Who I Am, and Why That Matters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for a well-written paper. Your research and insights are invaluable. I’ve included a few suggestions below to further strengthen the paper:

1. On the top of page 6 (at the end of the Literature Review), it would be helpful to state how your study fulfills a current gap in the literature that you presented.

2. While there are some hints: suggestions for further research, it would be helpful to have a separate section that explicitly states these areas.

3. Results and Discussion: While literature is briefly used as part of each section’s introduction, there is not much engagement with the existing literature on said themes after explaining the findings. In each section, please spend a paragraph or two dialoging with some of the current literature/studies around the topic (i.e., did your study advance existing research on the topic? Were your findings different from those of previous studies in similar areas? etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Who I am, and why that matters

Research Question: What themes characterize the way that the identity formation of Aboriginal women is influenced and molded by their connections to places and their experiences of migration?

Arguments:

• Aboriginal culture is characterized, in part, by responses to oppressive patterns that emerged from colonization and invasion of spaces.
• Gendered experiences can influence cultural identity and tradition.
• Access to relationships is essential for establishing a cultural identity and the knowledge that is paramount for establishing this identity.
• Living in a rural versus a metro area can influence access to cultural learning, including access to relationships that could help cultivate healthy identity development.

Procedure and analysis:

• Recruited 45 young women aged 10-18 years and 15 adults holding respected roles in their communities through three camps affiliated with a community program referred to as NNN.
• Results focused on qualitative observations and reflections. They used social yarning and thematic consolidation.

Findings:

• Four themes emerged relating to the formation and solidification of cultural identity: a) Connection to Country, Aboriginal Lore, and spiritual connection, b) family and kinship relationships, c) Women’s Business, d) and cultural safety and implications for cross-cultural practice.
• There was a disparity in access to culturally reinforcing relationships and information between Aboriginal people living in rural versus metro areas. It seems that Aboriginal people who remain within proximity to culturally relevant landmarks retain a clearer sense of cultural identity, which makes intuitive sense.

Main feedback: The current research took on the important task of unveiling insights pertaining to the lived and psychological experience of a socio-cultural group that has been historically underserved and underacknowledged by the scientific community. This type of work can be challenging for a variety of reasons, including participant recruitment, respectful engagement, effective contextualization, and arguing for the scope and importance of the contribution. I commend the authors on their efforts to address such challenges. My main feedback relates primarily to the focus of the manuscript. I think there is really good material, and interesting conclusions, included in the paper’s current version. However, at times, the material did not seem well-integrated and it felt that the overarching thesis lacked force and focus. In particular, I felt that the conceptual contribution related to identity formation among Aboriginal women was competing with the methodological contribution meant to help practitioners and researchers conduct effective work with vulnerable populations. Both of these contributions are worthy, but the way they are presented makes the paper feel a bit like a “half-measure” contribution for each, as opposed to a robust contribution for one or the other. Keeping the thesis in focus and the secondary interests as more peripheral would have helped. Maybe it would be helpful to return to the title along the way by asking how each point helps answer the question in the title for Aboriginal people: Who am I, and why does that matter? Also, the paper could be more focused if certain terms and jargon were clearly defined and unpacked, particularly earlier in the paper when the author is laying out the justification and interest of the project. I also would have appreciated a bit more information about social yarning and the process for developing themes. Finally, I would have liked for the authors to talk a bit more about how the partnership with the Name.Narrate.Navigate program contextualizes their results and their approach to their research question overall. This seems like a very specific program, working with a specific sub-population of Aboriginal people, with very specific aims. This could be a major strength of the methodology if highlighted as such. However, without more discussion of this contextual dynamic, this specificity could also raise questions of generalizability and confounding dynamics.

Section-specific comments:

Introduction

• The authors establish the tenor of the paper by opening with a positionality statement and making readers aware of the paper's conversational tone.
• Authors immediately bring focus to the Aboriginal experience of identity formation and its relationship to shared history and culture.
• I think it could be helpful to be more specific when referring to “Country” and also “Off Country”. Some readers may not be as familiar with what dynamics are being referenced here and what characterizes a person who is “Off Country”.
• Similarly, at line 50, can the authors be more specific about what “Women’s Business” is referring to? There is a citation and it’s used as a “proper noun” term, but I was not able to immediately make sense of what was being referenced, and adding more detail will combat the possible distraction/disruption that could occur if a reader has to stop to check the reference or look up the term.
• I think the paragraph starting at line 52, which begins to unpack the meaning of “Country” for the purpose of the paper, should be moved up to slightly earlier in the intro and expanded just slightly.
• In line 67, the authors begin to describe direct cultural disruption as a function of colonization. I’m inclined to accept their statements, but there would be value in unpacking what this “direct” disruption looks like. In other words, assertions of direct disruption would be more compelling if accompanied by clear or vivid examples, and would also help set the stage for where the paper is going.
• Fitting with some previous themes, terms and phrases need to be less vague and more specific. Instead of leaning on assumptions and jargon, terms like “cultural safety” need to be unpacked and clearly defined. What does this term mean to the author? What does the experience of cultural safety look like for Aboriginal women? How does this term integrate with the paper’s broader themes? This sort of unpacking could be applied elsewhere as well, including when referring to things like Women’s Business, kinship circles, etc.
• What does it look like for targets of discrimination to be “assisted” in their response to discrimination? Again, this is vague. Specifics will tell a more compelling story.
• Seems like the sentence at line 97 should be reworded. It read awkwardly.
• Is line 152 supposed to say “aimed at”? I think the “at” is missing.
• The sentence starting in line 170 is incomplete. What is the subject of the sentence? The thing that is “marked” and “which can manifest”.

Method

• Narrate.Navigate (NNN) program for youth violence was central to this project. NNN was developed by “community for community” and works with young people (and services) to support youth who have found themselves around experiences of violence. Also has some basis in DBT.
• Camp/program format administered both on and off country.
• The program was the avenue for recruiting 45 young women aged 10-18 years and 15 adults.
• Want to know a bit more about how the NNN project actually relates to the current paper’s thesis? Was it incidental that these two parties collaborated or is there some other synergy?
• What did recruitment actually look like? Were there specific prompts or questions presented to participants?

Analysis

• Mostly qualitative/thematic.
• Practitioner reflections were documented using structured reflection templates developed in collaboration with the NNN stakeholder consortium. I would like to have more information about these templates.
• Analyzing this data involved integrating Indigenous and Western methodology, including social yarning.
• It could be helpful to go into a little more depth on the process of “social yarning”, including its origins, characteristics, and advantages.
• Relatedly, it would be helpful to know more about how the reflections and observations were collected, over what period of time, in what environment, and with what level of formality. Were there specific prompts or questions that the respondents reacted to? Did they know that they were contributing to an academic interest?

Results

• Four themes: a) Connection to Country, Aboriginal Lore, and spiritual connection, b) family and kinship relationships, c) Women’s Business, d) and cultural safety and implications for cross-cultural practice.
• Very minor, but maybe the first time the themes are mentioned, it would be helpful to put them in list format so that it’s easier to discern where one theme ends and the next begins.
• Experiences and access seemed to differ based on whether participants were in rural or metro areas.

Discussion

• Toward the end (p. 11), the purpose of the paper loses focus a bit. Authors talk more about the cross-cultural engagement and methodology than the question of identity formation. Both are important and valid themes, but as written, the paper loses focus on the theme of identity.
• Again, in the conclusion, the focus is on differences in access between rural and metro Aboriginal experiences. This is again, an interesting distinction and one that is alluded to earlier, but is not super fluid with the stated focus of identity formation/disruption regarding the outlined themes. It also only subtly overlaps with the secondary theme of cross-cultural research. Broadly, the themes of the paper (identity formation, differential cultural access, engaging cross-cultural research, etc.) should be more clearly integrated and brought into a focused relationship with one another.

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:

Title: Who I am, and why that matters

Main feedback:

This version of the paper is nicely improved. I still have some minor concerns that lead the paper to lack a certain focus, making it somewhat difficult to follow the core arguments of the researchers. My concerns can be characterized in the following three ways. 1) It seems that much of the paper’s argument involves pulling together themes, and makes certain assumptions about the readers’ natural ability to do so. The job of pulling the themes together should be on the authors, not the readers. 2) Further, this process of pulling together themes should align with a clear, methodological sequence. I still find the explanation of some of the methodological components to be lacking, and somewhat divorced from the paper’s goals. 3) Some of the revisions from the previous version seem to have been done hastily, resulting in additions without anticipation or build-up and even typos or phrasing issues that make sentences hard to follow. Below, I will provide examples of each type of concern.

#1 – Relating core arguments with clarity and force.

• In addition to identity formation and clarity, other core elements of the paper are exposure to violence, location (on or off country), and gendered experiences (i.e., women’s business). How can these be introduced as complementary as opposed to distinct elements? For instance, in both lines 47 and 58, the introduction goes from describing the broad experience of Aboriginal people, including the symptoms of colonialism and being forced or coerced off country, to then focusing on women specifically. Later on, there is more substance in unpacking women’s experiences, but at this point, it seems to come out of nowhere. I think the authors want the shift to focusing on women to be done with intentionality and justification, lending real substance to the experience of women in particular, and why their experiences demand the dignity of being unpacked with specificity. The way it’s presented right now does not accomplish this goal until the reader is already juggling between competing themes. I certainly think this can be done, and even without adding much content, I just think there needs to be some re-ordering of material so that there is a smoother flow from identity -> location -> cultural proximity -> cultural practices for women in particular -> Women’s Business. Finally, in the introduction specifically, can this previous sequence, which would cover location and gendered experience, also integrate exposure to violence cleanly? Right now, that component seems to bounce in and out, rather than remain clearly integrated into the sequencing of arguments.
• I wonder if the section from 153-166 (or even 169) could be condensed and included in the positionality statement earlier in the paper, so that the lit review section could remain a bit more focused on historical patterns that have disrupted identity and cultural clarity for Aboriginal people. I understand the desire to highlight the important caveats regarding these conceptual dynamics and approaching them with due respect and acknowledgement of power dynamics, but I’m not sure it serves the paper well in the current section.
• Can authors provide more clarity on how cultural identification would reduce over policing and over-incarceration (lines 225-228)? More broadly, describe how identity solidification is a protective factor that helps preserve well-being, even among metro residents who might be away from their cultural land or family.
• I think the central takeaway from sections 234-243 needs to be made clearer. Is it about a deficit lens? Is it about shared culture across a range of traits and experiences? How can this section be made to bridge the paragraphs before it and after it a bit better?
• Can the added note from 256-263 be rephrased? I like that the authors are now carving out their contribution, but I think it can be done with more clarity and force. They’ve already spent the lit review section acknowledging existing evidence. So, the first part of the first sentence is superfluous. What is your thesis? Why is it fresh? And what impact will it have on the existing literature and the promotion of wellbeing among the study population? Go beyond just “we discuss”, “seeks to further understand”, and “highlights a need for greater understanding”. What will the work tell us and how? What does the work assert? It could use more focus and force, similar to the end of the intro.
• I like what is now included from 409-418. However, with both “Cultural Safety” and “Women’s Business”, it’s hard to discern whether these themes are overarching or their own.

#2 – Articulating why the methodological approach was fitting for making core arguments.

• I appreciate the additional description of the NNN, but the addition still does not entirely meet the initial concern. Why does conducting this research with the NNN make sense? Why would the context be distinct from conducting the research in a different context? How was the relationship with NNN cultivated? Was it out of convenience or was NNN specifically sought out? How does NNN’s focus on violence prevention relate to cultural access and living on or off country? What about the connection to “Women’s Business," which is core to the intro and discussion?
• Did the social yarning involve recording or observations? How was the material collected and consolidated?
• I appreciate the added description of the social yarning process. The thematic analysis is still somewhat vague. What did the identification of themes entail? How did the researchers develop and land on the 4 key themes? What did the “amalgamation” for refinement involve? What risks were there that required the second author to ensure understanding?

#3 – Hasty revisions.

• I appreciate the improved descriptions for concepts like “on/off country” and “Women’s Business”. However, the “Women’s Business” description in particular seems to be introduced abruptly without a build-up. Improvement could be made by centering the experience of women more intentionally earlier in the intro. See first point under #1 above.
• Lines 347-351 are one of a few sections where there seemed to be hasty revisions, which resulted in typos or unclear wording. Please double-check other revisions, as there were additional areas where there were spelling, punctuation, or wording errors. See lines 74, 506, 584-586

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to resubmit our article. We have made changes according to reviewer feedback and have listed those changes in the attached document.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf