When Help Hurts: Moral Disengagement and the Myth of the Supportive Migrant Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and timely article that engages with an important and underexplored topic. The thematic focus is clear, and the empirical material is rich. However, several structural and stylistic improvements are needed to strengthen the clarity and impact of the paper.

1. Introduction Structure and Focus:

While the inclusion of background information is useful, the current placement at the beginning of the introduction creates confusion regarding the central aim of the paper. I suggest opening the introduction with a clear statement of your research question, objectives, and key argument. The background can then follow to provide necessary context. At present, the background section reads too similarly to the literature review and should be repositioned accordingly. A rewritten introduction should guide the reader more directly into the core concerns of the study.

2. Literature Review – Redundancies and Style:

The literature review is generally comprehensive but contains some repetitious phrasing, particularly in the references to previous studies (e.g., "The past study of Tan (2022)"; "The past study of Kussy & Comas-d’Argemir"). Consider varying the expression and integrating the references more fluidly into the analytical narrative.

3. Sentence Clarity and Language Refinement:

Several sentences require revision for clarity and grammatical accuracy. For instance:

• "Moreover, the older migrants that exploit the newer ones are sensing the moral disengagement which means that they feel in their situations, it is considered acceptable to break the law and engage in unethical exploitation."
  → Consider simplifying and clarifying this: "Moreover, older migrants who exploit newer arrivals often exhibit moral disengagement, perceiving their actions as justifiable or acceptable given their circumstances."

• "However, this seems that the migrants to conflict with the first theme which shows diffusion of responsibility."
  → Suggested revision: "However, this seems to contradict the first theme, which highlights a diffusion of responsibility among migrants."

• "However, this raises another question 'What is the migrants are non-Muslims' which was mostly ignored by the participants."
  → Suggested revision: "However, this raises a further question—what if the migrants are non-Muslim?—a topic largely overlooked by participants."

Careful copy-editing throughout the manuscript would improve the overall coherence.

4. Need for Contextual Precision:

In the methodology section, you state: "The study focused on migrants residing in the Muwailah area of Sharjah."
Please specify the geographical and socio-political context of this area (e.g., its location within the United Arab Emirates, its demographic composition, relevance to migrant populations, etc.).

5. Strengthening Analytical Depth and Coherence:

Page 12 stands out for its analytical sharpness. The clarity, depth, and conceptual integration in this section should serve as a model for the rest of the manuscript. I recommend reviewing earlier sections to ensure a similar level of critical engagement and cohesion.

6. Conclusion Structure and Argumentation:

The conclusion would benefit from a more cohesive and integrative structure. Avoid subdividing it into multiple subsections. Instead, use the space to restate the main argument, synthesise key findings, and reflect on their broader implications. Throughout the paper, consider inserting one or two reminder sentences that clearly reaffirm the research aim and analytical focus, to maintain a strong through-line across sections.

Final Recommendation:

The paper has strong potential, particularly given the quality of analysis in the later sections. With a more focused introduction, improved clarity in language, and stronger cohesion between sections, it will be significantly strengthened.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive feedback on my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in reading the paper and providing such thoughtful comments.

In response to your suggestions:

• I have revised the introduction to clearly state the research question, objectives, and key argument upfront, followed by a repositioned background to improve the flow and focus.

• The literature review has been edited for clarity and variation in phrasing, with more seamless integration of references into the narrative.

• Several sentences identified as unclear have been revised for grammatical accuracy and improved coherence.

• I have expanded the methodology section to provide more contextual detail on the Muwailah area in Sharjah, including its demographic and social relevance.

• I reviewed earlier sections of the manuscript to better align their analytical depth with the level found on page 12, ensuring consistency and conceptual integration throughout.

• Finally, the conclusion has been restructured as a single integrative section that synthesises the findings and reflects on their wider implications, while re-emphasising the core research aim.

Your insights have significantly improved the structure and impact of the paper, and I am sincerely grateful for your contribution to strengthening the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall I think this is an interesting and important article. It is a much needed corrective to assumptions about the supportive nature of migrants networks. It is worthy of publication but I would like to encourage the author(s) to consider the points below:

In my view the argument could be improved by more overt reflection on diversity within communities of migrants and a clearer definition of who is meant by 'migrants'. There is little discussion here of the nature and make-up of the migrant communities where the research was undertaken beyond a note about 'migrants residing in the Muwailah area of Sharjah' (line 328) home to 'clusters of South Asian migrants ranging from Indian and Pakistani workers to Nepali and Bangladeshi residents' line 331.  Is it reasonable to extrapolate from this highly diverse group to 'migrants' in general? The research uses the administrative category of 'migrant' to identify the group rather than any cultural, religious, social, historical characteristic and this is an important limitation that should be at least acknowledged in line 697. Do these observations apply to privileged migrants who live in Sharjah (or in the Gulf more widely?) There is a sub-text in the article that implies migrants are living precarious lives - many definitely are but what the groups of migrants who are sometimes referred to as ex-pats?

Reflexivity - this has been claimed but not really explained. How did the researchers negotiate their social, cultural, educational similarities and differences with the research participants?

The interviews bring out interesting and telling examples of how, when and if migrant communities support and protect each other. The power of these insights is reduced as diversity within the migrant communities is flattened and unexplored.

Language: Overall the article is written in clear and appropriate language but there are many small typos and mistakes which spoil the flow of the writing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. Your comments helped refine both the clarity and depth of the study.

In response to your suggestions, I have implemented the following changes:

• Clarified the definition of “migrants” and acknowledged the heterogeneity within migrant populations. The manuscript now specifies that the focus is on low-income South Asian labour migrants, and it explicitly cautions against generalising findings to all migrant groups, including privileged expatriates.

• Added a dedicated reflexivity paragraph in the methodology section to explain how positionality and social distance were navigated during fieldwork.

• Strengthened the discussion on precarity and class, making a clear distinction between vulnerable labour migrants and more affluent migrant populations.

• Revised for language clarity and corrected typographical errors throughout the manuscript to improve readability and coherence.

I greatly appreciate your contribution to improving the quality and rigour of this paper. Thank you again for your time and support.

Warm regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The idea of ​​the article is important, the negative aspects of the migrant network are not so easy to identify, so the authors are quite innovative.
However, many questions arise about the respondents. There are very few of them, their socio-demographic characteristics are not disclosed, in general, there is no description of those whose specificity is very important.
The number of respondents does not allow us to consider the study quantitative. And for a qualitative study, a much deeper study is needed. The study requires more details and particulars. Different aspects of relationships are also important.
In addition, a lot is said about the migrant network, at the same time there is no network analysis, which is also a disadvantage. At the same time, connections and relationships are extremely important.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and for recognising the contribution of this work to the underexplored dimensions of migrant networks.

I appreciate your concern regarding the sample size and the level of demographic detail provided about the participants. In response, I have now expanded the methodology section to include a clearer socio-demographic profile of the respondents, such as their nationalities, gender, employment sectors, age ranges, and duration of stay in the UAE.

While the number of participants may appear limited, the study was designed as a qualitative ethnographic investigation rather than a statistical inquiry. The depth and richness of insight required in this type of research depend not on quantity but on contextually grounded engagement with the lived realities of participants. As is common in ethnography, data saturation was observed after a small but intensive round of interviews and participant observations, consistent with qualitative standards (e.g., Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Regarding the suggestion on network analysis, I respectfully agree that mapping connections can be valuable. However, this study sought to explore the moral and emotional fabric of intra-community harm, which is not easily reducible to formal network graphs. While I did not apply social network theory in the technical sense, I critically unpacked how social ties are experienced, manipulated, or withheld. That said, I have acknowledged this limitation and recommended formal network analysis as a potential future direction in the revised version.

Undertaking this research ethically and sensitively particularly with undocumented or vulnerable migrant workers required careful trust-building over time. I believe the current approach balances academic rigour with ethical responsibility and a commitment to portraying the voices of marginalised individuals as accurately and respectfully as possible.

Thank you once again for your guidance and for helping to improve the clarity and rigour of the manuscript.

Warm regards,