Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have very much enjoyed reading and reviewing this submission. In providing a detailed single case account of policy influence work by equalities nonprofit organizations in a sub-state partnership setting, the theoretically informed analysis offered is powerful and would certainly add to the literature.

 

The paper is mostly well written and structured, and the argument flows well throughout. The paper has a clear and extensive abstract which identifies key findings as well as background context, theoretical framing and research. Section 2 (theory), if a little too long, handles appropriate literatures authoritatively and adeptly and draws good connections between them to set out a framework for analysis. The analysis is well presented (section 4) and Section 5 (discussion) ties threads together by relating findings back to existing literature. I particularly appreciated the discussion of equalities organizations as nonprofits with some space for critical interventions with government, as a helpful counter to the frequent sense in the literature that government always dominates and stifles advocacy.

 

I think the paper is well on the way to being publishable, but think some revisions are needed to strengthen it. There are four points to consider, plus a series of minor points, typos, expression, etc.

 

1/ Structure:

 

Overall, I thought parts of the text were too detailed and/or repetitive given the space for other elements of the paper (see below) and would suggest trying to condense or dispense with some of the text. For example, in section 2, the discussion of the plurality of equalities (p.3, lines 105-115) seems a bit laboured, could be more concise, as was that on institutionalisms (s.2.4). As far as I could tell, institutionalism guides the analysis by its focus on the explicit and implicit rules and norms operating through the case study. If this is so, the paper only needs to provide enough background on institutionalism to help make that point. I thought the writing could also be more concise at p.8, line 363 (‘Devolution in Wales was triggered…’); p.8, line 397 (‘It is also appropriate to examine…’) and at p.9, line 412: (‘This qualitative research is underpinned…’) – here I thought not all the explanation of different constructivisms was necessary.

 

2/ Elaboration – informal relationships:

 

If some parts of the discussion were overdone, one area I felt could usefully be elaborated was on the nature of informal relationships. At p.13, line 636 the author highlights ‘the importance of informal relationships to third sector-government relations…’ but never really says what they are. It would be good to have some description/definition of what informal relationships consist of. Are they, for example, to do with location, i.e., anything outside of partnership structures/meetings? Or anything ‘off the record’? Or is it a matter of relationship style, i.e., chatting over the coffee machine or in the toilets in a break in an otherwise formal meeting? Or a matter of process, i.e., formal relationships are more about accountability, while informal ones are about trust-building?

 

3/ Terminology

 

There is a bit of inconsistency in how the paper is referring to its organisations of interest: ‘those Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)’ are mentioned at p.1, line 39, but the title refers to ‘nonprofit organisations’ and the research question refers to ‘third sector’ (p.2, line 78). Then, at p.8, line 388 the language shifts to ‘voluntary sector’. I’d suggest either explaining and sticking to a term consistently (preferable) or having an explanation for why different terms are used.

 

4/ Concluding section, and a substantive gap

 

The Discussion section is very good, but I wondered whether it was uneasily trying to fulfil two functions – discussing the results and rounding off/concluding the paper. If space is freed up by more concise writing in earlier sections, I think a short conclusion would be helpful and provide a stronger end to the paper. It could take elements of the current Discussion section to summarise the key contribution but crucially also identify next steps. I felt this was missing. Having done the research and advanced the literature, a fuller contribution would set out the priorities for further research. I wondered whether one substantive gap here might be exploration of the tensions and conflicts that may arise over the advance of interests of different equalities groups. The analysis in this paper presents overarching findings for these groups as a whole, with little consideration of differences, and yet we know that the politics around equalities can become, have become, highly contested.

 

Minor points, typos, expression, etc.

 

·         The writing is good and clearly communicates the argument. In general, I thought there was an overuse of ‘this’. I’d suggest trying to reduce its use, and think of alternative sentence formations.

·         p.1, line 26: ‘This study is concerned with…’ – suggest starting with ‘This article is concerned with…’ (strictly speaking it is an article reporting a study, rather than the study itself; also perhaps start with something other than ‘This…’)

·         p.1, line 41: ‘One benefit of scrutinizing such equalities organizations is that they are nonprofit organizations’ – seems an odd thing to say, and begs the question, why is that a benefit?

·         p.2, line 46: ‘…differences in both these terms’ meanings and political signifiers…’ – not clear what the ‘both’ is referring to here; is it ‘meanings and political signifiers’ or different terms such as ‘nonprofit’, ‘not-for-profit’, voluntary, civil society etc.? If the former I think the text should be ‘…differences both in…’; if the latter there are five terms so ‘both’ shouldn’t apply.

·         p.2, line 54: ‘…to interpret these organisation’s claims and claims making…’ – should be ‘…these organisations’ claims...’

·         p.2, line 56: perhaps explain what ‘insider-outsider positions’ here (first use in the paper), especially since the term ‘insider-outsider spectrum’ follows shortly afterwards

·         p.2, line 61: ‘synthesizes disparate strands of literature’ – I’d suggest being slightly bolder here, given what the paper is doing, e.g., ‘synthesises key elements of different bodies of knowledge’?

·         p.2, line 68: ‘and between different sector…’ – ‘sectors’ (pl.)?

·         p.2, line 72: ‘written into legislation within Wales…’ – suggesting adding ‘in the United Kingdom’, for international readers

·         p.4, lines 196, 198: is ‘positionality’ the right word? The text goes on to define and discuss ‘positioning’ which seems more appropriate. ‘Positionality’ is a bit confusing in this context, as it is usually used in discussions of research methodology? (see also p.6, line 285: ‘institutional positionality’, and p.7, line 326)

·         p.5, lines 208-210: ‘a number of divisions on the insider-outsider continuum to create typologies [9,59-61]. These can be against a range of dimensions [62,63]’ – suggest just listing a couple of examples of these dimensions.

·         p.5, line 236: ‘…and outsider strategies rather than insider or outsider organization….’ – should it be ‘organizations’ (pl.)?

·         p.5, line 255: ‘…new institutionalism draw attention…’ – should be ‘draws attention’

·         p.6, lines 278-279: ‘…leads us to examine other informal norms might be imposed on equalities organisations by a governance institution…’ – missing word here? (either ‘how’ after ‘examine’, or ‘which’ after ‘norms’).

·         p.6, line 291: ‘public dissatisfaction with welfare provision’ – should this be ‘state welfare provision’?

·         p.7, line 313: ‘…In constructing this analytical framework…’ – what analytical framework? (this is its first mention)

·         p.7, line 312: section 2.5 seems to shift into the past tense, which reads rather oddly; suggest trying to keep it consistent, and present tense seems perfectly fine

·         p.7, line 328: ‘the equalities sector’s ability to play a critical role in their relationship…’ – ‘sector’ is singular, but ‘their’ implies plural

·         p.7, line 357: ‘The Welsh statutory partnership was established in 1998…’ – I felt this sentence would be better placed at the start of this paragraph, as it then firmly identifies the timing of the partnership, which is otherwise left a bit vague

·         p.8, line 384: ‘community regenerations partnerships’ – ‘regeneration’ (singular)?

·         p.8, line 394: ‘…feature [91,102], This makes Welsh devolution…’ – suggest ‘…102], making Welsh devolution’

·         p.8, line 411: There are two section 3s in the paper ‘The case study partnership’ (p.7, line 337) and ‘Materials and Methods’

·         p.10, line 511: ‘This is supported by the foregoing finding that…’ – I felt this paragraph repeated the finding just discussed

·         p.11, line 532: ‘The claims detailed in the previous section accord…’ – this paragraph feels odd as the discussion is going over the previous section’s findings, rather than detailing new findings for s.4.1.2

·         p.17, line 821: ‘…consistently made statement such as…’ – ‘statements’ (pl)

·         p.17, line 858: ‘is an original contribution to mainstreaming theory…’ – I’m not sure it is necessary to stress the original contribution here (see also p.18, line 903)

·         p.18, line 891: ‘…how the nonprofit sector are in…’ – ‘is’ not ‘are’

·         p.18, line 894: ‘Lobbying theorists suggests that…’ – either ‘Lobbying theorists suggest’ or ‘Lobbying theory suggests’

·         p.19, line 959: ‘On the contrary, this study shows…’ – I wonder whether ‘In contrast, this study shows…’ might be a better formulation

Author Response

Thank you enormously for your feedback. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article; relevant and timely subject matter for investigation.

Address grammar issues, repeated words, and use of very long sentences as it makes it more difficult to comprehend arguments. For example 'non-proft scholars ...' needs a possessive - scholars', and this sentence would also benefit from a full stop after independence. And a new sentence "This contributes ... etc Text lines 57-60.

Two main improvements - refine the conceptual frameworks - are there too many? Or consider summarising and sythensising to help the reader see the argument more clearly. For example, the discussion on social movement theory is good and useful, section on not for profits could be more consise as can observations on the civil society/nonforprofit literatures not being focused on equality organisations. The framework setting could then set out more clearly how social movement and institutionalist theory can better interact - give worked examples.

Mainstreaming - more needed on the theory - should be agenda setting (how has it been watered down by other approaches)? Could say more on your observations from the research about how some mainstreaming  tools appear to be being used in this setting - but without the underpinning principles and tools. The observation on mainstreaming making equality 'everybody's business and none' has been made before but it is clearly evidenced here - this is a valuable contribution to the 'failure' literature. Expand: Is it seen as a threat to new forms of engagement (although mainstreaming models and the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act see engagement and participation as central to policy development)?  See EU Commission reports, Rees, Davids, Hafner-Burton for possible earlier concerns on 'everybody's responsibility' - which mainstreaming would actually advocate for policymakers but with the required mechanisms for visioning equality and a supporting policymaking framework- as is referred to in the conclusion).

Strenghten the conclusion - What could be done to make the TSPC more effective? Is it the right mechanism? Or the right mechanism because it leads to informal meetings/networks? How can we assess the efficacy of claims made by third sector orgs?  How can mainstreaming be strenghtened not only in policymaking but within equality organisations or has it been superceded and by what new or recycled older forms of approaches to equality?

Author Response

Thank you enormously for your feedback. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

The paper focuses on a very important subject area, the relationship between the state and non-profit organisations in relation to policy-making, is based on extensive primary research data and includes a wide range of relevant references to academic literature in the field.  However, for this paper to be published I think it would require an extensive re-write.  Areas which require more work, in my view, include the Abstract, the Introduction, the review of existing academic literature, and the discussion of the results from the primary research.

The one section which I think was actually very good and requires less work is the final concluding discussion section,

I have written a wide range of comments (51) on the PDF of the paper which are meant to be constructive and will hopefully be helpful to the authors.

I emphasise that I think that this paper should be published.  It relates to an important issue and includes a wide range of interviews - 19 from equalities non-profit sector organisations, 8 from the umbrella third sector organisation, WCVA, and 13 from Welsh Government, including 1 minister, and 1 from the Welsh Parliament.  It thus has a lot of potential to add to the existing international literature. 

I have provided some more detailed comments below.

Abstract

In terms of the Abstract, I think that the wording of the abstract is unnecessarily ambiguous for an international audience.  There is a use of some terminology which might not be widely understood.  I think it could easily be changed to remove ambiguity.  The aim of the research seems quite straightforward and since the abstract needs to attract the reader, the language in it could be more succinct, clearer  and much easier to understand (for an international audience). 

There is terminology used throughout the paper which would require an explanation or definition since many potential readers may be confused by it.  There is an assumption that all will understand, but this may not necessarily be the case.

Introduction

The aim of the research, and the methods are quite clear in the paper however these should be made clear right from the start (in the Abstract and in the first page of the Introduction) so that the reader is clear from the start about what the paper is focusing on. 

Literature Review

A wide range of literature is covered in the literature review, but the range is probably too wide, and this limits the ability to develop more in-depth discussion of the current literature which relates specifically to the specific issue under discussion.  For example, the research isn’t really about social movements or protest organisations.  Nor is it really about the concept of equality and how it can be achieved. The stated aim of the research is to show how equalities non-profit organizations involved in promoting different aspects of equality engage with Government in trying to influence government policymaking.  The research itself concentrates on how this is done via the statutory Partnership between Government and voluntary sector in Wales.  Thus the primary research relates to a very specific example of how the nonprofit sector attempts to influence policy making.  Thus, the literature review in my view, should focus particularly on this – how voluntary sector organisation influence policy-making, when in partnership arrangements with the state, the tactics they use, the methods they use, etc, and the pros and cons of partnership arrangements with Government.  This might include discussion around different types of power, how to develop leverage, how to work formally and informally and at different levels and the importance of personality and approach.  Whilst it may be true that Wales has the only statutory Partnership arrangements between non-profits and the state, the notion of partnership is not unique to Wales.  Throughout Europe there are partnership bodies where state and non-profit sectors intersect.  That is also the case in different parts of the UK and Ireland.  As such, some discussion of the experience elsewhere of these partnership arrangements might be usefully included in the literature review.  In particular the debates about the independence of the non-profit sector, the dangers of incorporation, the issues around the representativeness of the nonprofit organisations chosen to be ‘partners’, the concept of ‘partnership’ and to what extent such arrangements are really a partnership, and the discussions around different consensus verses conflict views on how society operates, are probably all important for situating this study within existing literature.  In particular, I think the literature review should be coherently structured and that the results from the current research should be linked to specific literature when they are discussed in the results section.

Results Discussion

For me this section was the most disappointing, given that there were 32 qualitative interviews conducted.  I would like to have seen more data and more analysis of the data.  I also thought the structure of this section could be greatly improved.

Concluding Comments

Although these comments may sound negative, that is not my intention.

I emphasise that I think that this paper should be published.  It relates to an important issue/s and includes a wide range of interviews.  It thus has a lot of potential to add to the existing international literature. 

I am simply calling for the authors to consider a re-write of existing material, better structuring of material and some additions which relate to the main focus.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you enormously for your feedback. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I was glad to see that the author’s responded with a revised version of the article as I worried that some of the recommendations I had made might have discouraged them since they involved substantial changes to the article.  However, I was a bit disappointed at the revised draft presented by the author/s in this article.  Whist most of the minor amendments suggested seem to have been taken on board by the authors, the more substantive ones seem to have been avoided.  I would have liked to have seen a more vigorous revision carried out, particularly in relation to improving the clarity, structure and focus of the article. 

Whilst I can accept that different reviewers can have different, even contradictory perspectives on an article, and that this can be confusing to authors, I think that even where my own comments were accepted by the author/s their responses to them were often quite inadequate. 

For example, when I suggested that it was necessary to explain to an international audience what ‘equalities’ organisations were, in the context of this article, the response was simply to add the sentence - Equalities organizations refers to a set of nonprofit organizations that represent different equalities groups in government policymaking.  This is at the start of the introduction and without a reference to evidence or the source of the definition.  The definition doesn’t actual explain what ‘equalities’ organisations are.  There is some discussion later in the article about the many different types of inequality which exist in society.  This could have been mentioned here, to provide a justification for using the term ‘equalities organisations’ rather than equality organisations. It may also have been useful to state if this is the term preferred by these organisations themselves or government, or if this is your own particular term.  The article will be read by an international audience who may not be familiar with the term.

The definition is also states that such organisations represent different equalities groups in government policymaking? 

However, it doesn’t explain what ‘equalities’ groups’ are.  The definition also suggests that all ‘equalities organisation’ promoting equality operate in this way – by representing their constituency government policy making – but is this really the case, or is it just a section of such organisations which operate in this way?

It is important to note that not all organisations which struggle to promote equal rights for their constituent groups will choose to represent those groups interests in government partnership structures.  Some would prefer to maintain a ‘distance’ to maintain their own independence.  Others will view the government itself as the problem rather than the solution.  Indeed, some of these groups may be illegal in some societies around the world.  Even the idea of trying to promote ‘equality’ or even ‘recognition’ for some groups around the world is dangerous, if not impossible. 

The notion that nonprofit organisations trying to promote equality for their constituents can engage in a partnership with government is something which is very much restricted to particular societies in the world.  Even then, the notion of collaborating with government bodies may be an anathema to many such organisations.

I don’t want to sound pedantic, but I am using this particular ‘revision’ to try and illustrate why I feel that some of the responses to what I felt was a quite thorough (and helpful) review have been so inadequate.   The revisions don’t appear to address many of the substantive issues raised in the review.

It seems to me that it would have been relatively simple to give a succinct and clear definition that explains what ‘equalities’ organisations are in the Welsh context, and what they do, and which section of these organisations (those operating in government partnership structures) you are focusing on in this particular research. 

In relation to the wider general comments I made in the first review, it is clear that most of the minor amendments suggested in the track changes have in the main been taken on board by the author/s and revisions provided. 

However, when it comes to the substantive changes, recommending changes to structure, theoretical discussion, argument, clarification and focus, revisions have been much more limited

In this respect, I have made some responses here to some the Authors Comments on the review

Reviewer 3 felt that I could dispense with the literature on social movements and suggested these are not protest organisations.

 

What I was actually suggesting was that the literature review needs  to reflect the literature most relevant to the research being discussed. It needs to tell us what has already been written and researched on the topic of focus and show how the current research findings either reflect that, challenge that or add to it.  In my view, the literature review presented by the authors is too broad  in its coverage and lacks detailed in-depth discussion of the literature directly related to the issues discussed by the research.    I was suggesting that one way of providing a more focused and more in-depth approach to the literature was to narrow the focus and that could be done by removing some of the sections (e.g. that on social movements) and adding more discussion of literature and research of more relevance to the research.

If the authors are claiming that these organisations represent a section of ‘social movements’ which operate in a particular way then of course they should include literature on social movements, but that should recognise that most social movements don’t operate within government partnership structures.  There should also then be discussion on the different theoretical approaches of social movements – ‘conflict versus consensus’ views for example – and presumably the efficacy of such approaches in promoting the rights of their constituent groups in liberal democratic societies, such as Wales.   

My own thoughts are that the NP organisations that were actually researched are not really social movements.  If the authors are claiming that they are then that should be made clear and evidenced.  If they are not social movements, then the question arises as to why the literature review includes a large section on social movements.  In my own view the research is more about how partnerships between the state and specific NP profit organisations operate and I feel that the focus therefore of the lit review should be on that – thus a much more focused lit review than one covering a range of different topics but lacking depth.  There is a wide range of academic literature on this subject particularly relating to England and Wales but also relating to the wider international experience.  I offered some examples of relevant topics in that regard.

 

Reviewer 3 suggested it would be better to limit my use of

theoretical ideas.

What I was actually trying to convey to the author was not that they ‘limit’ their use of theoretical ideas but be more focused in terms of the theoretical discussion developed and more focused in relation to the subject of the research.  That is why I suggested for example that they consider theory around power and incorporation when they are discussing partnerships between government bodies and NP organisations.  The power relationships within such ‘partnerships’ are rarely equal. All NPs must consider the extent to which they are really influencing decision-making by being part of a state/voluntary sector ‘partnership’, and to what extent they are simply legitimating the policies and practices of government.  It is theoretical ideas around about such structures and relationships which I think should be focused upon rather than on  what seemed to me to be a quite wide -ranging coverage of theoretical ideas and debates which only a passing relevance to the main issues presented in the research.

This is what I actually said in my comments re the lit review

“A wide range of literature is covered in the literature review, but the range is probably too wide, and this limits the ability to develop more in-depth discussion of the current literature which relates specifically to the specific issue under discussion.  For example, the research isn’t really about social movements or protest organisations.  Nor is it really about the concept of equality and how it can be achieved. The stated aim of the research is to show how equalities non-profit organizations involved in promoting different aspects of equality engage with Government in trying to influence government policymaking.  The research itself concentrates on how this is done via the statutory Partnership between Government and voluntary sector in Wales.  Thus, the primary research relates to a very specific example of how the nonprofit sector attempts to influence policy making.  Thus, the literature review in my view, should focus particularly on this – how voluntary sector organisation influence policy-making, when in partnership arrangements with the state, the tactics they use, the methods they use, etc, and the pros and cons of partnership arrangements with Government.  This might include discussion around different types of power, how to develop leverage, how to work formally and informally and at different levels and the importance of personality and approach.  Whilst it may be true that Wales has the only statutory Partnership arrangements between non-profits and the state, the notion of partnership is not unique to Wales.  Throughout Europe there are partnership bodies where state and non-profit sectors intersect.  That is also the case in different parts of the UK and Ireland.  As such, some discussion of the experience elsewhere of these partnership arrangements might be usefully included in the literature review.  In particular, the debates about the independence of the non-profit sector, the dangers of incorporation, the issues around the representativeness of the nonprofit organisations chosen to be ‘partners’, the concept of ‘partnership’ and to what extent such arrangements are really a partnership, and the discussions around different consensus verses conflict views on how society operates, are probably all important for situating this study within existing literature.  In particular, I think the literature review should be coherently structured and that the results from the current research should be linked to specific literature when they are discussed in the results section”.

 

Reviewer 3 also asked about efficacy of how to influence decisions and

the pros and cons of a partnership setting. My findings are substantial around these

subjects. I very much hope to publish a paper on this and could not possibly do these

findings justice by introducing these here. Therefore, I have added some comments

around efficacy of policy influencing activities and the partnership in the limitations

discussed in my conclusion. These comments have spurred me on in my

commitment to publish on this in the near future.

 

I suppose my response to this would be that the title of the article and the content of the research reported on suggests that the article is focused on “Examining how equalities nonprofit organizations approach policy influencing to achieve substantive representation in sub-state government policymaking”.  In this particular case, the NP organisations concerned are funded by the state and engage in a partnership with the state in the hope that this will help advance their particular agenda.   This is a particular approach which not all NGOs adopt. Some are not among the chosen few which get the invite to ‘represent’ particular NP interests in NP/state partnerships. Many others do not receive state funding which provides it own constraints (as well as benefits). Others worry that involvement in partnerships with the state will compromise their agenda and lead to incorporation and justification for state policies and practices.  I therefore think that it might be useful to discuss the extent to which this is a useful approach.  What else is the research about, if not that?

I acknowledge that the authors have made a number of revisions and in some cases substantial additions, mainly in relation to the Conclusion.  However, the Conclusion reflects some of the points I have raised.  It is much more focused than the literature review for example. 

I reiterate what I said in the first review.  I think this research is important and should be published.  I think though that the substantive issues I raised about how the article has been written still exist. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx