Stories of Racism and Resistance: A Narrative Analysis of Stories Told in the UK Windrush Generation and Descendants of the Windrush Generation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article, making a very worthwhile argument about how trauma works across generations and how it is transmitted from older to younger people - in this case migrants from the Caribbean to the UK of the so-called Windrush generation (WG) and their descendants.  For me, the main weakness of the paper is the distance between the claims being made about the intergenerational transmission of trauma (and the policy implications of this) and the data produced by the research, which is based on eight interviews, four with members of older generation and four with second-generation people. (All eight are women, a detail that is bizarrely not addressed at all.) These data show many things, among them that WG women tend not to talk about racism explicitly, preferring to highlight strength and resilience, while 2nd-generation women tend to be more explicit about racism and oppression. Although I am not an expert on the UK scene, I believe this is a fairly familiar pattern in the literature.

            More importantly, it is not very clear to me how these data relate to ideas about intergenerational trauma: what conclusions are we supposed to draw? How do the findings alter existing theories and ideas about the intergenerational transmission of trauma? This is not explained clearly enough. In the Implications section, a lot of reference is made to other techniques (Tree of Life, genograms, Liberation Psychology), but it is not clear how the research findings relate to these techniques. A bit better is the idea that “collective practices were expressed by participants as being pertinent for developing strength in individuals, families, and as a community, this has implications for availability of community spaces for cultural sharing, outside of mainstream, (e.g. mental health) services, which can be experienced as inaccessible or problem-focused”. But this is not fully related to the intergenerational transmission of trauma, as all the respondents expressed this view and it is not clear that it was an idea passed on from the older to the younger generation.

            There are many other small issues of method, analysis and presentation which I have commented on in the PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is 95% fine, but there are a fewe small glitches, noted on the PDF

Author Response

Comment 1: By whom? How does this sentence follow from the previous one?

Response 1: I have amended this paragraph to make this clearer. These changes are on page 3, under stories, silence and trauma, first and second paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 2: So silence on the part of Black people is a response both to "societal avoidance" and to violent backlashes against speaking out. This needs better explanation. I.e. it could be that societal avoidance of race/racism in general is also policed by violent backlash if anyone (especially Black people) draws attention to race/racism.

Response 2: I have amended this paragraph to make this clearer. These changes are on page 3, under stories, silence and trauma, first and second paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 3: Of the 16 participants, how many were WG and how many 2nd gen? In the Findings section only eight people are cited - four WG and four 2nd gen. So the eight experts by experience weren't interviewed?

Response 3: I have amended this to make it clearer that there were four participants who identified as part of the Windrush Generation and four participants who identified as descendants of people from the Windrush Generation. I have changed this in the participant section. I have changed this in the method section, on page 5, paragraphs one and two, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 4: They all seem to be women too. Surely this needs to be mentioned?

Response 4: I have referenced this. This change is on page 5, second paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 5: Should be "ancestors"

Response 5: I have changed this. This change is on page 9, second paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 6: Context needed. Where, when, who is "we"?

Response 6: I have added further context to this. This change is on page 10, the last sentence, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 7: This quote does not support the preceding statement 

Response 7: I have amended the phrase to make this clearer. This change is on page 11, the first sentence, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 8: From where?

Response 8: I decided to use another quote by the participant to make this clearer. This change is on page 11, on the fourth paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 9: Who was crying? At what airport?

Response 9: I have added context to who was crying but unfortunately do not know the airport. This change is on page 11, on the fourth paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 10: What is being referenced here? The ship? The generation?

Response 10: I have rephrased this to make it clear that I am referring to the generation of people, and done this for all examples, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 11: I wonder if there is enough discussion of class difference. How important was it?

Response 11: I decided to remove the reference to class to keep as close to the data as possible and not make inferences. These changes are on page 12, second paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 12: Imply

Response 12: I have changed this. This change is on page 12, above stories of sacrifice, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 13: This is identified as a Sub-story in the table, but it seems to have the same status as the previous "Story" (e.g. in terms of sub-heading style and in terms of the analysis). This issue recurs throughout the ensuing discussion and indeed further sub-sub-headings are introduced: the reader ends up feeling a bit disoriented.

Response 13: I have amendment the formatting as per the template on Social sciences as follows: 3.1. subsection. 3.1.1. Subsubsection – this is throughout the paper.

 

Comment 14: helped?

Response 14: I have changed this. This change is on page 13, third paragraph, above stories of challenge, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 15: Again what does "Windrush" mean here? Is it now an historical period? 

Response 15: I have changed this on page 13, first paragraph under stories of challenge, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 16: Does this comment and those by Laura and Miriam in themselves show racism? Even Lydia's comment is not simple: where did that sense of not belonging come from? The behaviour of her peers and/or teachers? 

Response 16: I have changed some of quotes used by participants to give clearer examples and added some context to this. These changes are at the top of page 14, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 17: connected to or disconnected from racism 

Response 17: I have re-worded this, in the second paragraph on page 14, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 18: "contrasted with"?

Response 18: I have changed this, in the second paragraph on page 14, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 19: do you mean "who"?

Response 19: I have changed this, in the second paragraph on page 14, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 20: In this and the next example, is there a way to indicate that these women connected this differential treatment to how their colour/race/identity was perceived by the others in the story. Or was this left implicit? If so, it might be worth discussing.

Response 20: I have added some context around the implicit nature of this. This starts on the final paragraph of page 14 and goes into page 15, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 21: More explanation needed of how mirroring constitutes a form of subtle resistance.

Response 21: I have added some context to this and removed the reference around Liberation Psychology, to keep close to the data. This is in the second paragraph on page 15, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 22: word missing: "having"

Response 22: I have added this. This is in the first sentence of the final paragraph on page 15, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 23: So Miriam is talking about the classroom, but also about work and unions? They are pretty different contexts, no?

Response 23: I have made it explicit that Miriam came to the UK as a child and later worked as an adult, so is referencing her experiences across the lifespan. This is in the final paragraph on page 15, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 24: There only seem to be four people quoted in the preceding sections

Response 24: I have made it clearer the make-up of participants. I have changed this in the participant section. I have changed this in the method section, on page 5, paragraphs one and two, highlighted in red. I have made it clearer that it references four people, in the first paragraph and sentence on page 16, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 25: This seems important to me, in light of the fairly common narrative that Black parents are better able than others to provide their children with the tools to navigate a racist society (an argument often used to justify same-race adoption for example). These data show that Black parents of this generation rarely talked about racism in an explicit way.

Response 25: I have removed the “only” to take the focus away from the numbers and added some further comments. This change is in the first paragrah on page 16, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 26: Again, what exactly is being referred to here? As before, the term Windrush is being used as a handle for a complex set of phenomena, but it is unclear exactly what they are.

Response 26: I have rephrased this to make it clearer. This is in the first paragraph and fourth sentence from the end, on page 16, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 27: So the children inferred racism although their parents didn't explicitly talk about it?

Response 27: I have made it clearer that the participants are not related on page 16, in the first paragraph under descendants of the Windrush generation.

 

Comment 28: This doesn't align with the previous analysis of the WG interviewees.

Response 28: I have made it clearer that the participants are not related, on page 16, in the first paragraph under descendants of the Windrush generation.

 

Comment 29: Poorly phrased. Maybe "experienced receiving mixed messages"?

Response 29: I have re-phrased this on page 18, first sentence of the second paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 30: Well, yes, because "replicate" and "modify" between them cover pretty much all available options!

Response 30: No change to be made.

 

Comment 31: Why is this given the status of a sub-heading (or is it sub-sub-heading?) when it clearly fits with the preceding section?

Response 31: I have amendment the formatting as per the template on Social sciences as follows: 3.1. subsection. 3.1.1. Subsubsection – this is throughout the paper.

 

Comment 32: Can we have a bit of context for this?

Response 32: I have added some context to this. This is in the second paragraph on page 21, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 33: Again only four people are cited.

Response 33: I have changed this in the participant section. I have changed this in the method section, on page 5, paragraphs one and two, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 34: But you're only talking about four people here. And you identify three tendencies, each one linked to "those", when in at least two cases it can only have been one person.

Response 34: I have rephrased this to remove the concept that these are patterns and kept it close to the data. These changes are on page 25, first sentence of the second paragraph, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 35: This seems to introduce a new conceptual element into the discussion, which goes off at a tangent and is not explained in enough depth. We have not been given any evidence that the interviewees conceptualise trauma in a way that is different from white or Eurocentric conceptions (which are anyway not described).

Response 35: I have added more context to this to help. These changes are on page 26, final paragraph under reflections, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 36: Yes, although you haven't compared storytelling to any other method. Also, it is not clear how a semi-structured interview method is different from a method based on storytelling. If you ask people about their past experiences of course you will get stories of some kind: this doesn't make it a "method".

Response 36: I have made changes in the implications to make this clearer. These changes can be made on page 28, paragraphs four and five, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 37: All this may be very true, but it seems rather distant from your own data and methods.

Response 37: I have connected this to the data in a clearer way and re-worded this section. These changes can be made on page 28, paragraphs four and five, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 38: This is more convincing. 

Response 38: Thank you.

 

Comment 39: Maybe they did, but this is barely mentioned in the findings. I think there is one example - where white people came out on the street (for reasons we do not know).

Response 39: I have added another quote for this. This change can be found on page 29, final paragraph before strengths and limitations, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 40: OK, but this is a very different matter from white allyship or solidarity. 

Response 40: I have removed this from the paper.

 

Comment 41: Again, this is true (in my view), but how does it derive from or relate to your findings?

Response 41: I have re-worded this. This change can be found on page 29, final paragraph before strengths and limitations, highlighted in red.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for bringing this work forward. This manuscript is both timely and necessary. It does what so much of the literature fails to do — it listens. It listens deeply to the Windrush Generation (WG) and their descendants, making space for their truths in all their complexity — the pain, the resilience, the silences, and the acts of resistance that have carried them across generations.

The choice to co-produce with eight “experts by experience” — it’s an ethical stance (cf. Israel et al., 1998; Cargo & Mercer, 2008) that shifts power, centres community agency, and honours lived knowledge. I also appreciate the way you’ve woven Riessman’s (2008) framework together with Critical Race Theory and decolonial praxis, grounding the analysis in strong theory while staying faithful to the people and the stories shared.

Strengths worth naming:

You refuse to flatten the WG into a single story. Thérèse’s anger at early separation (“I didn’t know who the hell she was”) stands beside Laura’s tea-and-scones nostalgia. This tension mirrors Said’s (1993) “contrapuntal” reading — holding both opportunity and oppression at once. You make visible the link between silence and protection — Rachel’s closed conversations with her grandmother versus May’s open activism — echoing Danieli’s (2007) work on how withholding can both protect and harm. Your performance analysis captures the embodied frustration of descendants — Rachel’s emphatic “↑why↑” becomes not just a word, but a political act in itself (cf. Kleres, 2011).

Where you could go deeper:

• Sample and resonance – You’re upfront about the small sample size, which is good. I’d love to see you take that a step further and reflect on how these stories might speak to — or differ from — the experiences of other postcolonial migrant communities in Britain. Scholars like Reynolds (2010) and Erel (2011) have explored similar dynamics in different groups, and connecting your work to that wider picture would help readers see how your findings fit into the broader history of racialised migration.

• Method transparency – Your description of the coding process is clear, but a little more detail on how you checked or refined your themes would make your analysis feel even more robust. For instance, did you have moments of peer debriefing, intercoder agreement checks, or opportunities for participants to review the findings? Lincoln & Guba’s (1985) criteria for trustworthiness could give you a solid framework here.

• Reflexivity and power – You’ve already done strong reflexive work. One area you might push further is acknowledging how your positionality — especially as a white UK citizen — may have influenced what participants felt able to share, particularly around racism. Authors like Milner (2007) and Bourke (2014) offer useful ways of naming those dynamics while still keeping the focus on participants’ truths.

• Policy implications with precedent – Your call to review the Windrush compensation scheme is crucial. Anchoring it in examples from other contexts — like Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission or South Africa’s reparative justice initiatives — could give policymakers something tangible to work from, turning your recommendations into a clearer action plan.

• Resistance and wellbeing – The descendants’ stories — from May’s mother fighting for fair pay to Tolerant1 challenging workplace racism — are powerful examples of how resistance is not only survival, but also healing. You could enrich this by drawing on literature that connects storytelling to empowerment and community health (Coen-Sanchez, 2025; Samuel & Ortiz, 2021), reinforcing your argument for liberation psychology–based interventions. How does invisible barriers impact (such as the concept of Polite Racism- Coen-Sanchez) 

• Intergenerational shifts in communication – I found your insight on how openness often leads to stronger identity outcomes particularly compelling. Linking this directly to Lin & Suyemoto’s (2016) research on trauma communication, and Byng-Hall’s (1995) work on rewriting family scripts, would highlight the transformative power of these conversations.

Author Response

Comment 1: Sample and resonance – You’re upfront about the small sample size, which is good. I’d love to see you take that a step further and reflect on how these stories might speak to — or differ from — the experiences of other postcolonial migrant communities in Britain. Scholars like Reynolds (2010) and Erel (2011) have explored similar dynamics in different groups, and connecting your work to that wider picture would help readers see how your findings fit into the broader history of racialised migration.

Response 1: I have made some changes, on the last paragraph on page 25 and the second paragraph of page 26, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 2: Method transparency – Your description of the coding process is clear, but a little more detail on how you checked or refined your themes would make your analysis feel even more robust. For instance, did you have moments of peer debriefing, intercoder agreement checks, or opportunities for participants to review the findings? Lincoln & Guba’s (1985) criteria for trustworthiness could give you a solid framework here.

Response 2: I have made changes on page 8, in the first paragraph under the table, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 3: Reflexivity and power – You’ve already done strong reflexive work. One area you might push further is acknowledging how your positionality — especially as a white UK citizen — may have influenced what participants felt able to share, particularly around racism. Authors like Milner (2007) and Bourke (2014) offer useful ways of naming those dynamics while still keeping the focus on participants’ truths.

Response 3: I have made some changes in the first and last paragraph on page 6, highlighted in red. I also added a comment in the first paragraph of page 15, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 4: Policy implications with precedent – Your call to review the Windrush compensation scheme is crucial. Anchoring it in examples from other contexts — like Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission or South Africa’s reparative justice initiatives — could give policymakers something tangible to work from, turning your recommendations into a clearer action plan.

Response 4: I have added this in the first and second paragraphs at the top of page 27, highlighted in red.

 

Comment 5: Resistance and wellbeing – The descendants’ stories — from May’s mother fighting for fair pay to Tolerant1 challenging workplace racism — are powerful examples of how resistance is not only survival, but also healing. You could enrich this by drawing on literature that connects storytelling to empowerment and community health (Coen-Sanchez, 2025; Samuel & Ortiz, 2021), reinforcing your argument for liberation psychology–based interventions. How does invisible barriers impact (such as the concept of Polite Racism- Coen-Sanchez)

Response 5: I have added this on the second paragraph on page 27, highlighted in red.

Comment 6: Intergenerational shifts in communication – I found your insight on how openness often leads to stronger identity outcomes particularly compelling. Linking this directly to Lin & Suyemoto’s (2016) research on trauma communication, and Byng-Hall’s (1995) work on rewriting family scripts, would highlight the transformative power of these conversations.

Response 6: Byng-Hall is referenced at the top of page 29, highlighted in red. Lin and Suyemoto are referenced in the second paragraph on page 25, highlighted in red.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was slightly perplexed that the author did not refer to the general comments in my report, and has only responded to the specific comments I made in the PDF of the article. So, for example, it is still not quite clear enough “how the findings alter existing theories and ideas about the intergenerational transmission of trauma”, as I mentioned in my first report. Nor is it clear how one of the key findings (that WG women tend not to talk about racism explicitly, preferring to highlight strength and resilience, while 2nd-generation women tend to be more explicit about racism and oppression) goes beyond what we did not already knew.

 

However, I think that, in responding pretty comprehensively to my specific comments, the author has managed to address most of my more general concerns as well. So I am willing to recommend publication. 

I was slightly perplexed that the author did not refer to the general comments in my report, and has only responded to the specific comments I made in the PDF of the article. So, for example, it is still not quite clear enough “how the findings alter existing theories and ideas about the intergenerational transmission of trauma”, as I mentioned in my first report. Nor is it clear how one of the key findings (that WG women tend not to talk about racism explicitly, preferring to highlight strength and resilience, while 2nd-generation women tend to be more explicit about racism and oppression) goes beyond what we already knew.

However, I think that, in responding pretty comprehensively to my specific comments, the author has managed to address most of my more general concerns as well. So I am willing to recommend publication.