“Hair for Freedom” Movement in Iran: Interreligious Dialogue in Social Media Activism?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article provides a clear background on the "Hair for Freedom" social media campaign, its context, and the research questions it aims to address. However, I believe a few suggestions for improvement will enhance the article's overall quality and readability:

Research questions: While the research questions are relevant, they could be framed more concisely and coherently. They should either go at the end of the theoretical framework section or the methods section, not the introduction section.

The data itself is predominantly descriptive; you will not engage the readers' attention or critical faculties. In other words, you need to think about your data's point and what is novel and meaningful about it. My advice here would be: to start from what is novel in your data and work back from there to build an argument which will underline its significance.

The introduction could benefit from a more structured presentation. For example, consider dividing the introduction into separate paragraphs to address the background, the research questions, and the methodology.

The methods section comprehensively describes the data collection and analysis processes. However, there are a few suggestions that could further enhance the clarity and rigour of this section:

- Justification for chosen platforms: Briefly explain why Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok were selected as the platforms for data collection beyond their popularity.

- Language translation: Explain translating posts from different languages into English. Specify the translation tool used, if any, and discuss any potential limitations or biases arising from the translation process.

- Ethical considerations: Briefly address the ethical concerns of collecting and analyzing social media data, such as privacy and potential harm to participants.

- Validation of topic modelling: Discuss any validation techniques used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the topic modelling process. For example, were any measures of coherence or stability applied to assess the quality of the generated topics?

- Inter-coder reliability: If multiple coders were involved in the codification?

Overall, the findings and discussion sections of the manuscript are well-structured and provide precise data analysis. The authors have identified the main topics encountered within the hashtag #HairforFreedom and discussed their relevance in the context of digital spaces and hashtag feminism. The language analysis and discussion on the transnational reach of the campaign also highlighted the potential for interreligious dialogue. However, a few areas could be improved or expanded upon.

- The findings show that religion was not a central theme in the hegemonic discourses, with a more political approach being taken. It would be helpful for the authors to discuss further why this may be the case and whether this is unique to the #HairforFreedom campaign or a common trend in similar movements.

- The discussion on the lack of interreligious dialogue (IRD) could be more nuanced. The authors acknowledge that the main focus was women's rights and that the conversation was politically framed by occidental and secular perspectives on hijab. However, there could be a deeper analysis of why opportunities for open and deep IRD were lost and what factors might have contributed to this.

- The manuscript could benefit from a more thorough discussion of the study's limitations. For example, the authors mention that Iranian authorities have blocked access to social media platforms, affecting the ability of Iranians to participate in conversation. This limitation and any other potential limitations should be discussed in more detail to provide a balanced perspective on the findings.

- The findings indicate that most interactions on social media were superficial, with users simply liking content without engaging in any conversation. It would be interesting for the authors to explore the reasons behind this. 

In conclusion, while this manuscript presents valuable insights, I encourage the authors to address the areas of concern outlined in this review and further strengthen their analysis to enhance their work's overall quality and impact.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is an original contribution. It is at the intersection of several disciplines (Feminist Studies, Digital Religion, and Sociology of Religion) and, for this reason, it is of methodological interest. The theoretical framework is clearly designed and coherently supports the working hypothesis of the netnographic research. The data analysis is well conducted. The text flows clearly and the arguments are convincing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study of Hair for Freedom examines the movement using textual analysis of social media posts guided by these research questions.

* RQ 1: Was Islamic religion or, by its turn, women’s rights the main topic commented on the social media posts?

* RQ 2: Did users who engaged in the social media campaign disclose their religious beliefs?

* RQ 3: To what extent did the conversation of the #HairForFreedom campaign enable IRD on social media interactions? 

A have a few comments for sharpening this manuscript.

1. I am not clear why these three research questions are the most pressing ones. May I suggest some revisions? (RQ1) What were the most prevalent themes that emerged from Hair for Freedom social media posts? Did Hair for Freedom posts focus principally on Islam, women's rights, or some other topic? (RQ2) To what degree did religious values or beliefs prompt people to generate social media posts about Hair for Freedom? (RQ3) Did the social media exchange over Hair for Freedom prompt intrareligious, interreligious, or supra-religious dialogue? In short, all questions could be opened up a bit, with the answers to them rephrased as well.

2. A bit more detail on topic modelling seems in order. Why was this the best approach to use?

3. The IRD question leads to an unsurprising conclusion. First, genuine dialogue via social media is difficult to achieve, given the homophilic algorithms that govern many platforms. Second, it seems like this is a secular form of activism that is critical of Islam, or this form of Islam anyway. Therefore, the lack of IRD is understandable. Could this be a supra-religious dialogue inasmuch as it operates at the boundaries of religion and secular life? I do wonder if the authors should reconsider this question altogether because it seems like such a stretch to even entertain it. But I leave that choice to the authors.

4. Do I detect a hint of criticism that non-Muslims are posting about this controversy? Perhaps I am wrongly perceiving this. Some of the language seems like it's implying that those outside the faith are leveraging this controversy to their advantage. If so, is that accurate? Social media influencers and actors are often expected to take up causes, and may genuinely believe in them, in the same way that people may donate to support specific causes. It is right to recognize the interests potentially at play here, but they are complicated. Greater recognition of that complexity seems in order. 

5. The manuscript ends abruptly. How about limitations and directions for future research being addressed?

Generally, I like this paper and wish the authors well on a revision if given the opportunity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors:

I greatly appreciate your revisions to the manuscript, and I believe it is now ready for publication. However, please take a closer look at the beginning of the article (line 20), as the first sentence seems unclear and may be an easily rectifiable error.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I commend the authors on a sound revision. The very first line of the article has a nonsensical typo in my version. The manuscript could benefit from one final copy edit.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf