Institutional Solidarity in The Netherlands: Examining the Role of Dutch Policies in Women with Migration Backgrounds’ Decisions to Leave a Violent Relationship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks! I attached some specific comments and suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 1 for reviewing our article “Institutional Solidarity in the Netherlands: Examining the Role in Dutch Policies in Women of Migration Backgrounds’ Decision to Leave a Violent Relationship” for publication in Societies’ Special Issue "Gender, Sexuality, and State Violence: International Perspectives on Institutional and Intersectional Justice".

We are pleased you found our article to be promising and wish to thank you for your clear and helpful comments. We have sought to address the issues you raise and believe this has strengthened our argument.

Below we explain how we have dealt with the comments. We will first address the major points, followed by the minor ones. We hope these revisions sufficiently meet your comments and criticisms and look forward to the next steps.

• You wondered if literature research should be part of methodology: “Methods: I don’t think that “literature research” is considered part of the Methodology”.

Reaction: We agree that it is not an active research method here like participant observation and interviews. We made changes by deleting “literature research” as a method (273).

• You commented on some grammatical points such as adding a comma (line 5 after “Netherlands”; line 77 before “as well”, line 160 after “complicated” and line 176 after “2020”).

Reaction: We made the changes you suggested.

• Next to this, you shared being confused by the questions concerning solidarity among women, or women and the institutions: “Line 14- I’m confused about this- solidarity among these women, or between the women and the institutions?”

Reaction: We hope we made it more clear by adding “with women” in the abstract.

• You gave the minor feedback such as specifying domestic violence (line 76) and adding “the” in “all of the above options” (line 163).

Reaction: We also want to thank you for these suggestions and changed the text accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This was a well done and written study. 

The few recommendations are just that- recommendations for the authors/ editors to decide whether or not to make changes.

Line 56- I would suggest giving an overview/definition of the Institutional solidarity you are discussing.

Line 77 – get rid of “Next to this” in the beginning of the sentence it flows better without it.

Line 98 – What I would do differently - You may want to start with what definition of domestic violence you’re adopting at the beginning of the paragraph before you start giving examples of the different views in other countries.

115 – What I would do differently - mentioned how institutional solidarity will be used but should be explained earlier.

Line 134 – “In the case of professionals who deal with (suspicions of) domestic violence, they have a certain liberty to decide when acting on such suspicions and can thereby colour institutional solidarity “from below.” – This sentence confuses me.

What I would do differently – explain more - Those in “housing urgency” are placed into shelters? I am confused about the distinction between housing urgencies and shelters. Are the premises behind them the same?

Line 188 – What I would do differently - explain coercive control in DV / give an example.

Line 198 – Do both partners have to work? You mentioned the partner being financially dependent on the other but then said they both must have a job.

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 2 for reviewing our article “Institutional Solidarity in the Netherlands: Examining the Role in Dutch Policies in Women of Migration Backgrounds’ Decision to Leave a Violent Relationship” for publication in Societies’ Special Issue "Gender, Sexuality, and State Violence: International Perspectives on Institutional and Intersectional Justice".

We are pleased you found our article to be promising and wish to thank you for your clear and helpful comments. We have sought to address the issues you raise and believe this has strengthened our argument.

Below we explain how we have dealt with the comments. We will first address the major points, followed by the minor ones. We hope these revisions sufficiently meet your comments and criticisms and look forward to the next steps.

• There is a comment on how the concept of institutional solidarity should be explained earlier in the paper: “Line 56- I would suggest giving an overview/definition of the Institutional solidarity you are discussing.”

Reaction: We thank you for this remark and agree that it should be explained earlier to make it more understandable in the manuscript (50-54). We now briefly explain the concept in the introduction, so that readers have already an understanding of what our concept of institutional solidarity is, to then later explain more fully our conceptualization of the terms.

• Next to this, there was the suggestion to start with a definition of domestic violence and then go to the examples: “Line 98 – What I would do differently - You may want to start with what definition of domestic violence you’re adopting at the beginning of the paragraph before you start giving examples of the different views in other countries.”

Reaction: We followed this suggestion and put it after the explanation of our feminist perspective towards domestic violence (124-139). Furthermore, in order not to surpass the maximum wordcount, we deleted the examples of Morocco and France, as they were not strictly needed to build the argument.

• You pointed out a sentence that confuses you about the professionals and their discretionary freedom in case of domestic violence: “Line 134 – “In the case of professionals who deal with (suspicions of) domestic violence, they have a certain liberty to decide when acting on such suspicions and can thereby colour institutional solidarity “from below.” – This sentence confuses me.”

Reaction: We added an example to make it clearer.

• It has been appreciated that you asked for an example of coercive control: “Line 188 – What I would do differently - explain coercive control in DV / give an example.”

Reaction: We added a small example, namely that it is controlling the partner’s action (212).

• You asked if both partners (referent and marriage migrant) need to work: “Line 198 – Do both partners have to work? You mentioned the partner being financially dependent on the other but then said they both must have a job.”

Reaction: We added that marriage migrants are permitted work, but that it is not mandatory. In case of being maintained by the referent, there is no obligation for the marriage migrant to work.

• You suggested leaving out “next to this” in line 77: “get rid of “Next to this” in the beginning of the sentence it flows better without it.”

Reaction: we followed your feedback and deleted it.

• You wondered what the distinction is between housing urgencies and shelters: “What I would do differently – explain more - Those in “housing urgency” are placed into shelters? I am confused about the distinction between housing urgencies and shelters. Are the premises behind them the same?”

Reaction: We understand your confusion and added several sentences to explain that housing urgency is an official declaration from the municipality that someone urgently needs a house and is therefore prioritized over other people on the waiting list; the shelter is a place where one can find immediate protection. In some cities, staying in a shelter is a precondition for housing urgency.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have written an exciting and important manuscript. The strengths are proximity to the research subject and the significant results from the narrative interviews.
Unfortunately, the introduction lacks a well-founded analysis of the empirical and content-related background. The authors should list scientific findings from cultural psychology and family psychology as well as sociology and ethnology on closed and/or close family structures as well as their cultural, religious and social effects and forms. In particular, the aspects of assimation and accommodation in aculturation should be viewed critically. It would be expected that these backgrounds would have an influence on the topic and the questions. Language deficits also seem to play a significant role in this context.

Unfortunately, there is also a lack of a comprehensible, clear and operationalized derivation of specific questions. Questions raised in global terms can be found again and again in the text. However, it remains unclear to the reader how these should be specifically examined methodologically.

In the Methodology part, the authors must present the three research methods more clearly and differentiated, each separately: narrative interviews, literature research (which keywords, which databases) and expert interviews (social workers). While basic information is listed at least in Table 1 for the narrative interview partners, there is no information on the interview guide for the expert interviews. Likewise, no specific information is given about the 37 people. The interrater reliability and how concretely the semi-structural interviews are based on empirical content also remain unclear. This means that it remains completely unclear what and how was examined. It cannot be seen whether hypotheses were tested (falsification of assumptions) or whether only the authors' beliefs were verified. The impression arises that only previous assumptions have been positively confirmed and scientifically tested.

Similar aspects can be found for the results section. The results should be presented separately according to the data collection methods. A summary analysis by the authors should only take place during the discussion. Unfortunately, the authors mix the findings from the narrative interviews and the expert interviews in their presentation of the results. In addition, they also add their own assessments and interpretations. This violates important quality criteria. Even if your own thoughts are introduced into the results section for didactic reasons of readability (which you can do with justification), at least the results from the narrative and expert interviews should have been listed separately. In its present form, however, it is unfortunately a confusing methodological mix and does not meet the scientific criteria (for example lines 326-342, or 348-360). In addition, for example, in lines 354-355, claims are made that are probably empirically correct, but which cannot be derived from the study and the results.

The aforementioned aspects have an unfavorable impact on the discussion. Many interpretations are already in the results section and due to the lack of rigorous processing of the results and the lack of specific questions, the discussion remains rather vague and unclear. This could certainly be improved significantly if the manuscript were revised.
Finally, it must be noted that both the topic and the basic methodological approach can be welcomed. Despite the multitude of critical points, the authors should feel encouraged to revise the manuscript, which has exciting and important content, and strengthen it based on the aspects mentioned. Unfortunately, I don't think it's suitable for publication in its current form.

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 3 for reviewing our article “Institutional Solidarity in the Netherlands: Examining the Role in Dutch Policies in Women of Migration Backgrounds’ Decision to Leave a Violent Relationship” for publication in Societies’ Special Issue "Gender, Sexuality, and State Violence: International Perspectives on Institutional and Intersectional Justice".

We are pleased you found our article to be promising and wish to thank you for your clear and helpful comments. We have sought to address the issues you raise and believe this has strengthened our argument.

Below we explain how we have dealt with the comments. We will first address the major points, followed by the minor ones. We hope these revisions sufficiently meet your comments and criticisms and look forward to the next steps.

• You shared that the introduction lacks scientific findings from different research fields such as psychology and family structures: “Unfortunately, the introduction lacks a well-founded analysis of the empirical and content-related background. The authors should list scientific findings from cultural psychology and family psychology as well as sociology and ethnology on closed and/or close family structures as well as their cultural, religious and social effects and forms. In particular, the aspects of assimilation and accommodation in acculturation should be viewed critically. It would be expected that these backgrounds would have an influence on the topic and the questions.”

Reaction: We added a section that we named “Domestic violence, culture, gender, and migration” where we dive deeper into the role of culture from different perspectives (78-118).

• Furthermore, there has been a recommendation to look at the role of language deficits: “Language deficits also seem to play a significant role in this context.”

Reaction: We emphasize how language plays a role in leaving a violent relationship in a foreign country. We added the intersection with language (103-109) in a new section and accentuated it in the result section.

• You noticed the lack of clear and comprehensible research questions: “Unfortunately, there is also a lack of a comprehensible, clear and operationalized derivation of specific questions. Questions raised in global terms can be found again and again in the text. However, it remains unclear to the reader how these should be specifically examined methodologically.”

Reaction: This point deserves serious attention, so we are happy to receive this feedback. We added a main question and three sub questions (48-63). The main question is :“Does the Dutch state offer (enough) solidarity to women, especially with a migration background, after experiences of domestic violence?”. The first sub question focuses on the domestic violence policy and its implementation, specifically housing and sheltering. The question is: “To what extent do women feel supported by these policies?”. The second one concerns the professionals : “in which ways do the women feel supported by their (re)acting?”. Lastly, we question in which way the policy around migration influences the policy on domestic violence: “to what extent do women with a migration background – whom are not specifically marriage migrants – experience additional barriers due to different cultural expectations?”

• Regarding the methodology part, you suggested to present the research methods more clearly and differentiated in a separated way: “In the Methodology part, the authors must present the three research methods more clearly and differentiated, each separately: narrative interviews, literature research (which keywords, which databases) and expert interviews (social workers). While basic information is listed at least in Table 1 for the narrative interview partners, there is no information on the interview guide for the expert interviews. Likewise, no specific information is given about the 37 people. The interrater reliability and how concretely the semi-structural interviews are based on empirical content also remain unclear. This means that it remains completely unclear what and how was examined. It cannot be seen whether hypotheses were tested (falsification of assumptions) or whether only the authors' beliefs were verified. The impression arises that only previous assumptions have been positively confirmed and scientifically tested.”

Reaction: First, we structured the types of methodology more clearly, starting with the narrative interviews, followed by the semi-structured interviews and participant observation. We added more information about the women, but especially about the social workers. In the case of the latter, we inserted their self-identified cultural background  in a table (338). Furthermore, we explained the precise role of different categories of social workers in more detail: “Child(ren)-mother assistants coach the children and the relationship with their mother. Personal social workers work more individually with women around legal, social, and psychological issues. As an example, they accompany women to visit a house they receive ‘urgency’. Residential assistants work in the shelter, provide first-line support and activities. Ambulatory social workers mostly assist the women from the latter’s own place” (310-316).

• For the result section, you suggested that we should not mix the narrative and semi-structured interviews: “Similar aspects can be found for the results section. The results should be presented separately according to the data collection methods. A summary analysis by the authors should only take place during the discussion. Unfortunately, the authors mix the findings from the narrative interviews and the expert interviews in their presentation of the results. In addition, they also add their own assessments and interpretations. This violates important quality criteria. Even if your own thoughts are introduced into the results section for didactic reasons of readability (which you can do with justification), at least the results from the narrative and expert interviews should have been listed separately. In its present form, however, it is unfortunately a confusing methodological mix and does not meet the scientific criteria (for example lines 326-342, or 348-360).”

Reaction: We better structured in the result section by dividing the subtitles similarly to the questions asked in the introduction. We divided those subsections into the women and social workers. We start with sharing the experiences of the women, and afterwards add a new subtitle with additional information of the social workers and suitable quotes. We hope that this brings more structure and is clearer. Next to this, we moved a part of analysis of the data to the discussion section, where it could fit more due to its theoretical background.

• You also mention that the discussion remains vague and unclear: “The aforementioned aspects have an unfavorable impact on the discussion. Many interpretations are already in the results section and due to the lack of rigorous processing of the results and the lack of specific questions, the discussion remains rather vague and unclear. This could certainly be improved significantly if the manuscript were revised.”

Reaction: We structured the analysis following the themes in the result section. We deleted parts of the analysis that were previously found in the result section to add them in the discussion. We believe that this leads to a more theoretical conclusion, but also that this way it wraps up the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have clearly and significantly revised and improved the manuscript. It is much more comprehensible in terms of the methodological approach. Certainly one could go into a more detailed critical analysis. However, the authors have positively revised the essential and necessary aspects. This manuscript and this research project are also application-oriented and do not represent basic research. For these reasons, it does not seem appropriate to focus too much on research methodological aspects in depth. The topic and the findings are too important for women's studies to drift into a methodological nitpick. In the discussion, one could also critically reflect on the limitations of the qualitative approach and evaluation. For future research, it would be nice if the authors also carried out an inferential statistical analysis of the sample size in order to significantly improve the significance. I look forward to the publication of this important article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

We would like to thank you for the second round of reviewing our article “Institutional Solidarity in the Netherlands: Examining the Role in Dutch Policies in Women of Migration Backgrounds’ Decision to Leave a Violent Relationship” for publication in Societies’ Special Issue "Gender, Sexuality, and State Violence: International Perspectives on Institutional and Intersectional Justice". We are grateful for your positive feedback.

As a suggestion, you mentioned adding a critical reflection on the limitations of the qualitative approach and evaluation: “In the discussion, one could also critically reflect on the limitations of the qualitative approach and evaluation.”.

Reaction: At the bottom of the discussion section, we added a subsection on the limitations and further research. We there emphasize on the few women we reached and one of the reasons that this is the case. We propose that future research should dive deeper into similar topic, however, on a more national scale. More women should then also be included. Next to this, we find it of importance to have researchers who can do interviews in languages that were excluded in this research, such as Arabic or Turkish.

Thank you!