Identity Negotiation and Conflict Resolution in Contemporary Multicultural Settings: The Contribution of Intercultural Mediators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery good article! Congratulations!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we would like to express our deep gratitude for the very positive feedback you have provided.
Thank you!
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article makes a valuable contribution to understanding the professional requirements and institutional frameworks for intercultural conflict mediation, while highlighting areas needing further research and development. You outline a standard for mediation practice(s) in different cultural contexts, drawing on extant literature, identifying the most pertinent skills and principles a training program should include. You paint a picture of the ideal mediator, the competencies he/she/they should embody as they enter dynamic, unpredictable intercultural and multicultural fields. The paper will be valuable for many readers at all tiers of diplomacy(!) Congratulations on the thematic analyses, the review of mediation legislation across EU/EEA countries, training requirements, accreditation processes, standards and oversight. The inclusion of the case studies across multiple countries is of particular note.
That said, I have two concerns. First, more empirical data on effectiveness would strengthen the essay, whether surveys or interviews with mediators who reflect on their experiences, successes and failures. Perhaps this is something to develop in further case studies, and going beyond the European context would be valuable as well.
Second, and more importantly for strengthening this essay, is the clarification of your repeated use of the metaphor "capital". You mention cultural capital, linguistic capital, cognitive capital, and implied throughout is social or relational capital. But you do not explicitly differentiate these important concepts except through implication, and you confuse 'cultural' capital with 'social' capital. I believe a section up front on these different metaphors of "capital" is strongly advised--or at least extended footnotes.
At the risk of being presumptuous about your knowledge of the intellectual traditions associated with these concepts, let me offer some direction.
'Cultural capital' in the sociological tradition following Weber, Durkheim and Bourdieu in the Continental tradition involves knowledge, skills, education, and other advantages, related to higher status in societies. See Pierre Bourdieu's seminal work on this subject, and more recently Prieur & Savage (2013) among others. And yes, prejudices etc. arise from differentiation in cultural capital, which overlaps with what Bourdieu defines as 'social capital'--resources based on group membership, relationships, networks of influence and support at all tiers of society/diplomacy. The more one is aware of, takes account of, and cultivates soci0-cultural capital (as a mediator), embodying the competencies you so skillfully present, the greater the potential for success at conflict management (halting violence), transforming relationships (see Lederach), and resolving most conflicts that have not become intractable.
Linguistic capital, as you suggest, involves the ability to use appropriate language in different social contexts, mastering multiple languages and dialects, which are capabilities that reflect a kind of genius of social relations (as Bourdieu puts it in Language and Symbolic Power). More on this crucial element of mediator communicative competence in intercultural contexts would strengthen.
Cognitive capital is about the capacity to think and solve problems on-the-cusp and otherwise. It's about will power and volition, information processing, memory and processing new knowledge based on what is already known (especially about the history of a conflict), intellectual engagement, recognizing opportunities and ripeness. I suggest you refer to Mourlier-Boutang on "cognitive capitalism" and the seminal work of Anderson on 'the architecture of cognition'; Sternberg and others would also provide you with more credibility in using this concept
Clearly, there are plenty of overlaps/linkages of these concepts, such as the cultural-linguistic 'capital' interface, e.g. code-switching; the social-cultural as when cultural knowledge provides opportunities for social connections, etc. The social-cultural capital linkage is evident also in status markers, recognition of group membership, which is so important in all fields of conflict mediation; the linguistic--cognitive relationship is suggested in your essay, but more on how language influences thought patterns, the problems mediators face of interpretation and 'reading' others, and so on, would strengthen.
Finally, my own bias about bias is that no person can transcend it; there really is no such thing as "neutrality" in such contexts. The best that a mediator can do is work toward an "affirmative ethnocentrism" that involves radical reflection on one's own prejudices (in the hermeneutic sense) and work toward the practice of impartiality in judgment. Power functions in all mediation situations/contexts; to be 'neutral' is often to turn a blind eye to the influence of power. In mediation sessions of direct contact, and through back-channels, erring on the side of the weaker party is an attribute, which requires a judgment call of the intercultural mediator who seeks to be impartial and just in their assessment and recommendations for resolution or settlement.
So, in sum, your etic approach is commendable, but in my view it glosses if not begs important questions of 'capital' and 'power'. I believe a foray into the different conceptions of 'capital' with promise of development to come, would strengthen the essay mightily. As would more emphasis on the quandaries presented for intercultural mediators by power relations (which encompass all forms of 'capital').
All the best in this important work.
Author Response
Comment one: First, more empirical data on effectiveness would strengthen the essay, whether surveys or interviews with mediators who reflect on their experiences, successes and failures. Perhaps this is something to develop in further case studies, and going beyond the European context would be valuable as well.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, we would like to express our deep gratitude for the very positive feedback you have provided. We agree with you and thank you for pointing this out. We are, definitely, interested in getting deeper in the field and combine this study with some more research studies, and focus on specific geographical areas.
Comment two: Second, and more importantly for strengthening this essay, is the clarification of your repeated use of the metaphor "capital". You mention cultural capital, linguistic capital, cognitive capital, and implied throughout is social or relational capital. But you do not explicitly differentiate these important concepts except through implication, and you confuse 'cultural' capital with 'social' capital. I believe a section up front on these different metaphors of "capital" is strongly advised--or at least extended footnotes.
Response 2: Ιn response to your second comment, we have proceeded to add some relevant information to support our understanding of cultural capital and have taken into account your suggestions.
In addition, the cultural asymmetry that strongly characterizes modern societies is often accompanied by significant difficulties and barriers to communication be-tween people with different cultural and linguistic capitals. Linguistic capital involves the ability to use appropriate language in different social contexts, mastering multiple languages and dialects, which are capabilities that reflect a kind of genius of social re-lations (as Bourdieu puts it in Language and Symbolic Power), whereas cultural capital in the sociological tradition following Weber, Durkheim and Bourdieu in the Conti-nental tradition involves knowledge, skills, education, values and norms that apply and evolve within a social group related to higher status in societies (Prieur and Sav-age 2013). In this vein, migrants possess distinct linguistic and cultural values, along with attitudes and behaviors, that set them apart from the dominant cultural norms. These attributes can be seen as cultural capital, providing migrants with certain bene-fits in adapting to and thriving in their new environment (Karpava and Ringblom 2023). Differentiation in cultural capital could lead to cultural stereotypes, cultural misunderstandings, prejudices, discrimination and racism, and in various types of conflict.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author/s,
thank you for this interesting submission, I enjoyed reading your paper which I find to be of good quality and so it was well received overall. However, I can see some areas that require improvement as below:
1. The method of analysis is not clear as there seems to be content analysis confused with thematic analysis as in places both terms are used and then interchangeable too. Please pick one and stick with it. I can see that Braun and Clarke are cited which makes me think that thematic analysis is used and so I recommend their more recent writings (2019-2022) where they critique this method and its use. I do not recognize the 'three classes of themes'-?
2. There seems to be confusion around using primary versus secondary data/sources as it is stated that primary sources were used in the form of existing official documents which would normally be classed as secondary data where primary data is what is actually generated/collected via interviews, for instance.
3. References - in the introduction where Greece is given as an example of a country that received many migrants in recent times there is a recent reference followed by one from 2015 - please rephrase this as it reads awkward.
Where there is a gap in literature/knowledge identified - it would be good to include a reference there to prove the point.
4. In section 6 where there is reference to intersectionality, I'd suggest adding ethnicity, national origin, etc. since the paper is about cultural mediators as this seems more relevant than gender, for instance.
I hope you will find these comments helpful. All the very best.
Author Response
Comment 1: The method of analysis is not clear as there seems to be content analysis confused with thematic analysis as in places both terms are used and then interchangeable too. Please pick one and stick with it. I can see that Braun and Clarke are cited which makes me think that thematic analysis is used and so I recommend their more recent writings (2019-2022) where they critique this method and its use. I do not recognize the 'three classes of themes'-?
Response1: First of all, we would like to express our gratitude for your pertinent comments, which we have taken into account in further improving our text. With regard to your first comment, we focused on the thematic analysis, clarified global theme, organizing themes and basic themes, and updated relative bibliography with more modern sources.
Comment 2: There seems to be confusion around using primary versus secondary data/sources as it is stated that primary sources were used in the form of existing official documents which would normally be classed as secondary data where primary data is what is actually generated/collected via interviews, for instance.
Response 2: Regarding your second comment, we have retained the term "secondary sources" as our research interest is focused only on textual review.
Comment 3: References - in the introduction where Greece is given as an example of a country that received many migrants in recent times there is a recent reference followed by one from 2015 - please rephrase this as it reads awkward.Where there is a gap in literature/knowledge identified - it would be good to include a reference there to prove the point.
Response 3: Regarding your comment on refugee flows in Greece in 2015, was replaced with a more up-to-date reference to the number of refugees who entered Greece in the last five years.
Comment 4: In section 6 where there is reference to intersectionality, I'd suggest adding ethnicity, national origin, etc. since the paper is about cultural mediators as this seems more relevant than gender, for instance.
Response 4: regarding your comment on intersectionality gender and age were deleted, whereas ethnicity and national origin were added as well.
Thank you!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAn excellent article. The article seems commonsensical, and although the subject of negotiation and conflict resolution is well studied, as well as the contribution of intercultural mediators (see for example Giménez, Romero, C. 1997. and Weihong Guho, 2025), The mention of principles as responsibility, loyalty, adaptability, discretion, the ability to be modest and self-confident and good manners is important as well, even though it is not new. The article sums up very well up-to-date research. I find the special application on Greece, Spain, Italy, and Cyprus alone to justify the publication of this article. The emphasis on intellectual skills as a fundamental component of mediators’ competence is also important. Again, this is commonsensical, but as we well know, common sense is not that common.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we would like to express our deep gratitude for the very positive feedback you have provided.
Thank you!
The authors
