Rationalization of the Sacred: The Experiences of Alevi Dedes in Transmitting Their Beliefs and Values to Young People
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Assessment
This study aims to analyse processes of social transformation and internal tensions within Alevi communities based on semi-structured interviews conducted with sixteen “dedes” in several provinces of Central and Western Turkey.
The empirical material collected in this study is valuable and has the potential to contribute to ongoing academic debates on Alevism. However, despite this potential, the manuscript largely reproduces well-established narratives in the existing literature and presents several conceptual and methodological problems. In the following sections, I first offer a general evaluation and then provide more detailed comments on specific parts of the text.
(1) The manuscript presents a strong claim that there has been almost no prior research examining Alevism from the perspective of dedes. This claim, however, requires further qualification. A substantial part of the academic literature on Alevism has already focused on religious authority figures such as dedes, pirs, babas, and seyits, as well as on institutions such as the Ocak system. In this sense, the current study does not enter an unexplored field but rather contributes to an already well-established line of inquiry.
More broadly, the manuscript appears to reproduce a familiar analytical framework within Alevi studies. Much of the existing literature has been structured around dichotomies such as rural–urban, tradition–modernity, heterodoxy–orthodoxy, and has interpreted social change through processes such as urbanization, migration, secularization, and politicization. These approaches often construct an implicit contrast between an idealized “traditional” Alevism and its contemporary -so called modern Alevism-transformations. While such narratives have played an important role in earlier scholarship, they have also become highly conventional.
The challenge today is not merely to restate a narrative of loss, decline, or erosion of authority, but to analyse how Alevism is being reconfigured as a lived religious phenomenon under contemporary conditions. From the perspective of religious authority, the diversification of actors and the emergence of new forms of spiritual and identity-based engagement among younger generations should not automatically be framed as a story of disappearance. There is already a growing body of scholarship that highlights alternative patterns of continuity, adaptation, and transformation.
For this reason, I would encourage the author(s) to engage more extensively with the broader literature and to position the study more carefully within existing debates. Clarifying what exactly is new in the present contribution—conceptually, methodologically, or empirically—would significantly strengthen the manuscript.
(2) Although the manuscript appears to have been translated from Turkish with the help of AI-based writing assistants (as the author also acknowledges), the prose often reads as overly literal, and the author’s voice and argumentation can become difficult to follow. Overall, the manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading and stylistic editing by a proficient academic English speaker.
One example is the following sentence from the abstract: “Determining the problems that dedes experience in transmitting Alevi beliefs and values to young people in the urban environment and the innovative methods they develop to overcome the said problems constitutes the main problem of this study.”
Here, the repeated use of “problem” and the formulaic phrasing suggest a word-for-word translation that may sound unnatural and confusing to an English-language readership. More generally, several key terms remain vague. For instance, “young people” is used in a broad way without clarification: Which groups of young people are being discussed (age range, gender, social background, level of participation in Alevi institutions), and in what concrete contexts do dedes encounter “problems” in transmission?
Since the expectations and interpretive frameworks of an English-speaking audience may differ, translation alone is not sufficient. The text needs conceptual and stylistic adaptation so that the research question, key categories, and claims are communicated clearly and persuasively in English.
(3) Throughout the manuscript, in-text references are mostly given in the form of (Author, Year) without further specification. While this format is formally acceptable, in its current use it often appears overly general and at times superficial. It remains unclear which specific argument, empirical finding, or conceptual claim in the cited work is being engaged.
For readers who wish to follow up on the references—especially in the case of monographs or extensive edited volumes—it is difficult to identify which exact section or page supports the author’s claim. I would strongly recommend providing precise page numbers where appropriate, particularly when citing specific arguments or empirical findings.
In several instances, the connection between the cited source and the statement made in the manuscript is not entirely clear. This creates the impression that references are occasionally added in a broad or illustrative manner rather than in direct analytical dialogue with the cited work. A more careful and precise engagement with the literature—clearly indicating what is being adopted, debated, or critiqued—would considerably strengthen the scholarly rigor of the article.
(4) In lines 107–111, the manuscript states that it is “the first qualitative study” to investigate the transmission of Alevi beliefs and values to young people in an urban context from the perspective of dedes. This is a very strong claim and, in its current formulation, it is difficult to sustain. The academic literature on Alevism is extensive and internationally recognized, and numerous studies have examined issues of religious authority, generational transmission, urban transformation, and the relationship between tradition and modernity. Even if the precise configuration of this study may differ, the claim of being the “first” in such broad terms should either be substantially qualified or reformulated in a more modest and precise manner.
A second and more substantive issue concerns the use of key categories such as “Alevism” and “dede.” Although the field site is specified geographically, the conceptual framing often suggests a more general statement about Alevism as a whole. However, Alevism is a broad umbrella term that encompasses significant regional, linguistic, historical, and institutional variations. The institution of dede is not uniformly structured or defined across all Alevi contexts, and in some traditions different forms of religious authority exist.
Without clarifying how the terms “Alevi” and “dede” are defined in this particular study—historically, regionally, and institutionally—the analysis risks appearing overly general. Providing a more carefully delimited conceptual framework would strengthen the analytical precision of the manuscript and prevent unintended generalizations.
(5) In lines 111–119, the manuscript explains that the study was organized in three stages: first, a review of the literature on Alevi youth; second, an examination of urbanization and its impact on the dede institution and Alevi youth; and third, a comparison of interview data with existing studies. This description suggests that the article combines an extensive literature review with an empirical component that is explicitly positioned in dialogue with prior scholarship.
However, this broader framing is not fully reflected in the abstract, which presents the study primarily as an empirical investigation based on interviews with dedes. The relationship between literature review and empirical analysis should therefore be clarified and more consistently articulated throughout the manuscript.
Moreover, the three-stage structure itself indicates that the article is consciously embedded within an established body of research. This further weakens the strong claim that the study represents the “first” qualitative investigation of its kind. A more precise positioning—emphasizing how the present study extends, nuances, or reinterprets existing scholarship rather than inaugurating an entirely new field—would enhance the credibility and coherence of the manuscript.
(6) In the discussion section, the author(s) primarily engage with studies that align with the thematic structure and conclusions of the present manuscript. While this is understandable to a certain extent, the discussion would benefit from a broader and more critical engagement with the diversity of positions within Alevi studies.
There are alternative interpretations and analytical frameworks in the existing literature that approach questions of authority, generational change, and urban transformation in different ways. Interestingly, some of these works are already included in the reference list and occasionally cited in the manuscript, yet their arguments are not substantively engaged in the discussion section. Instead, they are referenced in more general or unrelated contexts.
I would recommend revisiting these studies more carefully and incorporating them into a more dialogical discussion. Engaging not only with scholarship that supports the manuscript’s conclusions but also with perspectives that complicate or challenge them would significantly strengthen the analytical depth and scholarly contribution of the article.
Detailed Notes:
(1) “Introduction”: The manuscript describes Alevism as a tradition transmitted mainly through oral culture and communal rituals “without institutionalization” and characterizes it as a “syncretic belief system” grounded in justice and solidarity. This framing is overly general and conceptually imprecise. Alevism is a broad umbrella term that includes significant regional, cultural, ethno-religious, and linguistic variation, and there are different scholarly approaches to defining it. The authors should briefly acknowledge this plurality and clarify which understanding of Alevism they adopt. In addition, the claim of “non-institutionalization” should be specified and revised: even without state recognition or written codification, many Alevi contexts are structured through institutionalized socio-religious roles and relations (e.g., Ocak affiliation, talip–rehber–pir–mürşid, musahiplik, kirvelik). It would be more accurate to clarify what kind of institutionalization is meant (formal recognition, bureaucratic organization, standardization) rather than presenting a blanket absence of institutions.
(2) (line 37). The phrase “they have even turned to marginal political movements” does not reflect the neutral and analytical tone expected in an academic article. The term “marginal” is evaluative and requires clarification: marginal from whose perspective—state institutions, mainstream society, or the authors? Moreover, the cited sources do not appear to substantiate such a categorical claim. The authors should either provide clearer empirical grounding for this statement or reformulate it in more neutral and analytically precise language.
(3) (line 62). The statement that “no study in the literature has directly examined the experiences of Alevi dedes” in this context is too absolute and, in its current form, inaccurate. As noted above, there is a substantial body of research engaging with religious authority, generational transmission, and the role of dedes within Alevi communities. Even if the specific combination of themes in this article is distinctive, the categorical claim of complete absence in the literature should be revised. Otherwise, it risks weakening the overall credibility of the manuscript.
(4) (lines 62–95). In this section, the authors summarize a considerable number of studies related to Alevi youth, identity formation, and transformations in religious authority. However, the review remains highly condensed and at times overly general. References to books and articles are often given without specifying which particular argument, finding, or conceptual contribution is being cited. In some cases, the interpretation presented in the manuscript does not fully correspond to the claims made in the referenced works. If the authors intend to position their study within existing debates on the dede institution and Alevi youth, this section should be more selective, analytically structured, and precise. A clearer identification of key arguments in prior research—and a more careful engagement with them—would significantly strengthen the scholarly foundation of the article.
(5) (lines 121–124). In this section, the authors should clarify what they mean by core categories such as “Alevi” and “dede.” The study makes use of emic terms, but it does not sufficiently explain how these concepts are understood both by the interviewees and by the authors themselves. Greater conceptual transparency is needed.
In addition, some statements in lines 123–124 are overly general and overlook the historical and cultural diversity within Alevi communities. The institutions of pirlik, dedelik, and seyitlik do not function as uniform or absolute authority mechanisms; they are embedded in relational structures (e.g., talip–pir–mürşid relations) that vary regionally. Moreover, contemporary Alevi contexts also include female religious authorities (anas), which should at least be acknowledged when discussing religious leadership.
(6) (line 126). The reference to “the prophet” is unclear and requires specification. It is not self-evident which prophetic figure is being invoked in this context, especially for an international readership. The authors should be careful and clarify the reference.
(7) (lines 121–140). The definitions of talip, dede, and Alevism in this section remain general and may create confusion for readers who are not already familiar with the field. A more structured explanatory framework—moving from general context to specific institutional roles—would improve clarity. For example, briefly outlining the relational framework of talip–rehber–pir–mürşid would situate the role of the dede within a broader socio-religious structure. This would also help avoid the impression that Alevi society consists solely of dedes and pirs, and that authority operates in a simple, unidirectional manner.
(8) Redundancy and conventional narrative structure. The subsection titled “The Dede and the Youth and Traditional and Modern Alevism” largely reiterates themes already introduced in the opening section. It could be integrated into the introduction to reduce repetition.
More importantly, the overall narrative follows a very familiar pattern in Alevi studies: rural-to-urban transition, modernization, politicization, secularization, and the weakening of traditional authority structures. While these processes are empirically relevant, this framework has been widely used for decades. The authors might consider how to move beyond this conventional storyline or, at minimum, clarify what new analytical insight their study offers within this established paradigm.
(9) (line 193). The phrase “traditional Alevi beliefs and traditions” is not sufficiently clear. What exactly counts as “traditional” in this context, and which beliefs or practices are being referred to? Since “tradition” is not a neutral category, the authors should define the term more carefully (and indicate whether it reflects the authors’ analytical language or the interviewees’ own framing).
(10) (around line 200–202). The manuscript states that semi-structured interviews provide “in-depth knowledge” and enable participants to share experiences “in an interactive manner,” but it does not explain how this was achieved in this study. The authors should briefly clarify what “interactive” means here (e.g., follow-up questions, probing, allowing participants to shape the direction of the conversation, iterative clarification) and how the interview guide was used in practice.
(11) (same section above). The manuscript refers to “more than one Ocak,” but does not explain what an Ocak is. Given the international readership of the journal, the authors should provide a short definition and indicate how Ocak affiliation relates to the authority and role of dedes in the studied context.
(12) (lines 216–221). This paragraph is particularly interesting and should be developed further. The authors note that “the large number of individuals identifying themselves as ‘dede’ nowadays” required limitations in participant selection, leading to purposive sampling (e.g., having led at least two cem ceremonies and having followers). This is not a minor technical detail: it has major implications for the scope, assumptions, and representativeness of the study.
At the moment, the manuscript states the criteria but does not reflect on their analytical consequences. The authors should explain more clearly why the number of self-identified dedes has increased, what criteria they used to distinguish between different forms of authority, and what their sampling choices imply for the findings. For instance: Do the authors assume that older dedes represent “traditional Alevism” more accurately than younger ones—and if so, on what basis? How are “traditional” and “new” dedes understood in the field? Who was excluded by these criteria, and why?
More generally, this issue could even serve as a stronger case-study framing for the article. At minimum, the selection process should be discussed more transparently and connected to the overall aims and limitations of the research.
(13) (lines 226–242). Although the study is based on qualitative, semi-structured interviews, the presentation of the findings tends to subsume the empirical material under pre-established analytical categories. As a result, the distinct voice of the dedes—their own conceptual, emotional, and symbolic universe—remains insufficiently visible. An emic perspective is not fully developed. If the aim is to situate the findings within broader debates on Alevi youth, urbanization, and social change, the authors should first reconstruct the meaning-world emerging from the field itself. This would require a clearer presentation of how dedes interpret their own roles and experiences within a broader relational context. Methodologically, this might also necessitate at least acknowledging the absence of other relevant actors (e.g., youth, community members) whose perspectives could contextualize the dedes’ accounts.
(14) The purpose of the subsection “4. Results” and its schematic categorization is not entirely clear, especially since much of the content repeats arguments already outlined in the introduction. The thematic structuring around major classical thinkers (Marx, Weber, Bourdieu) appears ambitious, but the core issues have already been introduced earlier in the manuscript. Reducing repetition and integrating overlapping sections would improve clarity and coherence.
(15) (section 4.1). The subsection “All That is Solid Melts into Air” draws on Marx and Engels’ well-known formulation from The Communist Manifesto. While such references are common in social science writing, there is a significant contextual mismatch here. The original formulation addressed transformations in production relations within 19th-century capitalist Europe. The socio-cultural changes affecting Alevism in contemporary Turkey operate within a very different historical, economic, and cultural framework. The authors may wish to develop subheadings and analytical categories more directly from their field material, rather than relying on broad theoretical metaphors that risk appearing forced or reductionist.
(16) (line 317). The term ikrar is introduced without explanation, as are references to forms of “exclusion.” Given the international readership of the journal, core concepts such as ikrar, Ocak, talip, and dede should be clearly defined in a conceptual framework section. Translation alone is not sufficient; the analytical and cultural meanings of these terms must be explained so that readers unfamiliar with Alevism can follow the argument.
(17) (lines 326–332). If interview quotations are translated from Turkish, this should be explicitly stated. Providing the original Turkish excerpts in footnotes would enhance transparency. Additionally, short demographic identifiers (e.g., role, approximate age range, gender, region) that preserve anonymity but situate the speaker socially would strengthen the empirical grounding of the study.
(18) (line 334). The applicability of Mannheim’s mid-20th-century generational theory to 21st-century Alevi contexts should be more carefully justified. Empirical findings do not necessarily need to be fitted into a grand theoretical template. Rather than relying on universalized theoretical frameworks, the authors might more directly connect their findings to the specific scholarly debates most relevant to their research questions.
(19) (lines 341–342). The repeated use of the phrase “traditional Alevi beliefs” reflects an implicit and insufficiently examined assumption. As noted earlier, “tradition” is not a self-evident category and carries normative implications. The authors should define what they mean by this term and clarify whether it reflects the language of participants or the authors’ own analytical framing.
(20) It appears that the same overarching analytical model (see 18) is applied across several thematic categories. However, the cultural, temporal, and social context in which the empirical data were produced should be more carefully aligned with the interpretive framework. While generational tensions may indeed exist in many religious contexts, reiterating such general observations does not necessarily deepen our understanding of the specific world from which this study emerges. A short explanatory paragraph that situates the findings within the symbolic and institutional structures specific to the studied Alevi communities would strengthen the contextual depth of the analysis.
(21) (section 4.3). Unlike other subsections that explicitly draw on named theorists, this section does not clearly indicate the analytical basis of its claims. The authors should clarify whether this subsection is grounded in specific theoretical references, empirical data, or both, and ensure consistency in how theoretical frameworks are mobilized across the results section.
Final Words
The study is based on original field data, and in this sense it has clear potential to make a meaningful contribution to current debates within its specific thematic scope. Empirical research conducted in a particular region and time frame can indeed enrich an already well-developed field—provided that the material is framed and analyzed with conceptual precision.
To strengthen the manuscript, the authors might consider rethinking its overall structure. A more effective approach would be to first situate the reader within the specific field context—its social setting, conceptual framework, and research problem—before engaging with the relevant literature in a focused and dialogical manner. Rather than summarizing a large body of scholarship, the literature review should selectively engage with key works that directly relate to the study’s aims. The authors could then build their analysis from their own empirical material, placing it in conversation with this literature.
With such a restructuring, the valuable data collected for this study could be transformed into a more coherent and analytically compelling contribution.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript requires careful proofreading and stylistic editing. Several passages read like overly literal translation (possibly AI-assisted), which affects clarity and precision, especially in the abstract and key definitions.
Author Response
Responses
Request -1. A substantial part of the academic literature on Alevism has already focused on religious authority figures such as dedes, pirs, babas, and seyits, as well as on institutions such as the Ocak system. In this sense, the current study does not enter an unexplored field but rather contributes to an already well-established line of inquiry.
Response-1. Dear Reviewer, first of all, it appears there was a translation error. We did not use artificial intelligence for the translation. However, such an error occurred during the translation process. Instead of using the phrase “no study,” we used the phrase “no encounter” in our research, providing detailed information and incorporating regional context. Thank you again. The revision has been made as you suggested.
Request-2. Although the manuscript appears to have been translated from Turkish with the help of AI-based writing assistants (as the author also acknowledges), the prose often reads as overly literal, and the author’s voice and argumentation can become difficult to follow. Overall, the manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading and stylistic editing by a proficient academic English speaker.
One example is the following sentence from the abstract: “Determining the problems that dedes experience in transmitting Alevi beliefs and values to young people in the urban environment and the innovative methods they develop to overcome the said problems constitutes the main problem of this study.”
Here, the repeated use of “problem” and the formulaic phrasing suggest a word-for-word translation that may sound unnatural and confusing to an English-language readership. More generally, several key terms remain vague. For instance, “young people” is used in a broad way without clarification: Which groups of young people are being discussed (age range, gender, social background, level of participation in Alevi institutions), and in what concrete contexts do dedes encounter “problems” in transmission?
Since the expectations and interpretive frameworks of an English-speaking audience may differ, translation alone is not sufficient. The text needs conceptual and stylistic adaptation so that the research question, key categories, and claims are communicated clearly and persuasively in English.
Response- 2. In our work, we have attempted to correct the necessary revisions through proofreading. We have endeavored to address your requests without compromising the overall focus of the work.
Request- 3. Throughout the manuscript, in-text references are mostly given in the form of (Author, Year) without further specification. While this format is formally acceptable, in its current use it often appears overly general and at times superficial. It remains unclear which specific argument, empirical finding, or conceptual claim in the cited work is being engaged.
For readers who wish to follow up on the references—especially in the case of monographs or extensive edited volumes—it is difficult to identify which exact section or page supports the author’s claim. I would strongly recommend providing precise page numbers where appropriate, particularly when citing specific arguments or empirical findings.
In several instances, the connection between the cited source and the statement made in the manuscript is not entirely clear. This creates the impression that references are occasionally added in a broad or illustrative manner rather than in direct analytical dialogue with the cited work. A more careful and precise engagement with the literature—clearly indicating what is being adopted, debated, or critiqued—would considerably strengthen the scholarly rigor of the article.
Response-3. Dear Reviewer, our study was originally formatted with page numbers for the citations, but we chose to use this citation style due to the journal’s requirements. Nevertheless, in accordance with your request, we have added the page numbers to the citations. Thank you.
Request - 4. In lines 107–111, the manuscript states that it is “the first qualitative study” to investigate the transmission of Alevi beliefs and values to young people in an urban context from the perspective of dedes. This is a very strong claim and, in its current formulation, it is difficult to sustain. The academic literature on Alevism is extensive and internationally recognized, and numerous studies have examined issues of religious authority, generational transmission, urban transformation, and the relationship between tradition and modernity. Even if the precise configuration of this study may differ, the claim of being the “first” in such broad terms should either be substantially qualified or reformulated in a more modest and precise manner.
A second and more substantive issue concerns the use of key categories such as “Alevism” and “dede.” Although the field site is specified geographically, the conceptual framing often suggests a more general statement about Alevism as a whole. However, Alevism is a broad umbrella term that encompasses significant regional, linguistic, historical, and institutional variations. The institution of dede is not uniformly structured or defined across all Alevi contexts, and in some traditions different forms of religious authority exist.
Without clarifying how the terms “Alevi” and “dede” are defined in this particular study—historically, regionally, and institutionally—the analysis risks appearing overly general. Providing a more carefully delimited conceptual framework would strengthen the analytical precision of the manuscript and prevent unintended generalizations.
Response- 4. The section of the study containing the phrase “the first qualitative study” has been revised to be more specific. Thank you for your feedback.
The concept of “Alevi” was not evaluated on a regional basis; instead, we attempted to support the concept of Alevism and other related concepts through references. Bektashism and other branches were not taken into account. Although authority may vary, as you, the esteemed reviewer, have noted, we have evaluated the issue of authority by focusing on Alevi dedes. Other institutional roles, such as rehber, were not considered due to the scope of the study. We have attempted to clarify this situation in the study.
Request - 5. In lines 111–119, the manuscript explains that the study was organized in three stages: first, a review of the literature on Alevi youth; second, an examination of urbanization and its impact on the dede institution and Alevi youth; and third, a comparison of interview data with existing studies. This description suggests that the article combines an extensive literature review with an empirical component that is explicitly positioned in dialogue with prior scholarship.
However, this broader framing is not fully reflected in the abstract, which presents the study primarily as an empirical investigation based on interviews with dedes. The relationship between literature review and empirical analysis should therefore be clarified and more consistently articulated throughout the manuscript.
Moreover, the three-stage structure itself indicates that the article is consciously embedded within an established body of research. This further weakens the strong claim that the study represents the “first” qualitative investigation of its kind. A more precise positioning—emphasizing how the present study extends, nuances, or reinterprets existing scholarship rather than inaugurating an entirely new field—would enhance the credibility and coherence of the manuscript.
Response- 5. The research stages you highlighted have been omitted to avoid confusion; instead, it has been added that the data collected from the field will be evaluated in comparison with the relevant literature to address the research question. However, as you, our esteemed reviewer, are well aware, there is a vast body of literature on Alevism. Our research focuses exclusively on the relationships between Alevi dedes and young people. There are studies that examine only Alevi dedes or, conversely, Alevi youth on their own. We highlighted this in the introduction to our study. However, since our study aims to examine the experiences gained by Alevi dedes through their interactions with youth based on their own observations, comparisons will be made with studies addressing the subject evaluated in the sub-themes.
Detailed Notes and Requests
Request -1. “Introduction”: The manuscript describes Alevism as a tradition transmitted mainly through oral culture and communal rituals “without institutionalization” and characterizes it as a “syncretic belief system” grounded in justice and solidarity. This framing is overly general and conceptually imprecise. Alevism is a broad umbrella term that includes significant regional, cultural, ethno-religious, and linguistic variation, and there are different scholarly approaches to defining it. The authors should briefly acknowledge this plurality and clarify which understanding of Alevism they adopt. In addition, the claim of “non-institutionalization” should be specified and revised: even without state recognition or written codification, many Alevi contexts are structured through institutionalized socio-religious roles and relations (e.g., Ocak affiliation, talip–rehber–pir–mürşid, musahiplik, kirvelik). It would be more accurate to clarify what kind of institutionalization is meant (formal recognition, bureaucratic organization, standardization) rather than presenting a blanket absence of institutions.
Response- 1. As you, the esteemed referee, are aware, the main focus of our study is the experiences of dedes in transmitting their values and faith-based teachings to young people. In this context, the study does not address claims regarding the history or syncretism of Alevism. There is a wealth of literature on this subject. However, out of concern that such discussions might divert the study’s focus, they have not been included in the study. Nevertheless, the revisions you requested have been incorporated into the study with specific clarifications. The term “non-institutionalization” has been removed, but references to syncretic claims have been added and supported with specific explanations. Our primary aim is to highlight that, unlike mainstream Sunni institutions, it has not been institutionalized by the state. However, we removed the relevant statement out of concern that it might lead to misunderstandings.
Request- 2. (line 37). The phrase “they have even turned to marginal political movements” does not reflect the neutral and analytical tone expected in an academic article. The term “marginal” is evaluative and requires clarification: marginal from whose perspective—state institutions, mainstream society, or the authors? Moreover, the cited sources do not appear to substantiate such a categorical claim. The authors should either provide clearer empirical grounding for this statement or reformulate it in more neutral and analytically precise language.
Responce-2. Dear Reviewer, the statement in question is not the authors’ own but is based on citations from numerous studies. Citation pages have been added to the study. Despite your assumption that “Moreover, the cited sources do not appear to substantiate such a categorical claim,” numerous authors directly state that young people joined marginal, even communist-Leninist organizations. However, we agreed with you in our study. We removed the relevant statement from the study. Instead of the relevant statement, we added the term “left-wing.”
Request- 3. (line 62). The statement that “no study in the literature has directly examined the experiences of Alevi dedes” in this context is too absolute and, in its current form, inaccurate. As noted above, there is a substantial body of research engaging with religious authority, generational transmission, and the role of dedes within Alevi communities. Even if the specific combination of themes in this article is distinctive, the categorical claim of complete absence in the literature should be revised. Otherwise, it risks weakening the overall credibility of the manuscript.
Response- 3. Dear Reviewer, we have made the necessary revisions. Thank you for your valuable contributions.
Request- 4. (lines 62–95). In this section, the authors summarize a considerable number of studies related to Alevi youth, identity formation, and transformations in religious authority. However, the review remains highly condensed and at times overly general. References to books and articles are often given without specifying which particular argument, finding, or conceptual contribution is being cited. In some cases, the interpretation presented in the manuscript does not fully correspond to the claims made in the referenced works. If the authors intend to position their study within existing debates on the dede institution and Alevi youth, this section should be more selective, analytically structured, and precise. A clearer identification of key arguments in prior research—and a more careful engagement with them—would significantly strengthen the scholarly foundation of the article.
Response- 4. The work notes that there is a significant body of research on this topic. Additionally, although not included in the study, other works on this subject have been reviewed separately. For example, “It is understood that studies on Alevi youth have addressed similar themes in dif-ferent contexts both in Türkiye and in Europe. First, findings related to the theme of identity show that, in Türkiye, the political climate after 1980 and the effects of urbani-zation led young people to move away from ideological orientations and toward indi-vidualization and the development of multiple identities; at the same time, exclusion and pressures of Sunnification also contributed to their politicization and to their search for a new oppositional public identity (Özmen 2011; Geçgin 2019; Tanyas 2024; Aktaş 2003; Özata 2020; Tol 2017; Şahin 2012). In Europe, particularly in Germany, it has been con-cluded that organizations have sought to reintroduce Alevi identity to young people through cooperation with schools and the Alevi community, and that these organizations, especially after the 1990s, facilitated young people’s re-engagement with religious and cultural identity while also strengthening community ties (Coşan Eke 2017; Loth and Tepeli 2019; Bozkurt 2015; Gültekin 2024; Sökefeld 2004; Dressler 2014; Bruinessen 2023; Gaeves 2003; Martens 2009). When the findings of studies on exclusion are considered, it becomes clear that, in Türkiye, the Sunni religious education received by young people and forms of exclusion based on belief not only led to politicization but also intensified identity crises and anxieties about the future (Tanyas 2024; Aktaş 2003; Özata 2020; Tol 2017). In European-focused studies, this theme indicates that experiences of exclusion prior to migration were carried abroad after migration, that Alevi families encouraged young people to conceal their identities, and that institutional openings such as legal recognition and religion courses increased the visibility of Alevi identity (Sökefeld 2003; Massicard 2010). Research in Türkiye on migration, urbanization, and secularization shows that young people’s participation in religious rituals weakened because of work and school obligations, and that individualization produced distance between young people and adults in relation to traditional knowledge and lived religious experience (Shankland 2003; Kehl-Bodrogi 2003). In European-oriented studies, by contrast, migration is un-derstood to have led to organization among young people through youth associations, thereby facilitating social solidarity and integration (Coşan Eke 2017; Loth and Tepeli 2019; Bozkurt 2015; Jenkins 2020; Sökefeld 2004). Works dealing with the theme of re-ligious rituals indicate that, in Türkiye, semah and saz training attract the interest of young people and that, through these practices, young people begin to show greater interest in religious rituals (Erol 2010; Soileau 2010). In European research, religious rituals appear to have been revived in public spaces through the encouragement of or-ganizations and through religious education (Langer 2013; Sökefeld 2004; Dressler 2014). Finally, studies conducted in Türkiye on digitalization find that digital platforms serve highly positive functions in compensating for inadequate knowledge about religion and tradition and also create supportive environments for identity debates (Sökefeld 2002b). In European studies on this theme, online environments and youth-oriented online practices such as muhabbet, semah, and music are seen to strengthen social ties among young people and to revive their interest in religious belief (Kreger 2023; Massicard 2010; Jenkins 2020).”
As can be seen above, a very detailed study has been conducted. However, due to the word limit of the study, this information has been summarized and included in the report. The concepts of Alevi dedes and youth have been specified in the notes and summary.
Request- 5. (lines 121–124). In this section, the authors should clarify what they mean by core categories such as “Alevi” and “dede.” The study makes use of emic terms, but it does not sufficiently explain how these concepts are understood both by the interviewees and by the authors themselves. Greater conceptual transparency is needed.
In addition, some statements in lines 123–124 are overly general and overlook the historical and cultural diversity within Alevi communities. The institutions of pirlik, dedelik, and seyitlik do not function as uniform or absolute authority mechanisms; they are embedded in relational structures (e.g., talip–pir–mürşid relations) that vary regionally. Moreover, contemporary Alevi contexts also include female religious authorities (anas), which should at least be acknowledged when discussing religious leadership.
Response- 5. Dear Reviewer, thank you for your feedback on our paper. The relevant section refers only to studies focusing on dedes and young people. We have included the literature cited in the introduction in the discussion section as well. Cultural differences and historical diversity do not constitute the main focus of our study. Due to specific word limits in the article, we were able to partially address your requests by providing brief information. Additionally, we view the role of the dede as a form of authority. It is rooted in a sacred lineage and possesses, at least to some extent, the characteristics of charismatic leadership over the community. Drawing on Weber, the dede essentially possesses this trait by birth. We support your claim regarding regionalism. Furthermore, although women (anabacı) are held in high regard in Alevism, they do not have the opportunity to lead the cemi or become a dede. Therefore, this cannot be considered a form of charismatic authority. Following your request, the value attributed to women has been added to the relevant section.
Request- 6. (line 126). The reference to “the prophet” is unclear and requires specification. It is not self-evident which prophetic figure is being invoked in this context, especially for an international readership. The authors should be careful and clarify the reference.
Response- 6. The relevant section has been corrected. You are absolutely right about this. Thank you very much. An oversight has been addressed.
Request- 7. (lines 121–140). The definitions of talip, dede, and Alevism in this section remain general and may create confusion for readers who are not already familiar with the field. A more structured explanatory framework—moving from general context to specific institutional roles—would improve clarity. For example, briefly outlining the relational framework of talip–rehber–pir–mürşid would situate the role of the dede within a broader socio-religious structure. This would also help avoid the impression that Alevi society consists solely of dedes and pirs, and that authority operates in a simple, unidirectional manner.
Response- 7. We have tried to provide detailed explanations of the concepts in parentheses or using a note. Thank you very much for your feedback. You have provided important information.
Request- 8. Redundancy and conventional narrative structure. The subsection titled “The Dede and the Youth and Traditional and Modern Alevism” largely reiterates themes already introduced in the opening section. It could be integrated into the introduction to reduce repetition.
More importantly, the overall narrative follows a very familiar pattern in Alevi studies: rural-to-urban transition, modernization, politicization, secularization, and the weakening of traditional authority structures. While these processes are empirically relevant, this framework has been widely used for decades. The authors might consider how to move beyond this conventional storyline or, at minimum, clarify what new analytical insight their study offers within this established paradigm.
Response- 8. Dear Reviewer, in this section, we have attempted to organize the material by providing partial examples from the literature regarding the relationship between the institution of the dedelik and young people. We have removed any sections that might be repetitive. However, we did not make changes to sections where we believed removal would compromise the integrity of the study. Thank you.
Migration and modernization are ongoing processes. We have evaluated the valuable information you provided on this topic, and the post-migration situation has been specified as that of third-generation Alevi youth migrating to the city. This is also noted in the methodology section. Thank you very much.
Request- 9. (line 193). The phrase “traditional Alevi beliefs and traditions” is not sufficiently clear. What exactly counts as “traditional” in this context, and which beliefs or practices are being referred to? Since “tradition” is not a neutral category, the authors should define the term more carefully (and indicate whether it reflects the authors’ analytical language or the interviewees’ own framing).
Response- 9. Our use of the concepts of tradition and modernity is supported by the references provided. Thank you very much for the information. We have made some revisions.
Request- 10. (around line 200–202). The manuscript states that semi-structured interviews provide “in-depth knowledge” and enable participants to share experiences “in an interactive manner,” but it does not explain how this was achieved in this study. The authors should briefly clarify what “interactive” means here (e.g., follow-up questions, probing, allowing participants to shape the direction of the conversation, iterative clarification) and how the interview guide was used in practice.
Response- 10. Dear reviewer, additional information regarding the issue you raised has been included.
Request- 11. (same section above). The manuscript refers to “more than one Ocak,” but does not explain what an Ocak is. Given the international readership of the journal, the authors should provide a short definition and indicate how Ocak affiliation relates to the authority and role of dedes in the studied context.
Request- 12. (lines 216–221). This paragraph is particularly interesting and should be developed further. The authors note that “the large number of individuals identifying themselves as ‘dede’ nowadays” required limitations in participant selection, leading to purposive sampling (e.g., having led at least two cem ceremonies and having followers). This is not a minor technical detail: it has major implications for the scope, assumptions, and representativeness of the study.
At the moment, the manuscript states the criteria but does not reflect on their analytical consequences. The authors should explain more clearly why the number of self-identified dedes has increased, what criteria they used to distinguish between different forms of authority, and what their sampling choices imply for the findings. For instance: Do the authors assume that older dedes represent “traditional Alevism” more accurately than younger ones—and if so, on what basis? How are “traditional” and “new” dedes understood in the field? Who was excluded by these criteria, and why?
More generally, this issue could even serve as a stronger case-study framing for the article. At minimum, the selection process should be discussed more transparently and connected to the overall aims and limitations of the research.
Response- 11-12. These two requests must be addressed together. First, the information that dedes would be paid a certain fee was expressed by the dedes themselves; consequently, the existence of a large number of individuals who are not of noble lineage but are capable of serving as dedes was highlighted. For this reason, the study primarily sought to include dedes who had presided over at least two gatherings and were recognized by the applicants from each clan at the regional level. Due to the sensitivity of the subject, the article does not mention any details regarding salaries or financial support.
Apart from this, no clan names are mentioned in the study. The reason for this is the possibility that personal information could be derived from the elders’ statements and their clans. Setting aside the clan or age criteria, one can attempt to infer which elder said what based on recurring comments in the interviews.
Request- 13. (lines 226–242). Although the study is based on qualitative, semi-structured interviews, the presentation of the findings tends to subsume the empirical material under pre-established analytical categories. As a result, the distinct voice of the dedes—their own conceptual, emotional, and symbolic universe—remains insufficiently visible. An emic perspective is not fully developed. If the aim is to situate the findings within broader debates on Alevi youth, urbanization, and social change, the authors should first reconstruct the meaning-world emerging from the field itself. This would require a clearer presentation of how dedes interpret their own roles and experiences within a broader relational context. Methodologically, this might also necessitate at least acknowledging the absence of other relevant actors (e.g., youth, community members) whose perspectives could contextualize the dedes’ accounts.
Response- 13. Dear Reviewer, we touched on this issue briefly in Response 12. In this study, which covers four provinces, the ages of the dedes were not disclosed due to the risk of revealing their identities. However, excerpts from some of the dedes’ interviews have been included in the text as footnotes in their original Turkish form. Additionally, in accordance with your request, the information that the dedes’ interviews were translated from Turkish to English has been added to the sections on reliability and validity. Due to research ethics and the sensitivity of the situation, it is not possible for us to provide even the slightest information about the dedes in this study.
Request- 14. The purpose of the subsection “4. Results” and its schematic categorization is not entirely clear, especially since much of the content repeats arguments already outlined in the introduction. The thematic structuring around major classical thinkers (Marx, Weber, Bourdieu) appears ambitious, but the core issues have already been introduced earlier in the manuscript. Reducing repetition and integrating overlapping sections would improve clarity and coherence.
Response- 14. The arguments and theoretical framework in the relevant section have been revised.
Request- 15. (section 4.1). The subsection “All That is Solid Melts into Air” draws on Marx and Engels’ well-known formulation from The Communist Manifesto. While such references are common in social science writing, there is a significant contextual mismatch here. The original formulation addressed transformations in production relations within 19th-century capitalist Europe. The socio-cultural changes affecting Alevism in contemporary Turkey operate within a very different historical, economic, and cultural framework. The authors may wish to develop subheadings and analytical categories more directly from their field material, rather than relying on broad theoretical metaphors that risk appearing forced or reductionist.
Response- 15. From the researchers’ perspective, these theorists are regarded as the intellectual forerunners of contemporary social theorists. For this reason, the section on Weber has not been removed from the study but has been incorporated into the discussion. Theorists such as Habermas, Bourdieu, and the Frankfurt School have been influenced by Weber. Therefore, the revisions you requested have been incorporated into the study to the greatest extent possible. Thank you very much for your guidance.
Request- 16. (line 317). The term ikrar is introduced without explanation, as are references to forms of “exclusion.” Given the international readership of the journal, core concepts such as ikrar, Ocak, talip, and dede should be clearly defined in a conceptual framework section. Translation alone is not sufficient; the analytical and cultural meanings of these terms must be explained so that readers unfamiliar with Alevism can follow the argument.
Response- 16. The relevant sections are explained in the notes.
Request- 17. (lines 326–332). If interview quotations are translated from Turkish, this should be explicitly stated. Providing the original Turkish excerpts in footnotes would enhance transparency. Additionally, short demographic identifiers (e.g., role, approximate age range, gender, region) that preserve anonymity but situate the speaker socially would strengthen the empirical grounding of the study.
Response- 17. First of all, thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Due to sensitivity regarding demographic information that could reveal the dedes’ ages and other details on a regional basis, such information has not been included. This sensitivity was communicated to the academic editor at the outset of the study. However, as you noted, the Turkish translations have been provided in the footnotes.
Request- 18. (line 334). The applicability of Mannheim’s mid-20th-century generational theory to 21st-century Alevi contexts should be more carefully justified. Empirical findings do not necessarily need to be fitted into a grand theoretical template. Rather than relying on universalized theoretical frameworks, the authors might more directly connect their findings to the specific scholarly debates most relevant to their research questions.
Response- 18. Thank you for your feedback on this matter. Revisions have been made to the relevant sections, and the sub-theories have been removed from the study. Other studies have been included in this context through a comparison of the data.
Request- 19. (lines 341–342). The repeated use of the phrase “traditional Alevi beliefs” reflects an implicit and insufficiently examined assumption. As noted earlier, “tradition” is not a self-evident category and carries normative implications. The authors should define what they mean by this term and clarify whether it reflects the language of participants or the authors’ own analytical framing.
Response- 19. The argument regarding tradition was made by emphasizing the way of life of the Alevi community in rural areas prior to migration. For this reason, the argument regarding tradition was supported by references. Thank you very much.
Request- 20. It appears that the same overarching analytical model (see 18) is applied across several thematic categories. However, the cultural, temporal, and social context in which the empirical data were produced should be more carefully aligned with the interpretive framework. While generational tensions may indeed exist in many religious contexts, reiterating such general observations does not necessarily deepen our understanding of the specific world from which this study emerges. A short explanatory paragraph that situates the findings within the symbolic and institutional structures specific to the studied Alevi communities would strengthen the contextual depth of the analysis.
Response- 20. The relevant section has been revised
Request- 21. (section 4.3). Unlike other subsections that explicitly draw on named theorists, this section does not clearly indicate the analytical basis of its claims. The authors should clarify whether this subsection is grounded in specific theoretical references, empirical data, or both, and ensure consistency in how theoretical frameworks are mobilized across the results section.
Request- 21. First of all, thank you very much for your feedback. As you pointed out, we have attempted to include the theories mentioned in the subthemes in the discussion section. In the findings section, we have attempted to evaluate the results in light of the theories outlined in the main themes, and have made some revisions accordingly.
Final Words
The study is based on original field data, and in this sense it has clear potential to make a meaningful contribution to current debates within its specific thematic scope. Empirical research conducted in a particular region and time frame can indeed enrich an already well-developed field—provided that the material is framed and analyzed with conceptual precision.
To strengthen the manuscript, the authors might consider rethinking its overall structure. A more effective approach would be to first situate the reader within the specific field context—its social setting, conceptual framework, and research problem—before engaging with the relevant literature in a focused and dialogical manner. Rather than summarizing a large body of scholarship, the literature review should selectively engage with key works that directly relate to the study’s aims. The authors could then build their analysis from their own empirical material, placing it in conversation with this literature.
With such a restructuring, the valuable data collected for this study could be transformed into a more coherent and analytically compelling contribution.
Response to final words: Dear reviewer, first of all, the researchers have endeavored to address the shortcomings you pointed out to the best of their ability. This study is based on two years of field research. The subject is quite sensitive on Turkey’s agenda. Additionally, to avoid sparking new debates among Alevi communities, to not betray the trust of the dedes, and to avoid compromising the ethics of the research, certain information had to be kept confidential. The study was conducted as part of a sociological academic collaboration aimed at presenting the existing situation as it is. The sensitivity of the Alevi issue was given significant priority in the study. Great effort was made to adhere strictly to the keywords in the research. Some of the requests you mentioned have been incorporated into the study, supported by ample citations. Numerous works on this subject in the literature were added to the Maxqda program and coded. Citations are therefore included in the code. To avoid providing inaccurate information on a topic, a single-citation model was not adopted. However, the journal’s request was not to include page numbers. We added the numbers in accordance with your request. Due to the 200-word limit in the abstract, we were only able to include the purpose, methodology, and a few findings. As the research team, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback and guidance.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Rationalization of the Sacred: The Experiences of Alevi Dedes in Transmitting Their Beliefs and Values to Young People” presents an empirical study that brings into focus the transmission of Alevi beliefs and values to the younger generation within an urban context, as well as the experiences of Alevi dedes regarding the difficulties and challenges of this transmission. The study is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 16 active dedes, providing valuable first-hand accounts. As such, it offers the field of Alevi studies interesting, original, and empirically grounded material. The article is also supported by an extensive and relevant bibliography on Alevism.
The introductory sections follow a structure common to articles on Alevism, offering a broad overview of the tradition’s religious, political, and social dimensions. While such contextualization is understandable, especially given the multifaceted nature of Alevism, similar articles on Sunni youth, for example, do not typically begin with extensive general descriptions of Sunnism. Considering the substantial existing scholarship on Alevism, these background sections could perhaps be streamlined. This is particularly relevant given that the article appears in a special issue dedicated to Alevism, where an editorial introduction is likely to provide additional context. Instead, it might have been more fruitful to situate the study within broader processes that the article implicitly addresses, such as internal migration, urbanization, and intergenerational relations in Turkey.
The temporal dimension of the analysis remains somewhat unclear. Attention is devoted to the migration waves of the 1960s; however, migration has been an ongoing process that continues to shape Turkish society. It is not entirely clear whether the “youth” discussed in the article represent second- or third-generation urban Alevis. Furthermore, are there differences in perspectives within dede-talip relations between those born in villages and those born and raised in urban settings? At times, the article gives the impression that “youth” is treated as a static category across different historical moments (e.g., during the initial migration wave of the 1960s and in 2025).
The Alevi revival of the 1990s is described as a “recent development,” although three decades have passed since its peak. It would be helpful to show what current socio-political developments are shaping (young) Alevi identities today.
The article notes that Alevi youth question their identity – whether Alevism is part of Islam, influenced by Islam, or primarily cultural. Are these questions not asked by the older generations?
Methodological issues
- The article appears to analyze Alevi youth somewhat in isolation from broader developments in Turkish society. The impression may arise that the alienation of Alevi youth from religious traditions is unique. Are Sunni religious leaders facing comparable challenges in terms of declining youth engagement? More broadly, are these trends part of global patterns affecting religious communities? Addressing such comparative dimensions could strengthen the analytical depth.
- The chosen methodology is described as inductive, allowing dedes to speak from their own experiences:
Therefore, the study evaluated the changes in traditional dede roles under the influence of urbanization and dedes' strategies for adapting to modern environments from their own perspectives (pp. 195–197).
The study employed a descriptive phenomenological research design since it allows for an understanding of the essence of Alevi dedes' daily life experiences and their perceptions and interpretations of different issues (pp. 226–227).
Although the study is initially defined as a descriptive phenomenological research design, a clear theoretical framing emerges in the Results chapter, where the themes are analyzed within the theoretical frameworks of Marx and Engels, Pierre Bourdieu, Zygmunt Bauman, Peter Berger, and Max Weber. No explicit justification is provided for the selection of these specific theories to frame the dedes’ experiences. The structuring of themes according to classical theories suggests an interpretative rather than strictly descriptive phenomenological approach. This creates a methodological tension between the stated research design and the analytical implementation.
It would therefore be advisable to provide additional clarification in the methodology section, explaining how and why the theoretical frameworks are integrated into the Results chapter, so that readers are not taken by surprise.
3. A further methodological question concerns data collection. The article states:
During the interviews, each dede was first given a demographic form to collect some information about them, and their answers to the interview questions were recorded in a notebook. These notebooks were destroyed after the carefully preserved data were quickly transcribed (pp. 234–236).
Was there an assistant recording the interviews while the researcher conducted them? What precisely is meant by “transcribed” in this process? Does this refer to a summarized and already partially analyzed version of the material? Greater clarity on this process would enhance methodological transparency.
Varia
I would suggest including Hege Marie Markussen’s doctoral dissertation, Teaching History, Learning Piety in an Alevi Foundation in Contemporary Turkey (2012), in the discussion, as it provides relevant insights into contemporary Alevi teaching contexts.
In the Discussion chapter, the original empirical findings at times recede into the background behind references to previous scholarship. While engagement with the literature is important, the study’s own contributions could be more strongly foregrounded.
The reference to Zygmunt Bauman (2000, pp. 7–84) appears unusually long. Is the entire page range intended to support a single statement?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The article is written in understandable English. However, it occasionally employs very long, convoluted sentences, making the argument difficult to follow.
For example:
It is understood that although Alevi youth, who have frequently been excluded and marginalized in the public sphere during certain periods of history, could maintain their commitment to their beliefs and values in villages in the past, their commitment to Alevi beliefs and tradition has been damaged due to factors, such as inclusion in modern education, working lives, career planning, not marrying, weakened communication with their families, and individualization after migration to cities. (703-708)
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer
Request- 1- The introductory sections follow a structure common to articles on Alevism, offering a broad overview of the tradition’s religious, political, and social dimensions. While such contextualization is understandable, especially given the multifaceted nature of Alevism, similar articles on Sunni youth, for example, do not typically begin with extensive general descriptions of Sunnism. Considering the substantial existing scholarship on Alevism, these background sections could perhaps be streamlined. This is particularly relevant given that the article appears in a special issue dedicated to Alevism, where an editorial introduction is likely to provide additional context. Instead, it might have been more fruitful to situate the study within broader processes that the article implicitly addresses, such as internal migration, urbanization, and intergenerational relations in Turkey.
Response-1. Dear Reviewer, we have made the necessary adjustments regarding the young people in accordance with your request. Information on the third generation has been included. For the purposes of this study, only young people who were born and raised in the city were considered. Thank you very much for your valuable feedback.
Request- 2. The Alevi revival of the 1990s is described as a “recent development,” although three decades have passed since its peak. It would be helpful to show what current socio-political developments are shaping (young) Alevi identities today. The article notes that Alevi youth question their identity – whether Alevism is part of Islam, influenced by Islam, or primarily cultural. Are these questions not asked by the older generations?
Response- 2. In accordance with your feedback, the phrase “recent” has been removed. The research team considered that this phrase could compromise the integrity of the study and, in light of your valuable feedback, decided to remove it. The reference to the debate regarding Alevism’s connection to Islam was included solely as a metaphor, as it was raised by Engin. Thank you very much.
Request- 3. The article appears to analyze Alevi youth somewhat in isolation from broader developments in Turkish society. The impression may arise that the alienation of Alevi youth from religious traditions is unique. Are Sunni religious leaders facing comparable challenges in terms of declining youth engagement? More broadly, are these trends part of global patterns affecting religious communities? Addressing such comparative dimensions could strengthen the analytical depth. The chosen methodology is described as inductive, allowing dedes to speak from their own experiences: Therefore, the study evaluated the changes in traditional dede roles under the influence of urbanization and dedes' strategies for adapting to modern environments from their own perspectives (pp. 195–197).
Response- 3. You are correct on this point; we have softened our language. When we analyzed the situation of Sunni youth in detail in the study, we chose not to intervene because doing so risked diverting attention from the core focus of the topic. However, the language has been softened while ensuring that the data and information are supported by citations. Thank you very much.
Request- 4. The study employed a descriptive phenomenological research design since it allows for an understanding of the essence of Alevi dedes' daily life experiences and their perceptions and interpretations of different issues (pp. 226–227). Although the study is initially defined as a descriptive phenomenological research design, a clear theoretical framing emerges in the Results chapter, where the themes are analyzed within the theoretical frameworks of Marx and Engels, Pierre Bourdieu, Zygmunt Bauman, Peter Berger, and Max Weber. No explicit justification is provided for the selection of these specific theories to frame the dedes’ experiences. The structuring of themes according to classical theories suggests an interpretative rather than strictly descriptive phenomenological approach. This creates a methodological tension between the stated research design and the analytical implementation.
It would therefore be advisable to provide additional clarification in the methodology section, explaining how and why the theoretical frameworks are integrated into the Results chapter, so that readers are not taken by surprise.
Response- 4. Following your valuable feedback, the research team has moved the theoretical information to the discussion section and reorganized the thematic analyses and theme titles in the findings section
Request- 5. A further methodological question concerns data collection. The article states: During the interviews, each dede was first given a demographic form to collect some information about them, and their answers to the interview questions were recorded in a notebook. These notebooks were destroyed after the carefully preserved data were quickly transcribed (pp. 234–236). Was there an assistant recording the interviews while the researcher conducted them? What precisely is meant by “transcribed” in this process? Does this refer to a summarized and already partially analyzed version of the material? Greater clarity on this process would enhance methodological transparency.
Response- 5. You are absolutely right about that. Following your advice, the necessary information has been added to the relevant section, and additional explanations have been provided.
Request- 6. I would suggest including Hege Marie Markussen’s doctoral dissertation, Teaching History, Learning Piety in an Alevi Foundation in Contemporary Turkey (2012), in the discussion, as it provides relevant insights into contemporary Alevi teaching contexts. In the Discussion chapter, the original empirical findings at times recede into the background behind references to previous scholarship. While engagement with the literature is important, the study’s own contributions could be more strongly foregrounded. The reference to Zygmunt Bauman (2000, pp. 7–84) appears unusually long. Is the entire page range intended to support a single statement?
Response- 6. The information in Markussen’s doctoral thesis was compared at your suggestion, and it was noted that the article cites Markussen. When examined in this context, the section cited in the article appears to be related to the doctoral thesis. We are grateful for this valuable information. Additionally, the section regarding Baumann was removed from the manuscript at the request of the other reviewer.
Request- 7. Comments on the Quality of English Language
The article is written in understandable English. However, it occasionally employs very long, convoluted sentences, making the argument difficult to follow.
For example: It is understood that although Alevi youth, who have frequently been excluded and marginalized in the public sphere during certain periods of history, could maintain their commitment to their beliefs and values in villages in the past, their commitment to Alevi beliefs and tradition has been damaged due to factors, such as inclusion in modern education, working lives, career planning, not marrying, weakened communication with their families, and individualization after migration to cities. (703-708)
Response- 7. We appreciate the valuable feedback you provided. The necessary adjustments have been made, and the long sentences have been split into two.
Final Words:
Dear Reviewer, this study was developed over a period of more than two years through the collection of field data. Thanks to your valuable contributions, the article has been improved. In particular, the information you provided regarding the research design has been very enlightening for researchers, and we have worked to further improve the study as a result.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors & Editors,
The revised version of the manuscript demonstrates a number of important improvements. In particular, the removal or moderation of overly strong claims, the inclusion of more precise referencing—although, within the limited timeframe (only 3 days) of the second review process, it is naturally not possible for the reviewer to verify each citation against every book chapter, article, and monograph consulted, and the academic responsibility for the accuracy and appropriateness of these references ultimately rests with the authors—the clarification of certain methodological aspects, and the restructuring of parts of the results section have contributed to making the manuscript more coherent and accessible than its previous version. These revisions indicate that the authors have engaged with several of the reviewer’s comments in a constructive manner.
At the same time, it is observed that some of the central issues raised in the initial review have not been fully addressed at a structural and analytical level. This is, of course, ultimately a matter of the authors’ academic priorities and the editorial judgment of the journal. The following remarks are therefore offered both for the authors’ consideration and for the editors’ evaluation of the manuscript in its current form.
For instance, the response to the points highlighted (Requests 11–12; Response 11–12) appears to shift the discussion toward issues of confidentiality and field sensitivity, which are understandable but do not fully address the main concern raised in the review. The issue was not the disclosure of names, payments, or other sensitive details, but rather the analytical implications of the sampling strategy itself. The observation that a growing number of individuals identify themselves as “dede” is not merely a technical issue of participant selection; it points to a potentially significant transformation in the structure and legitimacy of religious authority. In the revised version, however, this remains largely treated as a practical limitation rather than being reflected upon as an important analytical dimension of the study.
Similarly, the response to Request 13 appears to interpret the comment primarily as a matter of anonymity and research ethics, whereas the main point concerned the mode of analysis and presentation. The issue raised was not the absence of further demographic detail, but the tendency to subsume the interview material under pre-structured analytical categories, which limits the visibility of the dedes’ own conceptual, emotional, and symbolic world. While the revision of some subheadings and the partial modification of the overall narrative structure are positive developments, the broader suggestion—to allow the field material to speak more clearly in its own terms—does not yet seem to have been fully taken up.
In addition, the tone of several responses (e.g., “as you, the esteemed reviewer, are aware…”) introduces an unnecessary degree of personalization into what is ideally an impersonal academic exchange. In anonymous peer-review processes, it is generally preferable to keep the response strictly focused on the substance of the comments and revisions. Phrases of this kind may be read as rhetorically marked or open to unintended interpretations, even where no such intention exists. A more neutral, concise, and argument-centered tone would therefore be advisable.
Overall, while the manuscript has clearly benefited from a number of revisions, the main analytical concerns outlined in the initial review remain only partially addressed. The suggestions provided were intended to support a stronger conceptual and analytical framing of the study. Whether and to what extent these points are further developed is, ultimately, a matter for the authors to decide and for the editors to evaluate. In its current form, the manuscript is more coherent than its initial version, yet the core issues identified above persist and may merit further reflection.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe overall clarity of the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version. However, the text would still benefit from further language editing to enhance fluency, precision, and readability for an international academic audience.
Author Response
Request- 1. For instance, the response to the points highlighted (Requests 11–12; Response 11–12) appears to shift the discussion toward issues of confidentiality and field sensitivity, which are understandable but do not fully address the main concern raised in the review. The issue was not the disclosure of names, payments, or other sensitive details, but rather the analytical implications of the sampling strategy itself. The observation that a growing number of individuals identify themselves as “dede” is not merely a technical issue of participant selection; it points to a potentially significant transformation in the structure and legitimacy of religious authority. In the revised version, however, this remains largely treated as a practical limitation rather than being reflected upon as an important analytical dimension of the study.
Similarly, the response to Request 13 appears to interpret the comment primarily as a matter of anonymity and research ethics, whereas the main point concerned the mode of analysis and presentation. The issue raised was not the absence of further demographic detail, but the tendency to subsume the interview material under pre-structured analytical categories, which limits the visibility of the dedes’ own conceptual, emotional, and symbolic world. While the revision of some subheadings and the partial modification of the overall narrative structure are positive developments, the broader suggestion—to allow the field material to speak more clearly in its own terms—does not yet seem to have been fully taken up.
Response- 1. The relevant request has been drafted as follows:
The growing number of people who identify as “dede” today suggests that, with the migration to urban settings, the criteria of the legitimacy of authority have become more pluralized, religious leadership has become more contested, and its forms of representation in the city are being renegotiated. Although the present study does not directly examine this transformation, the sampling criteria were designed to focus on dedes who are recognized by the community, actively conduct cem ceremonies, and maintain on-going relationships with their talips.
Explanations of Ocaks and other concepts have been provided briefly in the footnotes. A detailed analysis has not been included, as it would divert attention from the focus of this study. Conceptual explanations for an international audience are discussed in the notes section.
Some changes have been made to both the findings and the discussion sections. Efforts were made to present the evaluations from the dedes’ own perspectives. However, the original text has been preserved to avoid compromising the overall coherence of the study.
Request-2. In addition, the tone of several responses (e.g., “as you, the esteemed reviewer, are aware…”) introduces an unnecessary degree of personalization into what is ideally an impersonal academic exchange. In anonymous peer-review processes, it is generally preferable to keep the response strictly focused on the substance of the comments and revisions. Phrases of this kind may be read as rhetorically marked or open to unintended interpretations, even where no such intention exists. A more neutral, concise, and argument-centered tone would therefore be advisable.
Response- 2. Considering the reviewer's suggestion, we have made the tone of the responses more neutral.
Overall, while the manuscript has clearly benefited from a number of revisions, the main analytical concerns outlined in the initial review remain only partially addressed. The suggestions provided were intended to support a stronger conceptual and analytical framing of the study. Whether and to what extent these points are further developed is, ultimately, a matter for the authors to decide and for the editors to evaluate. In its current form, the manuscript is more coherent than its initial version, yet the core issues identified above persist and may merit further reflection.
Response- 3. Some changes have been made to the study. Without compromising the integrity of the study, certain phrases—such as “based on the grandparents’ accounts” and “within the regional context”—have been added to the findings and discussion sections. In this way, the study seeks to highlight the grandparents’ statements. On behalf of the project team, we would like to thank you very much for your feedback.
