Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

Thank you for sharing this family history! I hope it is within the sphere of interest of the journal, which I don't know: Thought geneaology usually dealt with cases larger than just a son and his parents/mother? Assuming that the journal accepts N = 1 cases (your introspection) I note the following minor aberrations that yo can easily correct.

Line (L) 51 became > become

L 64 and many more places uneven size of types

L 315 soup bowl distance No exact KM distance for this I understand, but when is it exceeded?  Here and other places you write "within" when one might (rather) write "in" (but for the soup it would be within).

L 340 "operation": repetition, cf. L 262

L 365 "as good care as children---" (no "did")

L 378 "much flexible"  > very flexible

L 380 re. caregivers who don't want to themselves rely on their children when/if in need themselves:  There is some old and more recent studies which have noted that younger and older persons don't want to be a burden to their children (or other family). They would rather find professional care, if available and affordable. They say. /See for ex. Brody 1981 ´Women in the MIddle´ and Family Help to Older People, and she there mentions older research showing this although no source mentioned. My Spanish colleagues showed this in a survey, as we have done also in Sweden. Probably international, maybe you can find some research on this?.

L 407 unclear: "for me filial piety is not a confusing concept of "submissiveness"  So, what is it?

L 473 "I argue that the concept---"

L 485 Different kinds of solidarity: Yes, and may vary? Families can be different, and there is also ambivalence and ambiguity...

L 578 a "network of transnational caregivers", sounds like a pipe dream... who can/will organize that? Families are in fact sometimes such a network?

Finally, with the more than 100 million migrants, transnational caregiving is a common issue, and you might do well to find some research on that. I remember having seen pieces, but can't come up with any name right now.

Your English is fair but can be improved, I feel; not being a native English speaker myself...

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Journal: Genealogy

Manuscript ID: genealogy-2863760  

Title of Paper:  An Autoethnography on Intergenerational Relationships and Transnational Care for Older Parents

Summary of research and overall impressions:

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. I certainly appreciate the author’s work in the area of intergenerational relationships and transnational care for older parents. I was excited to read this manuscript as there is emerging research (as well as an urgency) in addressing the caregiving perspective of transnational children / loved ones. As such, a publication of this type has the potential to address a major gap in the research literature. Provided major revisions that provide additional context, and elaboration on sections that I outline below, I think the paper will make a valuable contribution to the literature. 

I think that it would be important to contextualize care practices in China and to center more Chinese perspectives or epistemologies. That is, I would encourage the author to outline epistemologies or genealogies of that expand beyond the one-child policy. I found it curious that much of their literature of care is contextualized within Western or Eurocentric perspectives– including notions of intergenerational solidarity. To me, it would have been fruitful to expand on notions of filial piety and notions of family structures in China (before and after the one-child policy) or even in Asia so that the audience has a better sense of the magnitude and emergence of transnational care. This would also allow the author to better highlight the contradictions and tensions that they address in their findings. There is something to be said about centering diasporic realities (as the author does), but I think there is an opportunity to shift the caregiving gaze away from Eurocentric assumptions about care, and center Chinese specific perspectives (and Southeast Asian or Asian perspectives broadly). 

In addition to providing context to care in China, I would also ask the author to provide a theoretical framework that helps their audience understand the relevance of intergenerational solidarity. I couldn’t quite see the fit between intergenerational solidarity when most of the article focuses on the author’s tensions and joys of providing care for their mother. If intergenerational solidarity the central framework in understanding this work, then it ought to have its own section, and should be interviewed throughout the findings and discussion. At present intergenerational solidarity is mentioned at the literature, and then in the conclusion. In addition, filial piety and consensual solidarity needs to be defined in a more robust way.

In the methods section, the author seems to oscillate between methodology (autoethnography) and research design. For research design, I would be interested to know whether there was consideration to their mother’s reciprocal care exchanges, or implications of their mother being identified once this work is published. What was the process of member checking, or receiving institutional REB clearance? 

The strength of the article lies in the results, where I appreciated the autoethnographic journey, and the author's negotiation between online and in-person care. A few notes: I think there is something to be said about the gendered dynamic of care, where the care literature has extensively offered feminist critiques and contributions to the interconnection of gender,  labour, immigration and care. How might the author engage with the gendered nature of care,and how do these expectations shift as a result of intergenerational and transnational care? I also wonder to what extent does permanent residency status and/or citizenship in the adopted society mitigate expectations or obligations to provide care transnationally. 

Generally speaking I appreciated the discussion section, but found that that the final paragraph was rushed and overly general. I would encourage the author to be specific on what policies could be suggested in China and in Canada that could substantiate their claims.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your thoughtful edits. I look forward to seeing your work published, and eventually citing this work.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your insightful feedbacks. I appreciate it so much!