diverse, they are all people related to education. Why didn't you interview part of the sample that did the questionnaires? Moreover, it remains unclear why these participants are key to exploring the issues you raise. The requirements for their selection were the same as for the other participants.

Reply: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. We fully agree with your point regarding the limited sample size and diversity of the interviewees, as it is clearly explained in several parts of the article. As noted, this research, despite employing a variety of methodologies, does not have a representative sample, especially in the more qualitative section of the interviews. This was not the intent, particularly considering that the interviews were conducted with only five participants. The decision to include this portion of the research was made with the goal of expanding the exploration of the results.

Regarding the choice of interviewees, we specifically contacted individuals who were directly involved in the discussions around Casilda Iturrizar's contributions, three of whom had attended the 2017 Bilbao conference. This was the event where certain researchers began to advocate for making her contributions visible, understanding there would likely be opposition from other feminists. As we noted, the selection of these particular interviewees was made with the intention of broadening the understanding of the ongoing debates, which is why they are central to the exploration of the issues raised in the study.

This explanation has now been incorporated into the description of the interview sample, as well as in more detail in the conclusions section, where we address the limitations of the study. In future iterations of this research, one potential improvement could involve increasing the sample size and considering interviewing participants from the oral survey. This could help expand the perspectives captured in the study and offer a more representative view.

Comment 4: Why does line 466 only mention the 2024 sample?

Reply: We have now added the data for both the 2017 and 2024 surveys to ensure completeness

Comment 5: On lines 496 and 510, when presenting interview excerpts, include the participant to whom they belong by means of a code (see APA Standards or other reference articles that use it).

Reply: We have made the necessary adjustments and incorporated the corresponding codes as requested. Additionally, we have included the equivalences in Table 3

Comment 6: If in section 3.1 you are presenting the results of each technique, you should not present the comparison of results in Table 7 (line 471). Either the results are presented or they are compared.

Reply: In response to your feedback, we have revised the structure of the manuscript to improve clarity. Specifically, in section 3.1.2, we now limit ourselves to presenting the results of the oral survey for both 2017 and 2024 separately, without any comparison. To address the comparison between the two oral surveys, we have created a new section.

This revised structure ensures that results are first presented independently before any comparative analysis is introduced, following your suggestion.

Comment 7: The explanation for the elimination of the 2017 data (line 532) is not understood, when you have used it for comparison in Table 7.

I do not understand the explanation for the removal of the 2017 data (line 532), when you have used it for comparison in Table 7. If this data is ultimately not useful, there is no hypothesis that affects it, you should not include it in the study. Correct the title of Table 8.

Reply: Thank you for your detailed comments and observations. We would like to address the points raised that are now also explained in the first section of results.

The 2017 oral survey data is indeed valuable, and we consider its comparison with the 2024 oral survey results to be highly relevant. This comparison provides important insights, which we have included in Table 7. However, when the analysis involves cross-referencing results with demographic data (a key component for testing certain hypotheses) this dataset is necessarily excluded because the 2017 survey does not include demographic information.

Consequently, the comparison between the 2017 and 2024 oral surveys is performed without incorporating demographic variables. When the analysis involves demographic data and other techniques, the 2017 oral survey data is excluded.

In other words; we fully utilize the 2017 data where demographic information is not required, as in the comparison of oral survey outcomes between 2017 and 2024.

When demographic variables are essential (e.g., for hypothesis testing involving age, gender, or other demographic factors), the 2017 dataset cannot be used due to its lack of such information.

We have also corrected the title of Table 8 as per your suggestion.

Comment 8: Support the assertions made in the discussion with research references (line 685, 732).

Reply: The first assertion has been modified and is no longer presented as it originally was. Regarding the second point, we have now properly referenced the statement as suggested. We appreciate your attention to these details.

Comment 9: Indicate the year in the quotation on Arriaga Theater and the University of Deusto (line 703).

Reply: We have made the necessary adjustment and indicated the year in the quotation on the Arriaga Theater and the University of Deusto (line 703).

Comment 10: Why these results (line 753) do not appear in the presentation of interview results

Reply: Thank you for pointing that out. We have already incorporated these under the "Results" section.

Comment 11: The discussion section should be more engaged and discussed, knowledge gained from the hypotheses and research that support or contradict it. Do not abuse the same quote, University of Deusto study.

Reply: We have revised the "Discussion" section to better align with your suggestion, aiming to enhance the engagement and discussion of the knowledge gained from the hypotheses and research. We have also made an effort to reduce repetition of the University of Deusto study. We hope these changes improve the section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made in response to my comments have greatly improved the manuscript. The enhanced contextualization within feminist literature, particularly with the inclusion of comparative examples, strengthens the argument and aligns Casilda Iturrizar’s story with broader feminist debates. The expanded methodology section and the inclusion of a limitations discussion increase transparency and academic rigor. Additionally, the discussion of educational systems and the actionable recommendations in the conclusion provide valuable insights for both academic and practical audiences. The professional editing has also significantly improved the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript. The paper is now a stronger and more compelling contribution to feminist scholarship.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: The revisions made in response to my comments have greatly improved the manuscript. The enhanced contextualization within feminist literature, particularly with the inclusion of comparative examples, strengthens the argument and aligns Casilda Iturrizar’s story with broader feminist debates. The expanded methodology section and the inclusion of a limitations discussion increase transparency and academic rigor. Additionally, the discussion of educational systems and the actionable recommendations in the conclusion provide valuable insights for both academic and practical audiences. The professional editing has also significantly improved the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript. The paper is now a stronger and more compelling contribution to feminist scholarship.

Reply: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate your recognition of the revisions made. Your comments motivate us to continue contributing to feminist scholarship with rigor and clarity.

Thank you again for your valuable insights throughout the review process, which have been instrumental in refining and improving this work.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the changes made to the article it meets, in my opinion, the standards for publication.

I recommend that the authors continue to improve the methodological aspects of the research.