Providing an Authentic Voice? Understanding Migrant Homelessness through Critical Poetic Inquiry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for writing this compelling manuscript on poetic inquiry as a mode of research and data presentation. The work presents original perspectives of poetic inquiry regarding social issues emerging around migrant homelessness.

The main thrust of the study is well explained, and the overall argument is supported by a cohesive structure and an apt writing style. The paper is underpinned by an appropriate conceptual framework and a profound methodological discussion of poetic inquiry that suit the intended aims of the study in an effective manner. The ensuing analysis is overall well sustained.

However, there remain a number of areas in which this paper can be strengthened for the readership of this journal:

(i) The paper could provide a deeper reflection on the interdisciplinary contributions of the analysis to specific strands of scholarship and practice of poetic inquiry. So, in what precise ways does this analysis push our understanding of this field?

(ii) Although the limitations of positivist approaches in social science research have been well addressed, the epistemological and methodological limitations of poetic inquiry deserve further critical engagement.

(iii) The discussion of poetic inquiry can be supported by further integration of recent scholarship and examples in this area, especially in the emerging field of the geographical humanities. See the recent book ‘Non-representational theory and the creative arts’ (2019) by Eds C Boyd & C Edwardes, including the use of found poetry and its ‘queering’ potentials in the chapter ‘Queerly Feeling Art in Public’ by M Zebracki https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5749-7_6

(iv) Positionality is an important dimension in poetic inquiry indeed. Although this notion is briefly mentioned in this work (p. 4, l. 137), issues around positionality (and attending study biases) in the interpretation of social and creative data can be engaged with greater critical depth. This can be especially pursued in the context of critical race methodology as discussed in this paper.

By implementing changes per the above, I think this work can take its remit even further forward. Good luck.

Author Response

Response to Referees

 

Providing an Authentic Voice?

 

Many thanks to the referees for the constructive and insightful comments on my submitted article. I have made changes to the article in response to the very helpful suggestions. These changes are outlined below:

 

1. I have made the article more approachable (referee 1) by simplifying and clarifying language, reducing footnotes, and consolidating the argument to focus on CRM with less emphasis on social transformation.
2. I have included more detail on poetic inquiry as method (referee 1) by clearly showing the value of nonrepresentational, creative practice for reflexive research. Similarly, I have highlighted my own positionality in the research process (referee 3).
3. I have made minor correction to spelling (referee 2).
4. I have provided a reflection on the interdisciplinary contributions of poetic inquiry by integrating recent scholarship and examples in this area (referee 3), enhancing the section on ‘critical poetic inquiry as methodology’.
5. I have addressed the epistemological and methodological limitations of poetic inquiry (referee 3) in the discussion section of the article.

 

I hope that these changes will mean that the article can now be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

I certainly compliment the author for a thoughtful and thought provoking manuscript.  It was an interesting take on "poetic representation."  I recommend the manuscript be published but only after another run through by the author.  I found that the manuscript was intensely written, filled with a nearly ongoing litany of theory and academic references/inferences.  My problem with the manuscript, and I wish I could be more specific, is that the manuscript is not very approachable for the reader.  The intensity of material presented--CRT, CRM, transformative research, counter story-telling, and then the two forms of poetry, was quite overwhelming as a reader.  And for a comparative piece and a effort to offer a new way of doing things, the poetry, I found myself wanting to know more about how does one actually go about doing it--finding meaning in the data and creating a poem.  Is the interpretation of the poetry left to the reader of a research report, or must some footnotes accompany the effort of interpretation?  Is it possible to just ratchet things down just a bit, and make the manuscript more approachable for the reader?  Thanks.  

Author Response

Response to Referees

 

Providing an Authentic Voice?

 

Many thanks to the referees for the constructive and insightful comments on my submitted article. I have made changes to the article in response to the very helpful suggestions. These changes are outlined below:

 

1. I have made the article more approachable (referee 1) by simplifying and clarifying language, reducing footnotes, and consolidating the argument to focus on CRM with less emphasis on social transformation.
2. I have included more detail on poetic inquiry as method (referee 1) by clearly showing the value of nonrepresentational, creative practice for reflexive research. Similarly, I have highlighted my own positionality in the research process (referee 3).
3. I have made minor correction to spelling (referee 2).
4. I have provided a reflection on the interdisciplinary contributions of poetic inquiry by integrating recent scholarship and examples in this area (referee 3), enhancing the section on ‘critical poetic inquiry as methodology’.
5. I have addressed the epistemological and methodological limitations of poetic inquiry (referee 3) in the discussion section of the article.

 

I hope that these changes will mean that the article can now be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well argued article, creatively integrating Critical Race Methodology with 'counter-storytelling' poetic inquiry.  The researcher in the mid-way traffic, has successfully demonstrated a nuanced insightful approach to understand the homeless experiences of migrants in majoritarian discourses.

Minor corrections of spellings (eg. Line 110: should be through, not ‘though’) are needed.  For future work, the author is invited to listen to the migrants' authentic voices in their own terms (their epistemological path, cultures / history / philosophies and religions), rather than adapting CRT originated in US to totally different traditions.

 

Author Response

Response to Referees

 

Providing an Authentic Voice?

 

Many thanks to the referees for the constructive and insightful comments on my submitted article. I have made changes to the article in response to the very helpful suggestions. These changes are outlined below:

 

1. I have made the article more approachable (referee 1) by simplifying and clarifying language, reducing footnotes, and consolidating the argument to focus on CRM with less emphasis on social transformation.
2. I have included more detail on poetic inquiry as method (referee 1) by clearly showing the value of nonrepresentational, creative practice for reflexive research. Similarly, I have highlighted my own positionality in the research process (referee 3).
3. I have made minor correction to spelling (referee 2).
4. I have provided a reflection on the interdisciplinary contributions of poetic inquiry by integrating recent scholarship and examples in this area (referee 3), enhancing the section on ‘critical poetic inquiry as methodology’.
5. I have addressed the epistemological and methodological limitations of poetic inquiry (referee 3) in the discussion section of the article.

 

I hope that these changes will mean that the article can now be accepted for publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for doing the suggested revisions.  I recommend publication.