The Empowerment of Saudi Arabian Women through a Multidimensional Approach: The Mediating Roles of Self-Efficacy and Family Support

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses an important issue specific to the state of which the authors belong, as well as to other states in the region.

Proposing to investigate the empowerment of women, in the context of Saudi Arabia, the authors use a complex statistical analysis, the empirical data being provided on the basis of a questionnaire.

               We will return to this.

               What the authors call women empowerment has as constitutive elements that refer to economic empowerment, social empowerment and even political empowerment.

               An important factor discussed by the authors refers to self-efficacy and family support in supporting the phenomenon of women empowerment.

               The research structure and methodology are appropriate.                A first problem that needs to be clarified refers to the questionnaire. In my opinion, it should be described in more detail in the paper or attached. Continuing the discussion from this perspective, I am not convinced of the relevance of the questionnaire. The authors tell us that the sampling was random and the questionnaire was in English. I do not know the situation in Saudi Arabia, but I think that the language used can be an obstacle in accessing the questionnaire. At the same time, the authors talk about a response rate of 62%, which makes me wonder how the initial sample to whom the questionnaire was sent was chosen. If it exists, then it must be described and the claim that the sampling was random must be abandoned.                As can be seen from the description in 4.1, only women with at least a bachelor's degree were included in the analysis. This is an argument that the sample is not representative.                The specialized literature that the article invokes is relevant for the regional context of Saudi Arabia. The addition of other bibliographic sources that would really frame the research in a global context would be beneficial.                I carefully followed the statistical analysis. There are some uncertainties regarding the statistical correlation of the variables. Thus, in Tab 2, the meaning of each correlation is not included and the first column, of the variables, is wrong.                I recommend redoing them, inserting all the meanings, for each correlation and then discussing, in detail, if the variables are statistically correlated and if they are sufficient for the description of women empowerment.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor & Reviewer, 

We agree, respect, and welcome the comments. First, the authors thank anonymous reviewers who gave feedback to improve the manuscript. We tried to respond/ incorporate their comments point to point as below: (Please see the attachment also):

 

REVIEWER 1

 

COMMENTS AND RESPNSES

1. [A first problem that needs to be clarified refers to the questionnaire. In my opinion, it should be described in more detail in the paper or attached. Continuing the discussion from this perspective, I am not convinced of the relevance of the questionnaire.]

 

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment of the esteemed reviewer. We clarified, and the details of the questionnaire items are attached as Appendix A. All the items are adapted from the existing literature; thus, these offer relevancy to the proposed model and hypotheses.

 

2. [The authors tell us that the sampling was random and the questionnaire was in English. I do not know the situation in Saudi Arabia, but I think that the language used can be an obstacle in accessing the questionnaire.At the same time, the authors talk about a response rate of 62%, which makes me wonder how the initial sample to whom the questionnaire was sent was chosen. If it exists, then it must be described and the claim that the sampling was random must be abandoned.]

 

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment of the esteemed reviewer. The data are collected randomly. The language of the questionnaire did not prove to be difficult for the respondents as they have a base of English language at institutions and universities where they studied and the mode of communication in English and are in management posts. To ensure further language barriers, we conducted the pilot study to get feedback from the respondents. As a result, we did not get any comments regarding the language barriers for respondents. Besides, the response rate acquired in the study is justifiable [more details are given with literature support].

 

3. [As can be seen from the description in 4.1, only women with at least a bachelor's degree were included in the analysis. This is an argument that the sample is not representative. The specialized literature that the article invokes is relevant for the regional context of Saudi Arabia. The addition of other bibliographic sources that would really frame the research in a global context would be beneficial.]

 

RESPONSE:  We agree with the comment of the esteemed reviewer. As the women are explicitly selected, the sample of 314 females may represent Saudi women working in top management positions in public and private enterprises in several segments of Saudi Arabia. Besides, we added new studies (2022) of the different contexts, including developing and developed countries.

 

4. [I carefully followed the statistical analysis. There are some uncertainties regarding the statistical correlation of the variables. Thus, in Tab 2, the meaning of each correlation is not included and the first column, of the variables, is wrong. I recommend redoing them, inserting all the meanings, for each correlation and then discussing, in detail, if the variables are statistically correlated and if they are sufficient for the description of women empowerment.]

 

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment of the esteemed reviewer. We revised Table 2 accordingly.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic under consideration is interesting and relevant. However, I have a number of concerns about the analysis:

1. Most importantly, please better describe the methods you use to evaluate your hypotheses. Saying that you use a certain software package called AMOS is just not very informative. What does this software do? I assume you are using some regression technique. Which one is it? What is the model?

2. Do not say that hypotheses "are accepted."

3. There are many typos, e.g. "goof-ness" on p. 11.

4. The extensive use of acronyms often causes confusion. On p. 10, for example, it is ee1 in parentheses behind 0.882 but sfy without a number behind 0.780; shouldn't this be sfy5? Also, I was not able to find a definition of these different items: what's the difference between e.g. ee2 and ee3?

5. In Section 4, you provide summary stats for the women in your survey. How do these compare to the underlying population (professional women in executive positions in Saudi Arabia)? Are there other survey or admin data with comparable info?

6. How was the sample selected? Whom did you send the survey to? All you say is you "gathered responses somewhere online" -- what does this mean?

Author Response

Dear Editor & Reviewer: 

First of all, we are very thankful to the respectable and esteemed anonymous reviewers for his/her constructive feedback to improve the quality of the paper.

 

1. COMMENT 1= [Most importantly, please better describe the methods you use to evaluate your hypotheses. Saying that you use a certain software package called AMOS is just not very informative. What does this software do? I assume you are using some regression technique. Which one is it? What is the model?]

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment of the esteemed reviewer. We discussed the methods we used to assess/ evaluate the hypotheses. We provide the description (t-value and p-values) to which hypotheses are decided or tested [please refer to green coloured text; Page No. 12].

 

2. COMMENT 2= [Do not say that hypotheses "are accepted."]

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment above. We corrected it accordingly, wherever necessary [please refer to green coloured text].

 

3. COMMENT 3= [There are many typos, e.g. "goof-ness" on p. 11]

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment above. We corrected it accordingly [please refer to green coloured text; Page No. 12].

 

4. COMMENT 4= [The extensive use of acronyms often causes confusion. On p. 10, for example, it is ee1 in parentheses behind 0.882 but sfy without a number behind 0.780; shouldn't this be sfy5? Also, I was not able to find a definition of these different items: what's the difference between e.g. ee2 and ee3?].

RESPONSE: We agree with the typo mistake raised by the esteemed reviewer. We mentioned it accordingly (sfy5). Besides, ee2 and ee3 are the two items of “economic empowerment” mentioned in the measurement model in Table 3 [please refer to Table 3 for more confirmation].

 

5. COMMENT 5= [In Section 4, you provide summary stats for the women in your survey. How do these compare to the underlying population (professional women in executive positions in Saudi Arabia)? Are there other survey or admin data with comparable info?].

RESPONSE: We are thankful for the esteemed reviewer's comment. We did not compare and highlight the women's responses or did not distinguish them based on executive positions in Saudi Arabia. This is because our study has no proposed comparative objective or proposed hypotheses. Therefore, it is beyond our study objective, please.

 

6. COMMENT 6= [How was the sample selected? Whom did you send the survey to? All you say is you "gathered responses somewhere online" -- what does this mean?]

RESPONSE: We respect and agree with the above comment. We described sample selection. We provided the modes of sending the survey accordingly [please refer to green-coloured text; Page No.8].

 

Dear sir/ madam, once again, thanks for your precious time in providing us to review the manuscript. Hopefully, our feedback will satisfy you.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study of the empowerment of women in an important country. It seems strange that the authors suggest that women are not interested in political power. I wonder if this reflects the way the question was asked. It is not surprising that family support is important. Presumably without it women would not be empowered at all.

On the whole it is well written except on pp7 to 9. See especially p.7 line 316- fiance should I think be finance.

The references are very thorough and up to date.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

We agree, respect and welcome the comments. First, the authors thank anonymous reviewers who gave feedback to improve the manuscript. We tried to respond/ incorporate their comments point to point as below:

COMMENTS AND RESPNSES

1. [This is an interesting study of the empowerment of women in an important country. It seems strange that the authors suggest that women are not interested in political power. I wonder if this reflects the way the question was asked. It is not surprising that family support is important. Presumably without it women would not be empowered at all.]

 

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment above. The representation of Saudi females in political participation is drastic due to cultural impact and gender inequality, where females follow Muslim civilizations with the execution of Islamic principles. These barriers in Saudi Arabia, political involvement or political activities, i.e. voting or running for office, are depressing. These are all provided in detail in the discussion section with a strong justification of the literature.

 

2. [On the whole it is well written except on pp7 to 9. See especially p.7 line 316- fiance should I think be finance.]

 

RESPONSE: We agree and respect the above comment of the reviewer. Our manuscript is got edited and proofread by the language consultancy.

Dear sir/ madam, once again, thanks for your precious time in providing us to review the manuscript. Hopefully, our feedback will satisfy you, please. Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall the paper deals with a significant topic. However, the language and way of presentation can still be improved. In addition, there are multiple typos throughout the paper, which need to be fixed.  

The study aims to analyse the role of economic, social and political empowerment of Women in Saudi Arabia  towards Women Empowerment (WE). This is a critical area of research, however, the researchers need to properly spell the research question in the paper.

 the topic of the study is critical, and the paper seems to have filled a gap of research on the role of family support and self-efficacy towards helping women empowerment in the context of Saudi Arabia.

The paper provides new insights into the role of family support and self-efficacy towards helping women empowerment in the context of Saudi Arabia, and thus fills a gap in the literature on the topic.   

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewer,

We are thankful to anonymous reviewer who reviewed the manuscript and gave their valuable feedback. We agree with the comments pointed out by the esteemed reviewer. We incorporated their comments accordingly as follows. We hope our efforts will satisfy our esteemed reviewer:

COMMENT 1= “The study aims to analyse the role of economic, social and political empowerment of Women in Saudi Arabia towards Women Empowerment (WE). This is a critical area of research, however, the researchers need to properly spell the research question in the paper.”

RESPONSE: We agree and respect the above concern raised by the esteemed reviewer. Based on the argument/ gap/research problem, we mentioned the research question recommended by the honourable and esteemed reviewer [please refer green coloured text, Page No.2].

 COMMENT 2= “the topic of the study is critical, and the paper seems to have filled a gap of research on the role of family support and self-efficacy towards helping women empowerment in the context of Saudi Arabia.”

RESPONSE: Thanks for your valuable feedback.

COMMENT 3= “The paper provides new insights into the role of family support and self-efficacy towards helping women empowerment in the context of Saudi Arabia, and thus fills a gap in the literature on the topic.”

RESPONSE: Thanks for your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The abstract  needs to be re-written taking into account the main conclusion from this study.  The abstract must be compatible with the conclusion. This article is timely and interesting. It can become a good contribution to the study of women's status in the Middle East if the authors elaborate on the findings a little more.

The article still needs a lot of editing though.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewer,

We are thankful to anonymous reviewer who reviewed the manuscript and gave their valuable feedback. We agree with the comments pointed out by the esteemed reviewer. We incorporated their comments accordingly as follows. We hope our efforts will satisfy our esteemed reviewer:

COMMENT 1= “The abstract needs to be re-written taking into account the main conclusion from this study. The abstract must be compatible with the conclusion. This article is timely and interesting. It can become a good contribution to the study of women's status in the Middle East if the authors elaborate on the findings a little more.”

RESPONSE: We agree and welcome the comment of the esteemed reviewer. We rearticulate the abstract section. We also made consistency between the abstract and conclusion accordingly by modifying the abstract and conclusion section (Please refer to green coloured text, pages No.1 and 23).

COMMENT 2= “The article still needs a lot of editing though.”

RESPONSE: We agree with the comment above. We get the proofreading from a native speaker or language expert.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No changes were made to the work. There are only explanations in the Cover Letter. It is necessary that, at least in the "Conclusions", clarifications be added regarding the representativeness of the sample in relation to the social structure of the female population in Saudi Arabia.

I still did not understand why the questionnaire was created and distributed in English. Perhaps this fact also led to a low response rate of 62%.

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewer,

We are thankful to anonymous reviewer who reviewed the manuscript and gave their valuable feedback. We agree with the comments pointed out by the esteemed reviewer. We incorporated their comments accordingly as follows. We hope our efforts will satisfy our esteemed reviewer.

COMEMNT 1= “[It is necessary that, at least in the "Conclusions", clarifications be added regarding the representativeness of the sample in relation to the social structure of the female population in Saudi Arabia.]”

RESPONSE: We respect the above comment of the esteemed reviewer and agree with the concern raised. As per the comment, we provided the more social structure of the females/ respondents of Saudi Arabia. We added the social indicators such as family dynamics (nuclear family and extended family), the gender role (patriarchal and matriarchy), family as a supportive network, and household/ family is headed (please see Table 1). Moreover, we also provided more details of these social structures in the “conclusion” section as suggested by a respected reviewer [please see track changes or yellow text, Page No.10-11 (Table 1) and Page 17 (conclusion section)].

COMEMNT 2= “[I still did not understand why the questionnaire was created and distributed in English. Perhaps this fact also led to a low response rate of 62%.]”

RESPONSE: We respect the above comment of the esteemed reviewer and agree with the concern raised. We provided the valid justification behind the creation and development of the questionnaire in English "First, the respondents are educated and have the best learning attitudes towards the English language and is a compulsory or major subject in Saudi Arabian education. Second, we ensured the respondents' easiness or barrier about the language (English) through a pilot study" [please see details on Page No.9].

Moreover, the response rate is enough, as suggested by the literature, as a 43% to 75 online survey response rate is desirable and excellent, respectively. Regarding social research surveys, 50% is an acceptable response rate, and 70% is a desirable response rate (please see more justification on Page No.8, Track changes with yellow-coloured text).

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There is still much room for improvement. Here I'll focus on my previous comments:

1. The description of the research methods is pretty much still the same. But fair enough.

2. It is common to say that your results make you "reject a null hypothesis (or not)". Accepting/supporting hypotheses is scientifically not sppropraite.

3. Okay, this particular typo is gone.

4. Okay, this has somewhat improved.

5. I see no comparison to summary stats for the entire population (or professional women in Saudi Arabia).

6. Can you be more specific about what "online survey" means? Where did you post this? On what website? What was the URL? Or did you send it via mail? If so, to whom?

By the way: I do not think that it was a good idea to switch from "we" to third person.

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewer,

We are thankful to anonymous reviewer who reviewed the manuscript and gave their valuable feedback. We agree with the comments pointed out by the esteemed reviewer. We incorporated their comments accordingly as follows. We hope our efforts will satisfy our esteemed reviewer:

COMMENT 1= “[The description of the research methods is pretty much still the same. But fair enough]”

RESPONSE: We respect and agree with the comment of the esteemed reviewer. We continuously improved the methods section in both rounds, i.e. we justified the sampling techniques, justification about the online survey, response rates, the questionnaire’s language justification and validity and reliability etc.

COMMENT 2= “[It is common to say that your results make you "reject a null hypothesis (or not)". Accepting/supporting hypotheses is scientifically not appropriate.]”

RESPONSE: We respect the suggestion of the esteemed reviewer and agree with the concern raised. We added where necessary or mentioned accordingly (please see page 13).

COMMENT 3= “[Okay, this particular typo is gone.]”

RESPONSE: All the typos were omitted, and a language expert or native speaker proofread the manuscript.

COMMENT 4= “[Okay, this has somewhat improved.]”

RESPONSE: Thanks a lot

COMMENT 5= “[I see no comparison to summary stats for the entire population (or professional women in Saudi Arabia).]”

RESPONSE: We respect the reviewer's comment. We provided some statistics about the professional women in Saudi Arabia against males in light of Saudi Arabia Population Statistics (2022) and Trading Economics (2022) [please refer track changes Page No.8].

COMMENT 6= “[Can you be more specific about what "online survey" means? Where did you post this? On what website? What was the URL? Or did you send it via mail? If so, to whom?]”

RESPONSE: We agree and respect the concern raised by the respectable reviewer. We justified the modes of an online survey employed during the survey. More specifically, we sent online surveys via email and SurveySparrow [please see details on Page No.8].

COMMENT 7= “[By the way: I do not think that it was a good idea to switch from "we" to third person.]”

RESPONSE: We agree and respect the above concern raised by the esteemed reviewer. We get to proofread the document from a language expert or native English speaker. He modified wherever necessary and up-to-standard to English language criteria.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your revision.