Exploiting Sociocultural Issues in Election Campaign Discourse: The Case of Nyans in Sweden
Sorina Soare
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper sets out with the very promising premise of analyzing the newly created party Nyans's discourse. To the extent of my knowledge, the paper makes a very innovative contribution to the literature by digging into aspects that have not been sufficiently documented before. As such, the paper fits firmly both within the most recent literature on populist radical right/radical right and the purview of the journal. The manuscript is logically constructed and well-written. The paper needs small amendments only, before being published.
To start with, the title fails to grasp the complexity of the analysis and I suggest a more straightforward wording.
The introduction is clearly written and clarifies the relevance of this analysis. A caveat concerns the use of far right/radical right. A more explicit conceptual justification is needed, supported by increased interaction previous works on the Swedish case (and more in general the issue of radicalism/extremism).
With regard to the focus on a specific case, the authors exclusively provide an empirical justification. Considering the novelty of the insights, I suggest adding a more solid justification of what this case might bring into the broader literature, in particular with regard to parties that might look similar (Denk or NIDA), with the specific caveats and/or difference.
The literature review is on the thin-side but I suppose this is mostly linked to word limits. I suggest clarifying in a more explicit way the two expectations that guide the analysis together with the specific contribution of CDA.
A small comment on the structure: section n.2. can be included in the research design (current section 2) in order to clarify the use of CDA and the specific dimensions of analysis. In case this solution does bot convince the authors, I suggest a more analytical integration between the general literature on how these parties are supposed to behave with regard to the topic of reference.
I appreciated the solidity of the CDA-based analysis; however the conclusions fail to illustrate the contribution of this very challenging paper to the broader literature. In the current form, the last looks like a synthesis of what has been previously said with no clear identification of the theoretical contribution and, more in general, how this research can guide further comparative agenda.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
We would like to express our gratitude for dedicating your valuable time to review our manuscript. Your insightful comments have been immensely beneficial, and we believe they will significantly enhance the paper's quality. We have addressed all the points you raised, and an attached list outlines the changes. Furthermore, in the manuscript, all revisions related to your feedback have been highlighted in green.
Reviewer 1, the changes have been marked in green
|
Comment |
Response |
|
To start with, the title fails to grasp the complexity of the analysis and I suggest a more straightforward wording |
We have reformulated the title as per her/his suggestion
|
|
A caveat concerns the use of far right/radical right. A more explicit conceptual justification is needed, supported by increased interaction previous works on the Swedish case (and more in general the issue of radicalism/extremism |
Two paragraphs have been added to the introduction in response to this comment. |
|
With regard to the focus on a specific case, the authors exclusively provide an empirical justification. Considering the novelty of the insights, I suggest adding a more solid justification of what this case might bring into the broader literature, in particular with regard to parties that might look similar (Denk or NIDA), with the specific caveats and/or difference |
A paragraph has been added to highlight the clear research novelty. |
|
The literature review is on the thin-side but I suppose this is mostly linked to word limits. I suggest clarifying in a more explicit way the two expectations that guide the analysis together with the specific contribution of CDA |
The literature review has indeed been expanded to incorporate the suggestion. |
|
A small comment on the structure: section n.2. can be included in the research design (current section 2) in order to clarify the use of CDA and the specific dimensions of analysis. In case this solution does bot convince the authors, I suggest a more analytical integration between the general literature on how these parties are supposed to behave with regard to the topic of reference |
Done |
|
I appreciated the solidity of the CDA-based analysis; however the conclusions fail to illustrate the contribution of this very challenging paper to the broader literature. In the current form, the last looks like a synthesis of what has been previously said with no clear identification of the theoretical contribution and, more in general, how this research can guide further comparative agenda |
A paragraph has been added to the conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper analyzes Nyan (a newly founded Swedish political party) Facebook posts published in the month leading up to the 2022 elections. The authors applied a Critical Discourse Analysis approach to uncover the relationship between sociocultural issues and their social, political, and ideological context. The results reveal that Nyans' discourse focused on opposing left-wing parties and aligned itself with the far-right. The discourse aligns with misinformation campaigns on social media when addressing sociocultural issues. These issues include the childcare law, the burning of the Qur'an, and the veil, which are pertinent to a particular perspective in the Muslim community and do not necessarily represent immigrants or minorities.
This is an interesting paper from a societal and scientifical point of view.
I have the following points to make the paper stronger:
Abstract:
Mention the exact time period when the study has been conducted.
Introduction:
Add one or more research questions.
Theoretical frame work: Agenda setting and representation are at the core of the theoretical framework. What lacks is the operationalization, that is needed as a bridge towards the data analysis. You announce in section 3 that: “Framing essentially involves selection and salience [68]”. Please define framing, and selection and salience (semiotics?) and explain how these 2 notions are used in the data analysis.
Data analysis:
Use the notions selection and salience, clearly present the concept resulting form your analysis, and use a concept indicator model to visualize your results.
Conclusion:
Answer one or more research questions. Use the notions above also in your Conclusion.
Add a Limitations section.
Add a section discussing the implications for future studies of your study.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
We want to express our sincere appreciation for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Your constructive comments are invaluable and will enhance the paper's quality. We have thoroughly addressed all the points you raised, and an attached list summarizes the changes. In the manuscript, you will notice that all modifications related to your feedback have been highlighted in yellow. Furthermore, we have incorporated additional paragraphs as per your recommendations.
Reviewer 2, the changes have been marked in yellow.
|
Comment |
Response |
|
In the abstract: Mention the exact time period when the study has been conducted |
Done |
|
In the introduction: Add one or more research questions |
We have included a paragraph outlining the research questions in the introduction. |
|
Theoretical frame work: Agenda setting and representation are at the core of the theoretical framework. What lacks is the operationalization, that is needed as a bridge towards the data analysis. You announce in section 3 that: “Framing essentially involves selection and salience [68]”. Please define framing, and selection and salience (semiotics?) and explain how these 2 notions are used in the data analysis |
A paragraph has been added to address this comment. |
|
Use the notions selection and salience, clearly present the concept resulting form your analysis, and use a concept indicator model to visualize your results |
Done |
|
In conclusion: Answer one or more research questions. Use the notions above also in your Conclusion |
Done |
|
Add a Limitations section |
Done |
|
Add a section discussing the implications for future studies of your study |
Done |
|
|
|
Your feedback is highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors still do not clearly present the concepts resulting from their analysis, in a concept indicator model visualizing your results.
The authors added research questions. What is nit donr is that in the conclusion these research questions shoukd be repeated, and then answered one by one.
Author Response
|
Comment |
Response |
|
The authors still do not clearly present the concepts resulting from their analysis, in a concept indicator model visualizing your results |
We have incorporated a section titled "Nyans Party Media Discourse Model," comprising three paragraphs and an accompanying figure. |
|
The authors added research questions. What is nit donr is that in the conclusion these research questions shoukd be repeated, and then answered one by one. |
We have included additional sentences in the conclusion, highlighted in yellow. Additionally, you will find our conclusion addressing RQ1 marked in red, RQ2 in blue, and RQ3 in purple. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYou implemented my feedback in a sufficient way.
