From Nuclear to Diverse: Shifting Conceptualisations of Marriage among Australia’s 1960s Generation—A Qualitative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary: The study presents a thematic analysis that explores perspectives of marriage of people born in the 1960s. The research question is well-defined, and the study provides a solid rationale. The design is robust and there is a compelling analysis which captures nuances and complexity within the data. However, there are areas where the manuscript could be improved to enhance its rigor and transparency as outlined below. 

Title and Abstract:

The title effectively captures the essence of the study, and the abstract effectively outlines the study's aims, methods, results, and conclusions. 

Introduction:

The introduction offers a comprehensive examination of marriage within Western cultures, contextualized by the legalization of same-sex marriage. The discussion of the broader discourse around marriage is insightful, highlighting ideological and societal shifts. The research question is clearly articulated, providing a solid rationale for the study.

Methods:

An appropriate design is used and well described. While you provide detailed information on your personal background, there is a lack of critical examination regarding its impact on the research. You could delve deeper into how your positionality influenced the research process. Reflecting on insider/outsider status, generational differences, and personal experiences in shaping research questions, data collection, analysis, and participant interactions would enhance the reflexivity. You later state that you kept a reflexive journal which documented on how your own personal views and experiences that might be relevant for the purposes of reflexivity, so you could usefully draw on those reflections here. 

The sampling, recruitment, and participant details are well-documented. The study could benefit from a discussion on sample considerations with regards to participants' marital statuses (e.g. your rationale for including people of different marital statuses) given the topic and how this might impact findings. Additionally, the ethnicity information provided is somewhat vague. Clarifying whether any participants were of indigenous heritage or other ethnic backgrounds (e.g. were they all white Australians?) would provide greater transparency. The lack of data on sexual orientation/identity is a notable omission. The experiences and perspectives of LGBTQ individuals are likely distinct and shaped by historical marginalization from the institution of marriage. This becomes particularly evident in the analysis (lines 400-416).

The sample size is modest. While you justify the sample size using the concept of 'information power', I perhaps would have expected a larger sample to capture the diversity of people who fall within the broad inclusion criteria of people born in the 1960s. The rationale for stopping at 12 participants rather than any other number seems unclear and left me wondering if reference to information power was more a retrospective rhetorical justification for the sample size rather than something that substantively influenced your decision making about when to stop collecting data. A more transparent outline of the decision-making process, incorporating reflexivity, would strengthen this justification. If some of the considerations were pragmatic rather than theoretical (which often is the case) then I would value transparency around this. 

As noted earlier, you mention the use of a reflexive journal to document personal views and experiences. However, there is little evidence of engagement with this journal in the write-up itself. Demonstrating how personal views and experiences shaped the research process would add reflexivity and transparency to the study.

Analysis:/Findings:

One of the key strengths of this study is the nuanced analysis, which captures the paradoxes and tensions within the data. This approach lends credibility and depth, reflecting the complexity of the topic. The detailed engagement with participants' constructions of marriage is commendable, and the use of quotations enhances transparency. However, labelling data extracts in some way would further enhance transparency so the reader can see for themselves that no single individual is overrepresented in the extracts that we are seeing.

Discussion:

The discussion provides a good summary of the findings without being repetitive. There are insightful links between the analysis and existing theories, although some connections to a wide range of classic psychological theories (e.g., to the contact hypothesis; social identity theory, theories of moral development, and behaviour change) feel somewhat forced and disconnected from the literature and theory outlined in the introduction. 

The discussion mentions intersectionality and the influence of factors like socioeconomic status, education level, and geographical location but is somewhat underexplored in the analysis and/or discussion. More attention to how diversity within the sample (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, marital status) may shape perspectives on marriage would align the analysis more closely with the feminist and LGBTQ perspectives mentioned in the introduction.

The manuscript suggests that social media, particularly Facebook, was effective in recruitment. However, more detail on these strategies would be beneficial. Clarifying whether posts were made on personal profiles, specific groups, or through advertising, and whether participants were known to the researcher, would provide valuable context. The use of LinkedIn, primarily a professional network, also raises questions about the potential (unacknowledged) bias in the sample. A bit more detail on these strategies in the methodology section and more reflective discussion on the limitation of these strategies would be welcome. 

Overall, this study offers an interesting, insightful, and thorough thematic analysis. By addressing the points highlighted in this review, the manuscript could be significantly strengthened (particularly enhancing its quality in terms of transparency), making an important contribution to the literature on marriage and societal change.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents important results and the study was conducted in a methodologically sound way. Laying bare the tensions between traditional and progressive views in the respective cohort makes for an important starting point for fostering the acceptance of changes in the institutional and emotional status of marriage.

There are some aspects, however, I’d suggest the author to take into consideration to improve the paper:

1.      In this reviewer’s opinion the paper is too long and too “wordy”. All of the paper’s section are important and its structure is very convincing. Yet, most sections might also benefit from a more dense writing style. E.g., the section on positioning is paramount for a paper like this, yet it takes up too much space. The same can be said for the introductionary part on changes in the conceptions of marriage.

2.      In other parts, e.g. the Discussion, too many new, and very broad/general theories (Bronfenbrenner, Allport) are mentioned which tends to distract the reader from engaging with the author’s original findings

3.      In general, maybe a little less references might also strengthen the paper. As it is, there are 4 pages of references

4.      I’d advise the author to focus a bit more on his study’s original findings and an in-depth interpretation of it (e.g. the themes). “Merely” ending in underlining the fact that there are tensions between traditional and progressive views on marriage (as turns up various times) might be an all too general finding. The data is more rich and specific than that.

5.      Also, it might be of value to further discuss the specificity as well as the generalizability of findings in Australia and the respective cohort in terms of other regions and cohorts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf