Conducting Research with Unaccompanied Refugee Minors within an Institutional Context: Challenges and Insights

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fascinating and important study of the experiences of unaccompanied refugee minors from various parts of the world to Portugal. I want to commend the researchers for engaging meaningfully with participants through art projects that invite URMs to consider their present and future rather than focus only their traumatic past. The researchers clearly care deeply about the young people who have chosen to participant in the art program, and that came across in the article.

 

I suggest the following revisions to strengthen the paper:

 

The paper does not have a literature review. But there is reference to various articles in the introduction. The paper would benefit from a more formal literature review that discusses a bit more about URMs in Portugal and art as a way for immigrant young people to make sense of their situations.

 

On page 2, line 47, you use the abbreviation “PT.” I think this refers to Portugal but I wasn’t sure, so I think you should spell it out.

 

You also use the term on page 2, line 64, you use the motricity and I think more people will know the term fine motor skills.

 

In terms of organizing the paper further, I suggest the authors move the discussion about the contexts of the participants from lines 320-354 before the findings where the authors discuss the drawing and photography with the students. I think this will help the reader understand the background and experience the young people are bringing to the art program, and will also help the readers understand how the setting of CPR can be constraining for the participants.

 

Furthermore, I suggest that the authors organize the findings into two sub-findings: (1) drawings and (2) photography.

 

The authors also suggest that they have ideas for how to help the education system understand the experiences of these students and I was expecting to read some recommendations but didn’t see any. I think it is up to the authors’ whether or not to include this, but if they choose not to, then they should not discuss that at the beginning of the article and focus primarily on discussing the program within the context of the social and emotional development and integration of these young people.

 

Again, I appreciate what the authors are doing with these young people and the commitment and care they have comes across in the paper and is a major strength along with the discussion and description of how the workshop works, and the pictures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is a well-written paper. The authors' English is very good and the description of the workshop, the participants' experiences, and the authors' commitment to this important project is readable and easy to follow. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and your comments. We found them very relevant. Based on that, we decided to review the entire paper, tackling all the suggestions that you made.

Among other things, this included reorganizing the order of some paragraphs, adding subcategories, entirely restructuring one of the sections, organizing the findings, expanding the literature review, specifying our objectives, and completing the conclusions in accordance with the revised text.

We hope that the new version of the article will be more in line with your expectations. Thank you again for your time.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author:

This is a very crucial and valuable topic to research. This is an exploratory research, yet vital to the understanding of how URM self identity can be positively reinforced in a EU context given their traumatic experiences?  Please note that this paper has multiple gaps. It requires that you state clearly what is the bigger objective and if there are any sub objective in this paper. For example- Is the bigger objective to identify the barriers and access to conducting URM research in a government facility? Or,  Is it also asking what is the best reseacrh to conduct in URM integration analysis or CPR facility intervention for improvement to better integrate the URMs? Or, is it asking how URM self identity can be positively reinforced in a EU context? You do have a few mentioned upfront in the Introductory section, however, more clarity can be helpful and a larger societal focus will also be important.  

2. The manuscript needs extensive organizing and connecting with the past and current scholarship. There is no literature review conducted at all and a section devoted to it is also missing. 

3. The methods section has desirable details- however the section is immature in organization and needs extensive attention. I have placed details in the manuscript in regards to which section needs moving upfront. It turns out that the whole section needs reorganizing. 

4. Discussion section is highly limited as there is no connection made with the existing literature neither your own interesting or significant findings are stated with reasonings or connected with existing literature. Research findings must be referenced along with your own findings to discuss how your findings are important or not. 

Conclusion: I also believe that conclusion must start with restating the purpose of this manuscript and then conclude with how it have made contribution to the scholarship. 

Note: I have placed detailed feedbacks in the manuscript using Pdf edting tools. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and your comments. We found them very relevant. Based on that, we decided to review the entire paper, tackling all the suggestions that you made.

Among other things, this included reorganizing the order of some paragraphs, adding subcategories, entirely restructuring one of the sections, organizing the findings, expanding the literature review, specifying our objectives, and completing the conclusions in accordance with the revised text.

We hope that the new version of the article will be more in line with your expectations. Thank you again for your time., as well as the positive feedback regarding the importance of the topic and the ethics of research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author did a good job of revising the paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language in the paper was fine. Any editing that is needed is typical for a paper like this. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors require some minor revisions at this point. 

1. A bigger concern I have is that authors have not chosen any theoretical frame for this research. Are they talking about theory of acculturation? Integration or segnented assimilation? Some thoretical frame is important in conducting empirical study. Authors will be benefitted by adding a theoretical frame section briefly that captures the study. 

2. In line 176 - 177 replace we face with faced ( past tense?) as it is one of their major question as well as they have already conducted the research to understand what they faced. 

3. In line 189 no iteration needed by saying "as stated earlier"

4, Author do not mention involving any paperwork to receive consent of the minors. Did they receive the consent verbally? If so, then it will be considered an unethical research. Some documentation needs to be provided to the minors and records needs to be kept. Does IRB has those paper work and documents? 

5. In lines 326-28 authors mention about autoreflexivity. I believe this need sto go upfront in the methods and material section and flushed out more explaining how this connects with measuring minors experiences using photography and pictures.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf