Toward a Critical Sociology of Campus Sexual Assault: Victim Advocacy as the Lifeworld Resisting the System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Author made some corrections to the previous version of the article, which improved its quality. The analysis of legal framework (Title IX) has been added (p. 3). The part concerning  the Take Back the Night programs and restorative justice is new (pp. 14–16). Moreover, a reference to Habermas’s work has been added in the text of the article, but there may still be doubts as to whether the Author knows Habermas’ theory only from secondary sources. For example, there is no exact citation from Habermas’ work. Fundamental doubts remain regarding the empirical research conducted. The sample was very small (15 victim advocates), so even counting percentages from small numbers does not make much sense, as it often only distorts the presentation of the results (with 15 answers in total, 11 answers make 73 percent, and 4 answers make 26%!). More sophisticated data analysis methods cannot be used. Furthermore, the research do not seem new. Overall, when assessing the article, I must emphasize it is of mediocre quality and value.

Author Response

I have further clarified that I am relying on various scholars' analyses of Habermas's work, and I would also like to note that several publications focusing on concepts from Habermas rely heavily on secondary, rather than primary, sources. For example, see the following: (1) Jackson, N. (1999). The council tenants' forum: a liminal public space between lifeworld and system? Urban Studies, 36(1), 43-58; (2) Barry, C. A., Stevenson, F. A., Britten, N., Barber, N., & Bradley, C. P. (2001). Giving voice to the lifeworld. More humane, more effective medical care? A qualitative study of doctor–patient communication in general practice. Social science & Medicine, 53(4), 487-505; and (3) Froggatt, K., Hockley, J., Parker, D., & Brazil, K. (2011). A system lifeworld perspective on dying in long term care settings for older people: Contested states in contested places. Health & Place, 17(1), 263-268.

I would like to reiterate my response from the first set of revisions that this article is making a conceptual argument using a qualitative empirical study to illustrate the argument. Additional articles from the qualitative study have been published in highly ranked peer-reviewed articles without including quantitative analyses because those are not appropriate for qualitative studies. The goal in interpretive research is not generalizability or measuring prevalence but in deeply examining and contextualizing emergent themes that help describe lesser understood phenomena.

Finally, I'm sorry that the reviewer does not view the contribution of this article as new or of value. I have not seen any other research that suggests a nuanced way to conceptualize the lifeworld that includes motivations of care and compassion. Nor have I seen other research that applies a system-lifeworld analysis to any form of gender violence. Two of the original reviewers both commented on the unique and important contributions of this article.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

At page 2, when the authors explains: "Although most of the new requirements were viewed as having a negative impact on victims, a positive expectation was the provision of victim advocates, recommended by the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) (ATIXA, 2015)". It will be needed that he/she explains more, why these requirements are viewed like that?.

At the same page, when the authors talk about "Multiple studies have noted the value that victim advocates bring to campuses’ response to sexual assault". It will be needed to cite those studies. 

At the page 4, when the author assests: "Symbolic reproduction, which involves socialization, solidarity formation, and cultural transmission, becomes the main enterprise of the private, restricted nuclear family, and of the public sphere of political participation, debate and opinion-formation of Habermas’s lifeworld (Fraser, 1985)". The family as an neutral entity doesn´t exist, it wil be necessary to talk about gender power relationship inside the family, and social reproduction as a women issue.

Whe the author explains the Materials and Methods it will be interesting to include some reflections about ethic in the research: anonimization, re-victimization, etc. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2
At page 2, when the authors explains: "Although most of the new requirements were viewed as having a negative impact on victims, a positive expectation was the provision of victim advocates, recommended by the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) (ATIXA, 2015)". It will be needed that he/she explains more, why these requirements are viewed like that?.	I have added information about the negative impacts of Title IX legislation (i.e., loss of confidentiality and how mandatory reporting pulls victims into unwanted processes, and more court-like processes such as cross-examination)
At the same page, when the authors talk about "Multiple studies have noted the value that victim advocates bring to campuses’ response to sexual assault". It will be needed to cite those studies.	I have cited these studies.
At the page 4, when the author assests: "Symbolic reproduction, which involves socialization, solidarity formation, and cultural transmission, becomes the main enterprise of the private, restricted nuclear family, and of the public sphere of political participation, debate and opinion-formation of Habermas’s lifeworld (Fraser, 1985)". The family as an neutral entity doesn´t exist, it wil be necessary to talk about gender power relationship inside the family, and social reproduction as a women issue.	I have added an acknowledge about power dynamics within the family.
Whe the author explains the Materials and Methods it will be interesting to include some reflections about ethic in the research: anonimization, re-victimization, etc.	I appreciate this comment and have added that information.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article (sexual assaults on campuses) is undoubtedly important. In my view, however, the research is not well-designed. The main research question is formulated in a way that does not facilitate its understanding and mixes facts and theoretical concepts: “How can framing advocates’ perceptions of campus sexual assault through Habermas’s colonization of the lifeworld and Smith’s sociology for people contribute to stronger understandings of and responses to this problem?” (p. 5). The research sample is very small (15 victims’ advocates, p. 5), so it is difficult to generalize the results and it is difficult to present the results using percentages.

Proper spelling of the name of famous German sociologist is Jürgen Habermas. The Author describes Habermas’ concepts without any referces to Habermas’ original works, although Habermas’ main works have been translated into English (“The Theory of Communicative Action” was published in English translation in 1984–1987). The entire passage on Habermas is based on secondary sources (mainly on Fraser’s article published in 1985).

The term “campus sexual assault advocates” used in the abstract and introduction (line 31) is far being precise since it might mean those who advocated such a type of assault. “Victim advocates” is a better term. There is an unfinished sentence on page 5 (line 205): “ She promotes a commitment to”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With his manuscript, the author aimed to demonstrate the possibility of the application of critical theory to the field of Campus Sexual Assault. Although the paper is intriguing, the way of writing is confusing, For example, in the results, it occasionally seems that the author presents information that would be expected in the introduction, and the results are therefore less transparent, the discussion is quite superficial, and it seems that the paper repeatedly repeats three key theses without sufficient confirmations through data collected in interviews. The very description of the interview as a method is unclear, and in general, the work is harder to read because of this. Therefore, it would be important for the author to adapt the paper to the usual presentation of research based on qualitative methodology. For the above, it is necessary to systematically rework the work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW of Manuscript ID: Socsci-2574126

 

“Toward a Critical Sociology of Campus Sexual Assault: Advocacy as the Lifeworld Resisting the system”

 

General observations:

 

The author interviewed 15 campus victim advocates to better understand and examine how U.S. universities are responding to the persistence of campus sexual violence in higher education since the Dear Colleague Letter of 2011 on Title IX compliance.  The author has worked as an campus advocate for many years and thus is well-positioned to skillfully conduct the interviews and analyzs the interview data. The author makes a compelling case that critical sociological theories may be helpful for understanding, preventing and responding to campus sexual assault.

 

The author relies on the critical theorization of Jurgen Habermas’s, specifically his theorizing the colonization of the lifeworld, Nancy Fraser’s insights on Marx’s notions of self-articulation in the context of struggle, and Dorothy Smith’s feminist theorizing on “relations of ruling” as experienced by marginalized groups in their everyday lives.  The author integrates these conceptual frameworks and processes in interesting and novel ways.  One learns enough in the article about these theories to understand the author’s argument about how campus advocates, who are often feminists, are using an ethic of love and care to create space for survivors/victims of sexual crimes and in so doing are resisting the colonized lifeworlds of institutional responses that have the potential to retraumatize employees and students.

 

My main suggestion or comment to further develop the manuscript is related to the Results section, which often reads like a discussion based on the theoretical frames. I would like to see a clearer distinction between Results and Discussion.  As a reader, I would like to get more of a sense of what the advocates said as a group, before I read the author’s discussion of the theoretical implications or interpretations of the systematic observations (data).  Summarizing the results can help the reader get a better sense of the collective voices of the 15 advocates without the author’s interpretations at the same time. 

 

I think the author does a good job identifying illustrative quotes, but sometimes I was uncertain about what was “findings” and what was “discussion of the findings”.  This may call for a short and straightforward results section followed by a longer discussion section. Not all subsections are confusing, but some reorganization may help communicate the importance and usefulness of critical sociological theories. The author may also want to move some of the content of the discussion to the conclusion section.

 

Other COMMENTS:

 

1.     Given that Habermas’s work is the basis of your theoretical framework I would add a citation for the main articles/books that he developed the notion of the colonization of the lifeworld. My suggestion is to include the citation(s) only within the introduction since you use other references to discuss Habermas’s ideas.

 

2.     In the reference list, the following citation is listed twice:

Shepp, V., O’Callaghan, E., & Kirkner, A. (2023). The carceral logic of Title IX. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 16(1), 757 4-24.

 

3.     On page 15, the author writes: “As suggested by Ruth Gilmore, struggles are part of abolition; not just the ….. (Haymarket Books, 2021). 

 

I suggest the following edits: “As suggested by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, during a webinar conversation with Angela Y. Davis, Mike Davis and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, struggles are part of abolition; not just the ….. (Lannon Foundation 2021). 

 

The citation might also need to list the series title: Lannan: Readings & Conversations, and the name of the Lannon Foundation’s prize/title “Abolition, Cultural Freedom, Liberation”.  Not sure about this but I thought I would mention it. 

 

Haymarket Books. Lannon Foundation (2021) October 5. “Abolition, Cultural Freedom, Liberation”. Lannan: Readings & Conversations Webinar. 704? Retrieved (date) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLO0UuSnPzU&t=2206s .

 

I appreciate the opportunity to read and review this manuscript. I hope to see these important data and interesting analysis published.  All the best.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript "Toward a Critical Sociology of Campus Sexual Assault: Advocacy as the Lifeworld Resisting the System" the author proposes a critical sociology of campus sexual assault, informed by the work of Jurgen Habermas and Dorothy Smith, and on interviews with campus sexual assault advocates. The work is very interesting and of theoretical, social and applied relevance so I think it can be published in the journal Social Sciences.

However, I think that section 1.1. of the Introduction (page 2) should be expanded so that the problem can be better understood by non-specialists. Specifically, the text relating to Title IX legislation to campuses should be expanded, summarizing what is said in this title since it is referred to on several occasions throughout the manuscript.

In addition, the text on page 5, lines 205 to 207 should be revised as there must be some mistake and it is not understood. It reads as follows: “of people’s everyday lives (Smith, 1992; Smith, 1996). She promotes a commitment to    A sociology from women's standpoint in the local actualities of our everyday lives [that] must be put together quite differently from the traditional objectifying”…..