No Child Left Behind: Insights from Reunification Research to Liberate Aboriginal Families from Child Abduction Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral feedback;
It may be useful to introduce the reasons for using the term Aboriginal in the first paragraph of the introduction chapter to assist international readers to understand the differences in the use of the term.
At times it is unclear as to whether the paper is co-authored or written by one author only, for example line 72 ‘and as researchers it is our obligation to honour and platform these experiences to their highest authenticity’. It is assumed from reading the paper that is it one author only due to the use of first person throughout however it would be helpful to review the paper to ensure this is clear.
There are just a couple of grammatical errors that need correcting.
Assuming this paper has been submitted for the special issue of ‘Tracing Roots, Shaping Futures: The History of Social Movements and Perspectives (Feminist, Indigenous, Masculinity, Political, Human Rights and Social Policy), Experiential Community Development, Resilience and Social and Gender Justice’ the author has demonstrated a strong link to the focus area of Indigenous and human rights where the paper attends to the demands of restructuring the out-of-home-care sector or the ‘child abduction sector’ as the author claims. She writes a compelling argument, using academic literature and data gathered from the original research for why the current child protection system needs a significant overhaul.
The methodology and methods are clearly explained with data gathered in appropriate ways for an Aboriginal study.
The impact initiatives are explained thoroughly. Ethical considerations pertaining to families with ongoing advocacy needs was identified and addressed. This demonstrated a clear commitment to the AHMRC five key principles ensuring there is a net benefit to Aboriginal people and communities as well as cultural sensitivity.
The paper certainly says what it claims in the abstract in that it ‘highlights the role of research advocacy and resistance in challenging and disrupting systems in ways that amplify the voices of Aboriginal families and communities’ and has the potential to advance the field in terms of impact upon child protection policy and practice. The paper will contribute to the ongoing discussion and hopefully support increased advocacy within the sector towards enhancing resources to enable Aboriginal families to have their children returned to them.
This is an intentionally challenging paper with, as the author claims, the use of language meant to disrupt our thinking and urge us in the field to practice in radically different ways alongside Aboriginal families and colleagues.
Author Response
Comment: It may be useful to introduce the reasons for using the term Aboriginal in the first paragraph of the introduction chapter to assist international readers to understand the differences in the use of the term.
Response: Thank you. I have added the footnote: The First Nations peoples of ‘Australia’ comprise hundreds of sovereign nations on the main land and the Torres Strait. Throughout this paper I respectfully use the term ‘Aboriginal’ when referring to First Nations/Indigenous peoples in ‘Australia’ as my work is situated on the main land in New South Wales.
Comment: At times it is unclear as to whether the paper is co-authored or written by one author only, for example line 72 ‘and as researchers it is our obligation to honour and platform these experiences to their highest authenticity’. It is assumed from reading the paper that is it one author only due to the use of first person throughout however it would be helpful to review the paper to ensure this is clear.
Response: Thank you. This is just the way I write- it is referring to the collective 'our' because I am referring to the responsibility of all researchers. This is my preferred way of writing to cultivate a call to action. It will be clear that this is a sole authored paper.
Comment: There are just a couple of grammatical errors that need correcting.
Response: Thank you. I am proof reading.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper fulfills the requirements as stipulated in the call for papers for the special issue quite well.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review, and your positive feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNicely written piece, timely, and merits publication.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review, and your positive feedback.
