Institutional Neglect and Sexual Harassment Against Sexual Minority Individuals at a Tertiary Institution in Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study offers a solid and well-developed theoretical foundation, demonstrating a clear connection between the theoretical framework, the research problem, and the stated objectives. The aims are well defined and appropriately aligned with the research question, contributing to the overall internal coherence of the study. The topic is both timely and relevant, especially within Nigeria’s sociocultural context, which reinforces the significance and justification of the investigation while providing a valuable basis for broad, interdisciplinary discussion.

It is commendable that the authors formulated clear objectives and adopted a qualitative, exploratory approach consistent with the research question’s nature. However, the absence of explicit hypotheses or theoretical propositions somewhat limits the argumentative cohesion of the manuscript. Even in qualitative research, outlining theoretical expectations or guiding propositions can enhance conceptual clarity and aid in the interpretation of findings.

The methodological design is appropriate and demonstrates good coherence between the study’s objectives and its procedures. The use of a qualitative, narrative, phenomenological approach is particularly suitable given the aim to capture participants’ lived experiences and their ascribed meanings. Nonetheless, the manuscript would benefit from increased methodological transparency through a clearer presentation of the researchers’ positionality, including aspects such as sex, gender, sexual orientation, and sociocultural background. In qualitative inquiry, reflexivity and acknowledgment of researcher bias are vital for scientific rigor. Additionally, it would be helpful to explicitly discuss how the research process influenced the researchers and their interpretations.

Finally, while the study provides valuable findings and contributions, the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections could be further expanded. Doing so would allow for more in-depth analysis and clearer connections between the empirical data and the theoretical framework. This development would strengthen the paper’s argumentative coherence and help readers better understand its theoretical and practical implications.

Author Response

Title of manuscript: Institutional Neglect and Sexual Harassment against Sexual Minority Individuals at a Tertiary Institution in Nigeria

Journal:                       Social Sciences

Manuscript ID:            socsci-3971543

Revision date:             24/11/2025

We thank the reviewers for their thorough and insightful feedback, which has been invaluable in strengthening our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment. Our point-by-point responses and the corresponding revisions are detailed below.

Reviewer 1

1. The present study offers a solid and well-developed theoretical foundation, demonstrating a clear connection between the theoretical framework, the research problem, and the stated objectives. The aims are well defined and appropriately aligned with the research question, contributing to the overall internal coherence of the study. The topic is both timely and relevant, especially within Nigeria’s sociocultural context, which reinforces the significance and justification of the investigation while providing a valuable basis for broad, interdisciplinary discussion.

We are grateful for this positive assessment.

2. It is commendable that the authors formulated clear objectives and adopted a qualitative, exploratory approach consistent with the research question’s nature. However, the absence of explicit hypotheses or theoretical propositions somewhat limits the argumentative cohesion of the manuscript. Even in qualitative research, outlining theoretical expectations or guiding propositions can enhance conceptual clarity and aid in the interpretation of findings.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that outlining theoretical expectations enhances conceptual clarity. While our study was exploratory, it was indeed guided by the frameworks of Institutional Betrayal and Institutional Courage theories. In response, we have revised the manuscript to include explicit theoretical propositions in the Introduction section. These propositions formally state the expectations derived from our theoretical frameworks, which then serve as a clearer lens for interpreting our findings in the Discussion. We believe this revision significantly strengthens the argumentative cohesion of the manuscript, as suggested.

3. The methodological design is appropriate and demonstrates good coherence between the study’s objectives and its procedures. The use of a qualitative, narrative, phenomenological approach is particularly suitable given the aim to capture participants’ lived experiences and their ascribed meanings. Nonetheless, the manuscript would benefit from increased methodological transparency through a clearer presentation of the researchers’ positionality, including aspects such as sex, gender, sexual orientation, and sociocultural background. In qualitative inquiry, reflexivity and acknowledgment of researcher bias are vital for scientific rigor. Additionally, it would be helpful to explicitly discuss how the research process influenced the researchers and their interpretations.

We thank the reviewer for this crucial point regarding methodological transparency and reflexivity. We agree that a clearer articulation of the research team's positionality and its influence on the study is vital. In response, we have significantly expanded the "Research Team and Reflexivity" subsection within the Methods section.

4. Finally, while the study provides valuable findings and contributions, the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections could be further expanded. Doing so would allow for more in-depth analysis and clearer connections between the empirical data and the theoretical framework. This development would strengthen the paper’s argumentative coherence and help readers better understand its theoretical and practical implications.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections to provide a more in-depth analysis. Specifically, we have linked our empirical findings back to the core theoretical frameworks of Institutional Betrayal and Institutional Courage. We are now more articulate about how each major finding exemplifies a facet of these theories. Also, we developed the Conclusion to offer more concrete, actionable recommendations derived directly from the Institutional Courage framework, moving from general statements to specific, mandated actions for the university.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A little more consideration of counterarguments or other explanations would be beneficial. For instance, it would be beneficial to take into account how institutional limitations that go beyond bias (such financial or legal restrictions) could influence administrative silence.  This would increase the depth and balance of the analysis.  Beyond cultural bias, think about delving deeper into other factors for institutional silence, such as legal limitations, administrative restrictions, or political pressures.  This would improve the argument's analytical balance.

Add more recent research on the experiences of sexual minorities and institutional reactions in higher education from African or other Global South contexts.  This would increase the contextual foundation and comparative viewpoint.
 Add useful, doable suggestions for institutional and policy reform to the concluding part. For instance, include actions that Nigerian universities can take to adopt "institutional courage" (training programs, inclusive policies, or confidential reporting mechanisms).
 To ensure consistency (e.g., uniform use of "sexual minority" vs. "sexual and gender minority") and to improve punctuation within quotations and references, small language and formatting changes are advised.

There is insufficient contextual and demographic information about the participants in the manuscript, including their years of experience, gender, age, and professional jobs.  By including these details, the study's overall methodological rigor would be strengthened, transparency would be improved, and readers could evaluate the sample's variety and representativeness.

 It would be beneficial to make clear the precise rationale behind the purposive sampling, including if the selection criteria were gender, familiarity with the phenomena, professional role, or degree of involvement in sexual minority group advocacy.  Giving this information would improve methodological transparency and bolster the participant selection process's legitimacy.

Author Response

Title of manuscript: Institutional Neglect and Sexual Harassment against Sexual Minority Individuals at a Tertiary Institution in Nigeria

Journal:                       Social Sciences

Manuscript ID:            socsci-3971543

Revision date:             24/11/2025

We thank the reviewers for their thorough and insightful feedback, which has been invaluable in strengthening our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment. Our point-by-point responses and the corresponding revisions are detailed below.

Reviewer 2

1. A little more consideration of counterarguments or other explanations would be beneficial. For instance, it would be beneficial to take into account how institutional limitations that go beyond bias (such financial or legal restrictions) could influence administrative silence. This would increase the depth and balance of the analysis.  Beyond cultural bias, think about delving deeper into other factors for institutional silence, such as legal limitations, administrative restrictions, or political pressures.  This would improve the argument's analytical balance.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We agree that a more nuanced analysis of the structural constraints on the institution is crucial. The institutional silence is not only a product of cultural bias but is also structurally enforced by a hostile legal framework, internal administrative weaknesses, and external political pressures. To address this, we have expanded our Discussion section to incorporate a dedicated paragraph examining these factors. This addition acknowledges the real-world constraints faced by the university while simultaneously arguing why these constraints do not absolve the institution of its ethical duty of care. This enhances the analytical balance by presenting a more comprehensive picture of why inaction occurs, strengthening our central argument that overcoming these barriers requires deliberate institutional courage.

2. Add more recent research on the experiences of sexual minorities and institutional reactions in higher education from African or other Global South contexts. This would increase the contextual foundation and comparative viewpoint.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree that strengthening the contextual and comparative foundation with recent research from similar contexts will enhance the paper's significance. In response, we have revised the Introduction and Discussion sections to incorporate key recent studies from across Africa and the Global South to situate our Nigerian case study within the broader regional landscape of institutional neglect and homophobia in higher education. We highlighted shared patterns of cis-heteronormative policy frameworks, systemic barriers to reporting, and the unique vulnerabilities faced by sexual minority students in legally hostile environments.

3. Add useful, doable suggestions for institutional and policy reform to the concluding part. For instance, include actions that Nigerian universities can take to adopt "institutional courage" (training programs, inclusive policies, or confidential reporting mechanisms).

We thank the reviewers for raising this. These recommendations for reforms had been discussed in the second-to-last paragraph in the discussion ahead of the conclusion. We think the discussion is comprehensive enough and have, therefore, not made additional edits to that section of the manuscript.

4. To ensure consistency (e.g., uniform use of "sexual minority" vs. "sexual and gender minority") and to improve punctuation within quotations and references, small language and formatting changes are advised.

SGM has been changed to SM throughout the manuscript for uniformity.

5. There is insufficient contextual and demographic information about the participants in the manuscript, including their years of experience, gender, age, and professional jobs. By including these details, the study's overall methodological rigour would be strengthened, transparency would be improved, and readers could evaluate the sample's variety and representativeness.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this point regarding participant demographics. We fully agree that such details generally strengthen methodological transparency. Our approach in this instance, however, was guided by a critical ethical imperative. Conducting this research within a Nigerian context, where same-sex relationships are criminalized, required exceptional measures to protect our participants and the host institution. Given the small, unique pool of individuals in this single-institution case study, disclosing specific details like job titles or years of experience would present a tangible risk of re-identification. This could, in turn, expose participants to legal jeopardy or professional harm. In navigating this challenge, we sought a balance between transparency and safety. We have therefore provided all possible non-identifying information, including the total number of participants, their general roles, the gender distribution of the policymaker group, and a detailed account of the purposive sampling strategy. Furthermore, we have explicitly stated this ethical decision in the "Participant Selection" section of the manuscript.

We are confident that the study's rigor is firmly upheld through its comprehensive design, reflexive practices, and adherence to COREQ guidelines, ensuring both the integrity of the findings and the paramount safety of all involved.

6. It would be beneficial to make clear the precise rationale behind the purposive sampling, including if the selection criteria were gender, familiarity with the phenomena, professional role, or degree of involvement in sexual minority group advocacy. Giving this information would improve methodological transparency and bolster the participant selection process's legitimacy.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that providing a more detailed rationale for the purposive sampling strategy is crucial for methodological transparency and rigor. In response to this feedback, we will revise the "Participant Selection" subsection within the "Materials and Methods" section to explicitly state the specific criteria used for participant selection for both groups.