The Power of Phenomenology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of this article argue that deploying a hermeneutic phenomenological approach answers their research questions and becomes a means to empower participants by sharing their stories. The main research question seems to be “what is it like being intersex?” It seems to me that the study participants were empowered by the exercise and narrating their life experiences and selves; that is significant. The hermeneutic phenomenological approach is not only creative, but also pragmatic and empowering.
It is brilliant to see people conducting this important anti-interphobic research in Ireland. There are other studies that are Ireland-specific and there are other articles that mobilize a phenomenological approach. I think the authors could explicitly foreground those studies more to better situate the authors’ important contributions.
In a similar vein, I was wondering if the authors could differentiate their study from other qualitative interview-based studies from elsewhere. For example, were any Irish-specific insights gleaned by the participants (e.g. cultural, religious, health care policy, educational)? The authors explain that the insights from the study participants can “inform the development of appropriate law and policy in Ireland” (line 98-99). I agree with the authors wholeheartedly. However, there could be a more robust discussion about what these laws and policies should be and how the study participants helped them come to these conclusions in the conclusion. I recognize that is not the whole aim of the study as the aim is to explore the power of hermeneutical phenomenology, but I still think those concrete policy recommendations would be important. Without the power of hermeneutical phenomenology, those policy recommendations would not have been found.
The method section is robust. I admire the fact that the authors took great care with their study participants. The reader learns in the method section that the authors interviewed intersex people, their families and partners, and health care professionals (lines 94-97). Yet, we only bear witness to a few intersex study participants. I recognize and appreciate that the authors cannot include everything in one article, but I think this article would benefit from engaging with and analyzing more testimonies so they can then better offer and justify specific policy and law recommendations. To make room for that kind of analysis, I think the method section could be shortened. Or, the authors could explain that they only have the space to engage with x number of testimonies for y reason just so the reader knows what to expect.
I see engagement with key intersex studies scholars in the text, particularly during the discussion of defining intersex. Having a larger citational footprint of intersex studies scholars throughout the entire paper would be beneficial to help situate the authors’ specific contributions to the field. I question if a long-sustained conversation about how intersex is defined and contested as a concept is needed in this paper given that that discussion is not central to the main arguments of the paper. I think a footnote about why the authors use the term intersex would suffice. Doing so would also save the authors some space for more analysis of participant testimonies.
It is brilliant that the authors gained the trust of the participants. For example, Darcy explains they wanted to participate because the study was led my intersex people (line 315). The trust the authors’ built is praiseworthy and their insider status is important. I wonder if a more sustained (and intersectional) conversation about the complex dynamics of insider-outsider status might benefit the paragraph after Darcy’s comment (lines 318-321).
The authors’ commentary on Alan’s experiences rendering himself invisible in plain sight is very interesting. The fact that his teacher was silent when Alan’s difference was evident is fascinating as well because we know that many intersex students are bullied and harassed not only by their peers, but also by their teachers. Some rhetorical studies scholars discuss the profoundly meaningful nature of silence that may help the authors flesh out their arguments there a bit more. Rhetorical studies scholars note that silence is not always passivity; remaining silent is often an active choice that has profound impacts. Was Alan’s teacher trying to protect Alan by not drawing attention to his difference or is it simply a matter of non-recognition? We will never know for sure the teacher’s motives, but I think it is interesting to consider the teacher’s silence alongside research already available about intersex people’s experiences in education as well as rhetorical studies scholars’ contributions about silence.
Overall, I think that the paper has much potential. By (1) engaging with more study participants’ testimonies, (2) offering concrete policy/law recommendation to remedy problems identified, and (3) citing more relevant intersex studies scholarship throughout, the important contributions of this study would be clearer to the reader. Thank you for conducting your important research. I am glad I had the opportunity to engage with it. I hope my commentary proves useful to you as you move forward.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is needed. English is easy to read. There are just some typos.
Author Response
|
Thank you for your time and work in reviewing our article. It is really appreciated as we consider that the work has been strengthened following the implementation of your suggestions.
One of the key aspects that you pointed to in your comments was the area of law and policies. Your comments highlighted that we did not engage in a discussion on these issues in this article, which is true. To attempt to incorporate them within this article would dilute the discussion of both the laws and policies and the discussion of hermeneutic phenomenology as a powerful methodological tool which was the focus of our work. We have reflected on your comments and have come to the conclusion that the issues of law and policy are more properly the subject matter of another, different, article and so we have focused on the methodology in this one. Consequently, we have removed all references to laws and policies throughout.
In relation to your comments on the method, we have now clarified the issue around numbers etc. Citational footprint of intersex studies scholars are now embedded throughout the paper. We have engaged with the insider/outsider discussion and have located ourselves accordingly.
As you quite rightly note, the issue of silence is an important one. This is something that we are exploring in great depth in another paper. Thus, we have not drawn attention to it here.
On a typographical note, we have substantially overhauled the paper in response to the comments from all the reviewers. Thus, we have not tracked the changes as doing so would have rendered the article illegible.
|
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. It provides valuable perspectives on an illuminating approach for unveiling hidden lives and experiences from an almost invisible population. Also appreciated is this window into intersex existence from Irish perspectives.
I have added below a few comments where I request clarification and further information which I feel may strengthen the paper.
40-45
Historically, the word hermaphrodite was used to describe an intersex person but this is considered a harmful slur, “outdated and pejorative” (van Lisdonk 2014, p. 15), demeaning (Reis 2007a) and offensive (Rubin 2015).
It is true that the word hermaphrodite is considered demeaning and offensive by some with intersex variations, however, as you have said, there is debate and disagreement around intersex terminology and some in fact embrace the word hermaphrodite. Some European intersex activists and artists included the terminology in the title of an intersex themed art show at Berlin’s Schwulesmuseum for example: Press section: Mercury Rising – Inter* Hermstory[ies] Now and Then - Schwules Museum Berlin
Perhaps this sentence could be improved to reflect this, i.e., “…considered by some to be a harmful slur…”?
300-309
“No, I can't really think of anything. I think I am good, I have covered everything. But that really is everything now. I don't think there is anymore that I can possibly tell you but if there is I will come back to you and tell you but thank you for giving me the opportunity to come back and tell more of it”. [Darcy]
It is in the dwelling with the story of the self that Darcy could make clear to themselves who they are. In the telling of their story, the reflective process opened up avenues through which the self was explored and shared. It gave meaning and understanding to their life as an intersex person. Meaning and understanding as they had come to know it through the articulation of this life.
I would like to see a bit of a bridge between dwelling and telling, providing some evidence from Darcy perhaps, of how the experience of telling their story gave meaning and understanding to Darcy’s life as an intersex person as opposed to them merely relating their experiences.
313-316
Part of the reason why I am committed to doing this and doing it so fully is because appreciate the fact that you guys want to do it for fully and you are being led by intersex people. I have never done a research study that is so led by intersex people like myself and that is why I am happy to do it. [Darcy]
It was not made clear to me in the preceding pages how this study was intersex led or that it was intersex led. I would like to hear more about this.
On that note, I would like to know more (without revealing names and affiliations of course) about the authors behind this paper so that I can fold that information into my fusion of horizons when considering analysis of the data. Information like age, nationality, sexuality, gender identity for example might be helpful for example.
324-326
The project was developed through partnership and built with the intersex community in the development of the research programme. This led to trust relationships being built with participants prior to our meeting.
I would like more information on this. How were the intersex community involved in the development of the research programme? How are trust and cooperation distinguished from each other in this instance?
331-337
Being comfortable with the process and subsequent interview lends itself to the revealing of the self by the participants. Alan reflected on his experience of being different during his teenage years: I would probably answer by asking you the question, how does a teenager hide a variation in genital anatomy in a compulsory shower with 20 other fellas after PE? My answer to that is you could only hide by being in plain sight. There was no option of hiding. [Alan]
I would like more information here such as instruction on how the reader might disentangle obedience or willingness to straightforwardly answer questions about the subject matter from his comfort with the process. How is interviewing with this approach different from other types of interviewing with relation to building trust or getting the interviewee to open up?
528-538
The power of hermeneutic phenomenology is that through interviews we bear witness to the experiences of people sharing their stories: in this case their experiences of being intersex. Through listening to their stories being told we sometimes hear about a life that has been hidden or supressed. Crucially, their stories expose to us the damaging or destroying effect of being unseen as a whole person. Alan’s story reveals how others, namely his family, hid the reality of who he was from him and how that affected his education and, later, his life. In the telling of her story, Frankie reveals how her father viewed having a female child. Her value and worth to him was solely as the provider of the next generation. But not being what he wanted, she was rendered useless and less than human and, indeed, less than woman. The power and perception of her body communicated by the medical professional reinforced this perspective.
This is such important data, but I would like more information here on how hermeneutic phenomenology reveals these insights in ways that other approaches might not.
Through the uncovering of the lived experience an important contribution to knowledge is made. These stories demonstrate that true expertise of being intersex in the world is held by those who embody intersex experience. This contribution to evidence-based research is vital to informing developing policies and laws in the space of intersex rights. Hermeneutic phenomenology, as both a philosophy and a method, highlights how research can be carried out which centres the experiences of the person, empowering them through the sharing of their stories. In this way they become agents of their own lives rather than being rendered objects of academic curiosity and research.
I would like to be shown here how participants are empowered by telling stories rather being told they are. How does the reader know that the experience of sharing one’s story doesn’t instead leave participants drained or frustrated aside from their willingness to return for additional interviews? Intersex people have spoken about developing people pleasing responses to trauma. I would like more evidence of empowerment or information on the mechanism responsible for empowerment here.
556-559
In sharing their stories, as they wished, Darcy, Alan and Frankie came to new insights and understandings of the lives they have experienced. They found the sharing empowering. Through reflection, they were able to review and plan how their next encounter with the Other may enable them to obtain a better outcome.
Again, I would like some evidence presented here, to be shown that participants gained new understandings, insight, empowerment and improved abilities to review and plan rather than being told they did.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and work in reviewing our article. It is really appreciated as we consider that the work has been strengthened following the implementation of your suggestions.
Lines 40-45 This has been accommodated see lines 57-62
Lines 300-309 responded to by enhance discussion on the methodology lines 107-162 and specifically lines 319-326.
Lines 313-316 included in the methodology section see lines 200-212
Lines 331-337 see lines 178-199
Lines 528-538 how hermeneutic phenomenology differs to other approaches see discussion on 108-130.
Lines 556-559 see above.
On a typographical note, we have substantially overhauled the paper in response to the comments from all the reviewers. Thus, we have not tracked the changes as doing so would have rendered the article illegible.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBig picture
This article offers a sound introduction to the term intersex and a persuasive argument in favor of hermeneutic phenomenology. It is clear and direct. The study mapping intersex experiences in Ireland is compelling and I appreciate the attention to ethical research. I’m confused about the overarching organization of concepts. My main suggestions are to engage with the scholars listed below and to include a roadmap in the introduction to give readers a big picture perspective on the paper.
The paragraph beginning on line 89 would be an excellent first paragraph in the introduction. Consider following that with just one paragraph defining the term intersex. Then, offer readers as much information about hermeneutic phenomenology. Explain why you chose this approach.
The sample size is quite small. What were the patterns that emerged? Do the authors have an analysis of their significance?
There are other scholars who might clarify your use of phenomenology at the top of page 5. Most notably, Gayle Salamon’s Assuming a Body and The Life and Death of Latisha King.
The relationship between voices, hearing, thinking, listening, etc. gets murky in the paragraph starting on line 199.
The next paragraph on line 212 ought to be reworked. Many scholars have great reason for favoring ethnographic methods, in-depth interviews, and qualitative methods. Theorists, such as Walter Mignolo, have also articulated the colonial inheritance of certain epistemologies being favored over others.
I’m confused about the emphasis on thinking at the bottom of page 5. What about affect theory and ontology?
The explanation of Heidegger’s hermeneutic is very brief on the top of page 6.
The paragraph beginning on line 236 is awkward and informal. It could be strengthened with scholarship on narrative. The paragraph beginning on line 248 also needs to be anchored in more scholarship. Perhaps Stacey Floyd-Thomas’s womanist sociological methods in Mining the Motherlode could work here. Marcia Riggs also discusses researchers as participant learners.
Elizabeth Clark’s analysis of autobiography patterns might also be useful on page 7. Also, Julie Livingston’s scholarship on medical anthropology.
Develop the conclusion paragraph at the end of 4. Participant’s Engagement.
There are times when the authors seem to rely on Freudian notions of an inner self that is reveal or discovered via talking, and then others when there is more of a Foucauldian notion of external subject formation via discourse. The two can hold together, but it would help readers if the authors explained how they understand this relationship. Judith Butler’s Giving an Account of Oneself would be helpful in the shadow discussion at the bottom of page 9.
The analysis would be enriched with more engagement with intersex scholars’ analysis of medicine and politics, such as David Rubin’s Intersex Matters, as well as intersex activists’ work on medical consent.
Nice conclusion.
Details
There are moments of informal tone that might be worth reworking (for example, line 74-75, 151-2). There are some typos and minor grammatical errors (for example, inconsistent spacing between sentences). Is “confidently” meant to be “confidentially?” “Study” is capitalized on line 131. Missing period on line 312. Awkward phrasing in lines 318-19.
The zoom option due to covid is mentioned on line 122 and again on 138. Consider discussing that once.
The paragraphs vary in length. Consider balancing them.
Explain what you mean by “trigger effect” on line 125.
Consider deleting “safe” on line 173.
There are some typos and minor grammatical errors (for example, inconsistent spacing between sentences). Is “confidently” meant to be “confidentially?” “Study” is capitalized on line 131. Missing period on line 312. Awkward phrasing in lines 318-19.
Author Response
|
Thank you for your time and work in reviewing our article. It is really appreciated as we consider that the work has been strengthened following the implementation of your suggestions.
As per your suggestion we have now moved the paragraph, previously beginning on line 89 is now the introductory paragraph.
In relation to both the methodology in general and to your queries re sample size, we have expanded the methodology section and we believe that this addresses your concerns on these matters – see lines 107-162 and 178-212.
Issue re line 199 on the original document has been overhauled as outlined above.
We appreciate your suggestion re the paragraph originally beginning on line 212 and the insights which other methodologies may have yielded on this data. As this paper is focused on hermeneutic phenomenology as a method, we have not diversified our discussion to incorporate your suggestions, but believe that our expanded methodology section, inspired by you, makes the argument for why the chosen methodology has an important contribution to make in its own right.
Thank you for the suggestion re Foucault and Butler. As discussed, we have reworked the methodology section and through the inclusion of Fricker, Carpenter and Charlebois we are of the opinion that the article has been strengthened in this regard.
Throughout the revised article we have engaged in more depth with intersex scholars.
All the details have been responded to. Thank you for your assistance in noting them.
On a typographical note, we have substantially overhauled the paper in response to the comments from all the reviewers. Thus, we have not tracked the changes as doing so would have rendered the article illegible.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate all the work the authors took in revising their article. The revisions offered a lot of clarity and improvement.
