Pillars of Salt: Pastoral Care with Adolescents with a Migration Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper argues from the perspective and experience of adolescents who migrated to Europe recently by integrating the three areas of studies: Lived religion, migration theology and adolescent development.  The data is clearly presented in a coherent manner and valuable suggestions are made.  However, the assumption that ‘liminal space’ is a ‘bad’ place in the conclusion is questionable.  The section on 'Discussion' needs to be deepened. 

line 516:  the purpose of the article is to provide a path of escape from a liminal space to a place of flourishing.  Would it be possible to look into the liminal space deeper and provide ‘presence’ in the space, rather than out of the space? 

Also

Line 65-66: suggest that the sequence of ‘lived religion, migration theology and adolescent development’ needs to be consistent with the few paragraphs below.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and your suggestions. I have found it more succinct to address your comments in a table format. I hope that this is helpful.

You will see that I have addressed most of your suggestions in some way. However, I have not chosen to include more literature as this is a highly focused article on one particular aspect and application of the results of the study. There are already more than 25 cited works. Still, the referenced citations were better incorporated into the discussion section, thereby addressing both the concern over citations and the discussion.

To clarify, it is true that this article presumes that a liminal space—between two cultures—is necessarily a negative experience for adolescents with a migration experience when it prevents the development of relationships. This is not to say that other types of liminality, particularly those that are chosen or the results of personal choices, are always negative. However, in the context of adolescent neurological development, a lack of supportive relationships is experienced negatively.

Hopefully, this better addresses your concerns.

This paper argues from the perspective and experience of adolescents who migrated to Europe recently by integrating the three areas of studies: Lived religion, migration theology and adolescent development.  The data is clearly presented in a coherent manner and valuable suggestions are made.  However, the assumption that ‘liminal space’ is a ‘bad’ place in the conclusion is questionable (1).     The section on 'Discussion' needs to be deepened (2).    line 516:  the purpose of the article is to provide a path of escape from a liminal space to a place of flourishing.  Would it be possible to look into the liminal space deeper and provide ‘presence’ in the space, rather than out of the space? (3)   Also Line 65-66: suggest that the sequence of ‘lived religion, migration theology and adolescent development’ needs to be consistent with the few paragraphs below. (4)

(1) To address this issue, I have clarified the definition of liminal space intended in this article. Please see adjustments to lines 171-176 and 589-591.         (2) Adjustments have been made here     (3) It might, indeed be possible. Please see adjustments in line 589-591.     (4) Noted and changed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of migration, which is addressed by the authors, is interesting. It is currently a sought-after, current and often treated topic. The authors put it in a religious context. They liken the refugees to Lot and his family. The authors direct their study to a pastoral perspective, among other things. The orientation of the empirical research as well as the theoretical part of the dissertation is largely directed at adolescents. I agree with the authors that most studies are aimed at adults and therefore the view of adolescents in this context is beneficial. The study presents the terminus technicus "migration theology", which I find interesting and positive. I consider the processing of the existing focal literature, which writes about the problem, to be sufficient.

Critical comments. In the present study, I especially recommend clearly separating the empirical and theoretical parts. In terms of content, it is comprehensively fine, but I recommend breaking it down differently. Let the authors clearly separate the theoretical contribution to the issue from the empirical part.

I consider the methods used, as well as the method of their application, to be correct. I appreciate that the authors have created a separate chapter that discusses the methods used. The discussion basically analyzes the achieved results of a theoretical nature. What I miss in the study is a deeper analysis of the empirical results obtained. An evaluation of what the empirical survey has been made needs to be made in a special place. It would be good to devote a short subchapter to the analysis of the results in question. The obtained analysis must also be included in the discussion. I appreciate the publication of Appendix A - C.

The length of the study submitted is standard.

There are plenty of bibliographic resources. The sources are mostly from prestigious journals. They are relatively up-to-date. The content corresponds to the main topic of the paper. In the area of ​​literary sources, no changes are needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and your suggestions. I have found it more succinct to address your comments in a table format. I hope that this structure is helpful for you as well.

Your comment about including the limitations of the study is important and was addressed. However, the suggestion to change the format to one preferred in historical theology does not fit well with this study. Practical theological contributions are more like those in social sciences, where the current format is customary and aids the reader.  Given the amount of literature from different fields, introducing it separately would be cumbersome in an article format.

I understand the desire to evaluate the theological positions of the participants. However, this study was not designed to capture the content of religious beliefs, neither was it designed to measure the religiosity of the adolescents. To use the data in this way would run the risk of invalidating the data. It provides a snapshot of how adolescents with a migration experience describe the changes in their religious practices. This is an initial study designed to open a new field of research. As such, it must be circumspect about the results and findings. It is unclear to me what is intended by your suggestion for a “deeper” analysis.

This article presents a more precise and scientifically based way to understand the pressures that adolescents experience in their practice of religion after they have migrated to Europe. That it breaking new ground in adolescent spirituality and in migration theology. Further research can expand or nuance these initial findings in ways that allow for a normative assessment.

With respect,

the author

 

The topic of migration, which is addressed by the authors, is interesting. It is currently a sought-after, current and often treated topic. The authors put it in a religious context. They liken the refugees (1) to Lot and his family. The authors direct their study to a pastoral perspective, among other things. The orientation of the empirical research as well as the theoretical part of the dissertation is largely directed at adolescents. I agree with the authors that most studies are aimed at adults and therefore the view of adolescents in this context is beneficial. The study presents the terminus technicus "migration theology", which I find interesting and positive. I consider the processing of the existing focal literature, which writes about the problem, to be sufficient (2).	(1) To be more clear on this point, I have amended footnote 2 to include a definition of adolescents with an experience of migration. The term ‘refugee’ is purposely not used in this article. ‘Refugee’ is a highly regulated visa status that includes review by the UNHCR and then by the receiving country. It is not a general term, but must be verified in an extended process before placement on a waiting list for resettlement is possible.  There were no such identified refugees in this study. There were many forms of migration and many visa status: dependents of asylum seekers, diplomatic corps, workers, professionals, military, and so on. (2) Literature is sufficient.
Critical comments. In the present study, I especially recommend clearly separating the empirical and theoretical parts (3). In terms of content, it is comprehensively fine, but I recommend breaking it down differently. Let the authors clearly separate the theoretical contribution to the issue from the empirical part.	(3) This is a style preference. While in some cases I do agree with the reviewer, in this case separating the quotes from the interviews and the theory makes it less comprehendible and unnecessarily longer in word count.
I consider the methods used, as well as the method of their application, to be correct. I appreciate that the authors have created a separate chapter that discusses the methods used. The discussion basically analyzes the achieved results of a theoretical nature. What I miss in the study is a deeper analysis of the empirical results obtained (4a). An evaluation of what the empirical survey (4b) has been made needs to be made in a special place. It would be good to devote a short subchapter to the analysis of the results in question (4c). The obtained analysis must also be included in the discussion (4d).	(4) There are several points to be made here as the suggestions are unclear. (5a) First, as a study of lived religion the focus of the study was to discover what is consistent across resettlement contexts in Europe. Therefore the perception of change in lived religion after migration, which was previously unstudied, is the result that was sought. (4b) Second, does the reviewer mean to analyze the methods that were used – ‘an evaluation of the empirical survey’?  In this case, a short summary of limitations has been added, see lines 482-493. (4b) Or is the question to test the validity of the study? As a qualitative study, there was not a survey but visual data and interviews. The interviews are featured in this article. In this case, another study could be conducted or an instrument developed and tested. Either way further research is required.  (4c) On the other hand is the reviewer suggesting that the normativity of the results be analyzed? This was not the subject under investigation, so it would be invalid to complete such an analysis. (4d) the results are already referred to throughout the discussion. Unless, of course the reviewer is referring the “deeper” analysis.
I appreciate the publication of Appendix A - C. The length of the study submitted is standard. There are plenty of bibliographic resources. The sources are mostly from prestigious journals. They are relatively up-to-date. The content corresponds to the main topic of the paper. In the area of ​​literary sources, no changes are needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Due to the second version of the text, I will not evaluate it extensively, because I have already expressed a lot of important things during the first review. The authors made an effort, and great changes were made to the article. Many paragraphs have been added, in line with the reviewers' recommendations. I particularly appreciate the significant additions to the discussion. The authors also slightly expanded the breakdown of the methods used. The grossing of the adjustment lies mainly in broadening the discussion, which I really welcome. The authors also added one publication to the bibliography. Other changes are to expand the footnote, in small inserts in the text. The authors also added a little in Chapter 2. Most importantly, the authors made extensive changes to the discussions. I consider this an improvement of the article.
I am of the opinion that the work in this form can be published.