In Her Multimedia Words: Ukrainian Women in The Netherlands, Belonging and Temporary Protection Status

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a qualitative study that examines the social media use of Ukrainian refugee women in the Netherlands. The main research question is, "how does social media use mediate or inform sense of belonging?" The article also builds upon previous research by the taking into account the unique temporary protected status of the participants, and by looking at social media use upon refugee arrival, not just origin and transit. Through semi-structured interviews, the authors build upon the digital migration studies literature. As the authors note, and I agree, this work is both "timely and relevant" given the dynamic context in which it takes place.

 

I support publication of this article due to its unique contribution, clear narrative, and expansive theoretical grounding. I would only suggest the following clarifications for the audience:

 

1. The authors use the "intersectionality" quite often; I am sure it is one that will be familiar to most readers, but I wonder if a little bit more context would help in this regard (because it appears so frequently in the text).
2. Beyond the use of social media upon arrival, could the contributions be fleshed out a little more at the beginning of the paper? For example, the findings on the use of Russian language were quite interesting. 
3. It is a small sample size, and the authors do acknowledge this. Is it possible to provide a table, or more information about the participant demographics? And the questions of the study (maybe in an appendix). I was very curious...
4. A more detailed section on how the coding was conducted would be very helpful.

Author Response

As we explained to the editors, we are very grateful for the careful and thoughtful consideration of our article, the well-taken criticisms and suggestions, and the encouraging feedback. We have found it all very useful in improving the article, and necessary to ensure its scientific quality. We hope that we have correctly understood and sufficiently addressed all highlighted concerns.

 

Comment 1: The authors use the "intersectionality" quite often; I am sure it is one that will be familiar to most readers, but I wonder if a little bit more context would help in this regard (because it appears so frequently in the text).

 

Response 1: Thank you for this good point. In this revised version, you will see that we have worked through the document to clarify our use of an intersectional lens and strengthen our argument for its relevance in this case. We revised the introduction, theoretical framework and literature review, analysis section, and conclusion accordingly. Most importantly, we have made a concerted effort to consistently highlight the various intersecting factors at play—not just gender, but also legal status (particularly how temporary protection differs from other beneficiary statuses), education level, language proficiency, and digital literacy. Finally, a clear paragraph on intersectionality is now added in lines 280–29.

 

Comment 2: Beyond the use of social media upon arrival, could the contributions be fleshed out a little more at the beginning of the paper? For example, the findings on the use of Russian language were quite interesting.

 

Response 2: We explained the participants used social media before arrival (thank you for pointing out we neglected to mention this). Regarding Russian language use, we tried to be clearer about this explanation in the analysis section (730-797, for example).

 

Comment 3: It is a small sample size, and the authors do acknowledge this. Is it possible to provide a table, or more information about the participant demographics? And the questions of the study (maybe in an appendix). I was very curious...

 

Response 3: We appreciate this point and have added an appendix as well as more information in the analysis section.

 

Comment 4: A more detailed section on how the coding was conducted would be very helpful.

 

Response 4: We added a couple of lines on the coding process—thank you for flagging this (557-560).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines how Ukrainian women in the Netherlands use social media and how their  Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) status affects their experience of belonging in multiple contexts. Theoretically, the study departs from two theories, digital migration studies and intersectional theory, to investigate how these women navigate connectedness to both their new physical community and their digital diaspora.  The study adopts a qualitative, semi-structured interview to collect the data, and the author used the snowball method to recruit the informants. As a consequence, 16 women participated in the study.  Similarly; the method also needs to be developed. The only information we have is that 16 women were recruited to the study through the snowball technique. We know nothing of their age, educational background, profession, or how long they lived in the Netherlands. How was data saturation achieved? How was the data analysed concretely? Methodologically, the research is limited by its small, purposively sampled group and reliance on self-reported data from interviews conducted in English, which may have excluded non-English speakers or those less digitally literate. These factors, coupled with the absence of triangulation (e.g., observational data or digital trace analysis), constrain the generalizability and depth of the findings.

The eclectic theoretical framework of the study requires clarity. The authors need to clearly delineate the concepts of the theories used, define them, and describe how the concepts associated with the is used in data analysis. In addition, why do the authors need the theories to explain and understand the phenomenon they are studying?  Theory guides and interprets the results of research/study, and as such it needs to be clearly delineated in a research paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language needs improvement in the future if the authors resubmit the paper. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: The paper examines how Ukrainian women in the Netherlands use social media and how their  Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) status affects their experience of belonging in multiple contexts. Theoretically, the study departs from two theories, digital migration studies and intersectional theory, to investigate how these women navigate connectedness to both their new physical community and their digital diaspora.  
Response 1: As we explained to the editors, we are very grateful for the careful and thoughtful consideration of our article, the well-taken criticisms and suggestions, and the encouraging feedback. We have found it all very useful in improving the article, and necessary to ensure its scientific quality. We hope that we have correctly understood and sufficiently addressed all highlighted concerns. We would stress that we went through the entire document and better streamlined the theory section as well as references to the intersectional frame throughout, as well as provided an Annex with demographic data and further clarified the methodology section. 
Comment 2: The study adopts a qualitative, semi-structured interview to collect the data, and the author used the snowball method to recruit the informants. As a consequence, 16 women participated in the study.  Similarly; the method also needs to be developed. The only information we have is that 16 women were recruited to the study through the snowball technique. We know nothing of their age, educational background, profession, or how long they lived in the Netherlands. How was data saturation achieved? How was the data analysed concretely? 
Response 2: Thank you for these well-taken criticisms. We have now provided an annex with demographic information and have eliminated one participant that did not correspond to the methodological approach. We have also added a couple of lines on the coding process—again thank you for flagging this (557-560).
Comment 3: Methodologically, the research is limited by its small, purposively sampled group and reliance on self-reported data from interviews conducted in English, which may have excluded non-English speakers or those less digitally literate. These factors, coupled with the absence of triangulation (e.g., observational data or digital trace analysis), constrain the generalizability and depth of the findings.
Response 3: We appreciate this critique and have further elaborated on the study’s limitations in the conclusion. We have also further emphasized that the sample is skewed in terms of educational attainment. We also note that a third researcher (non-author) collected the information (line 551); this speaks to language limitations. 
Comment 4: The eclectic theoretical framework of the study requires clarity. The authors need to clearly delineate the concepts of the theories used, define them, and describe how the concepts associated with the is used in data analysis. In addition, why do the authors need the theories to explain and understand the phenomenon they are studying?  Theory guides and interprets the results of research/study, and as such it needs to be clearly delineated in a research paper.
Response 4: We understand the reviewer’s point of view about multiple theoretical approaches and have eliminated some parts of the theory section, attempting to more clearly highlighted and define our intersectional approach both throughout and via a paragraph on intersectionality is now added in lines 280–297.