A Photovoice Study on the Lived Experiences of Youth and Mothers of Incarcerated Fathers and Husbands, Highlighting the Relevance of Abolitionist Social Work Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for this compelling and useful manuscript. 

There is a lot I appreciate about the manuscript and the study including that the methodology could inspire others to use CBPR and Photovoice. 

My main feedback is that I'm not sure you make a strong enough connection between the findings of the photovoice and the arguments for abolitionist social work practice. Your framing of divestment / reinvestment makes sense and as I read it, is the overarching abolitionist frame for your recommendations that follow. But aside from the divestment frame  the recommendations read as ones that aren't necessarily abolitionist and if you took out the divestment frame could read as recommendations rooted in a wide range of ideological and political commitments. This is coupled with language like over policing that leaves the reader with the idea that some policing is ok and / or needed. This is all to say that I would suggest making the links between the findings of the study to your practice and policy recommendations more clear, and more explicit about why the findings should compel us towards more abolitionist oriented social work. 

Author Response

Comment 1: I'm not sure you make a strong enough connection between the findings of the photovoice and the arguments for abolitionist social work practice. Your framing of divestment / reinvestment makes sense and as I read it, is the overarching abolitionist frame for your recommendations that follow.

We have addressed this by making stronger connections between our findings and abolitionist social work practice. We removed the term "over-policing" and replaced with police surveillance. We hope this is a more compelling argument for abolitionist social work practice and not only divestment. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper began strongly and I was intrigued by the methodological approach; the Abstract appeared to clearly summarise the research and key findings.  However, it later became apparent that the participants were from Black/minoritised backgrounds, which is a key omission from both the Abstract and the introductory section of the paper.   Furthermore, the title of the paper itself is misleading - it was only in the discussion of the limitations of the study that it was noted that not all participants had experienced parental imprisonment, but may have experienced the incarceration of other family members; it is crucial that this is addressed and made clear from the outset of the paper.

The introduction itself was light on engagement with relevant literature; there was limited discussion of the impact of ACEs and this was not considered through the lens of race or ethnicity.  Similarly, the more theoretical discussion of double consciousness was a little confusing - the Abstract seemed to indicate that the focus of the paper was on the dual/double consciousness of humanity and injustice, yet elsewhere this seems to be more about race/ethnicity - is it, indeed, both?

Much more detail needs to be provided about the methodology, including an explanation of what photovoice is, for those unfamiliar with the technique; more information about sampling, recruitment, consent and other ethical considerations is needed, including greater detail on the focus groups with mothers and, as noted above, clarity on the experiences of familial incarceration (ie how many had experienced parental incarceration and how many the experience of imprisonment of other family members).  

Better signposting is needed throughout the paper, to help the reader navigate it.  The images and quotes from the participants need to be anchored to each other and to the narrative presented in the paper, rather than just 'floating'.

It is not clear from the findings and discussion how many of the issues raised were specifically related to experiences of parental imprisonment, rather than to wider experiences of poverty, discrimination and so forth - the discussion is much broader than experiences of incarceration.  While there are clear inter-relationships between incarceration and other forms of disadvantage and discrimination, this is not overtly discussed within the paper.

The claims regarding dual/double consciousness are not fully substantiated by the evidence presented nor fully discussed.  There is a lack of connectedness between the evidence presented in the introduction/literature review and the demands for change in the latter parts of the paper; a more consistent, inter-connected narrative that runs throughout the paper would help to portray a more coherent argument, which could better support the conclusions made.  

The paper does have promise - despite significant omissions, it is clearly and engagingly written; if the flaws and lacunae in the argument can be addressed, it could provide an interesting addition to knowledge of the impact of familial imprisonment and its implications for abolitionist social work practice.

Author Response

Comment 1: Furthermore, the title of the paper itself is misleading - it was only in the discussion of the limitations of the study that it was noted that not all participants had experienced parental imprisonment, but may have experienced the incarceration of other family members; it is crucial that this is addressed and made clear from the outset of the paper.

Response: We altered the title and added that all participants are from Black or African. There were only 2 participants who didn't have an incarcerated father - we addressed this by adding clarification in sample and throughout. 

Comment 2: the impact of ACEs and this was not considered through the lens of race or ethnicity. 

Response: We included ACE's in the intro - as parental incarceration has been identified as significant childhood traumatic event. Ace's doesn't address or include Race. We did, in fact include the impact of race on incarceration rates in the US and Connecticut.

Comment 3: Much more detail needs to be provided about the methodology, including an explanation of what photovoice is, for those unfamiliar with the technique; more information about sampling, recruitment, consent and other ethical considerations is needed, including greater detail on the focus groups with mothers and, as noted above, clarity on the experiences of familial incarceration (ie how many had experienced parental incarceration and how many the experience of imprisonment of other family members).  

Response: We addressed this by adding information to methodology, signed assent, IRB approval and added clarity in sample regarding participants with incarcerated father and the two without (an uncle -father-figure and brother).

Comment 4: Better signposting is needed throughout the paper, to help the reader navigate it.  The images and quotes from the participants need to be anchored to each other and to the narrative presented in the paper, rather than just 'floating'.

Response: We addressed this by better incorporating the quotes and discussions from participants into narrative form - rather that "floating" under pictures.

Comment 5: It is not clear from the findings and discussion how many of the issues raised were specifically related to experiences of parental imprisonment, rather than to wider experiences of poverty, discrimination and so forth - the discussion is much broader than experiences of incarceration.  While there are clear inter-relationships between incarceration and other forms of disadvantage and discrimination, this is not overtly discussed within the paper.

Response: We followed the data - participants identified these themes which highlighted the intersectionality of incarceration with poverty, race and other forms of oppression.

Comment 6: a more consistent, inter-connected narrative that runs throughout the paper would help to portray a more coherent argument, which could better support the conclusions made. 

Response: We addressed this by adding literature, clarifications and making better connections regarding abolition practice and findings as also commented on by Reviewer #1.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The suggestions and recommendations I made in my first report have largely incorporated and the paper is now significantly improved.  There are still a few typographical errors / unclear sentences throughout but hopefully these will be identified through the copyediting process