Migrant Organisations on the Rise after 2015/2016? Between “Projectitis” and the Formation of New Structures and Types

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors should better explain how they position themselves in ethical terms in a research context in which they basically use documental analysis and observation.
Although the keywords include terms such as participatory approaches, the application of this concept and its application to the context under analysis is not understood. Also about the imbedded research and the way it works, as well as the way this research is inserted in this approach, we do not find a sufficiently clear and reasoned justification. It would be convenient to problematize this approach and mobilize more perspectives on it and more and diverse bibliographical references.
The concept of MO is not sufficiently explained and needs to be conceptualized. Additionally, it is also not possible to understand the field of analysis - is it local, regional, national? How many and of what type are these MOs - are they local, national, transnational, religious, secular, how many are managed by immigrants and have immigrants in their structure?
The term/concept social innovation is also not debated and needs discussion.
The mentioned concepts are taken for granted and there is no discussion or problematization around them.
The structure of the text is very tight with a variety of subtitles and the text would gain more density and readability if it were written and structured in a more cohesive and explanatory way.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:
I would like to thank you very much for the effort you have made in commenting on my contribution.
The article has been thoroughly revised and expanded. Above all, I would like to thank you for the patience you have shown. The past year was extremely turbulent/difficult in my organization and I therefore had to postpone work on the text again and again. I have taken the liberty of expanding on a few aspects/observations that seemed important to me. In case the text now appears to be too long, I could reduce these parts.
Thank you again for your efforts and your valuable comments!
Point 1: Authors should better explain how they position themselves in ethical terms in a research context in which they basically use documental analysis and observation.
Response 1:
To the chapter on embedded research I added a part in which I better explain my position as a researcher as well as an employee. Furthermore reflections on ethical aspects associated with this approach/roles are included.
Point2: Although the keywords include terms such as participatory approaches, the application of this concept and its application to the context under analysis is not understood. Also about the imbedded research and the way it works, as well as the way this research is inserted in this approach, we do not find a sufficiently clear and reasoned justification. It would be convenient to problematize this approach and mobilize more perspectives on it and more and diverse bibliographical references.
Response 2:
The section on embedded research was further elaborated and supplemented with additional references. However, this could not be done in too much detail, as the other reviewer already considered this part to be too long and recommended to reduce it.
As to the term “participatory approaches” I removed it from the key words. There may have been a misunderstanding here. It rather referred to the participation of MOs/migrants. In a methodological way it is part of the overall approach, but it is not the focus. Reflections on the ethical handling of my role in this context were added.
Point 3: The concept of MO is not sufficiently explained and needs to be conceptualized. Additionally, it is also not plausible to understand the field of analysis – is it local, regional, national? How many and of what type are these MOs – are they local, national, transnational, religious, secular, how many are managed by immigrants and have immigrants in their structure?
Response 3:
The structure of the paper has been fundamentally changed in order to better represent the development and manifestations of MO as well as discourses on it. In chapter 2.1 the emergence, functions and evolution of MOs is outlined. Chapter 2.2 focuses on a possibly new role for MO since 2005 and 2015/16 in Germany.
The field of analysis is outlined in the introduction and further elaborated on in chapter 3 (Material and methods: Perspective of embedded research)
Point 4: The term/concept social innovation is also not debated and needs discussion.
Response 4:
"Social innovation" is not used as a central concept, but rather to summarize certain effects in a pointed way. Its meaning has been reduced in the text. At the same time, a brief explanation of the concept was added.
Point 5: The mentioned concepts are taken for granted and there is no discussion or problematization around them.
Response 5:
See Response 4. The part on evolution, functions and academic concepts/debates on MO was expanded.
Point 6: The structure of the text is very tight with a variety of subtitles and the text would gain more density and readability if it were written and structured in a more cohesive and explanatory way.
Response 6:
The structure of the text has been fundamentally changed, making it - hopefully - easier to read and more plausible.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is a very interesting one and very relevant for governmental policies. However, the way in which the material (and arguments) are presented are not convincing/adequate as an article in a scientific journal. The structure should be different. The "embedded research" is too long and not necessary, all the more because it is not clear what stems from the literature (of which a good overview is given) and what from the "embedded researcher". The context (of growth of MO's and of the policies of engaging these MO's in integrtaion policies) should be described more systematically before "discussion"of results, etc.

Author is advised to take a different starting point: please write an essay on "the function/ role of MO's in integration policies in the FRG in the last decade and the consequences for these MO's".  Refer to and use all the literature (including statements of federations of MO's, general service providers, governmental agencies) as relevant documents for analysis. And come to your conclusions as plausible explanations for the growth of MO's, but also for their vulnerability (or unsustainability).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments:
I would like to thank you very much for the effort you have made in commenting on my contribution.
The article has been thoroughly revised and expanded. Above all, I would like to thank you for the patience you have shown. The past year was extremely turbulent/difficult in my organization and I therefore had to postpone work on the text again and again. I have taken the liberty of expanding on a few aspects/observations that seemed important to me. In case the text now appears to be too long, I could reduce these parts.
Thank you again for your efforts and your valuable comments!
Point 1: The topic is a very interesting one and very relevant for governmental policies. However, the way in which the material (and arguments) are presented are not convincing/adequate as an article in a scientific journal. The structure should be different. The “embedded research” is too long and not necessary, all the more because it is not clear what stems from the literature (of which a good overview is given) and what from the “embedded researcher”.
Response 1:
The overall structure of the contribution has been changed. Above all, this includes a more detailed and systematic presentation/examination of the development of MOs in Germany against the background of research findings on functions, development processes and corresponding influencing factors in MOs. In the text, I have referred more strongly to literature/sources and at the same time made it clearer where analyses/observations refer to my own experiences/data from this area. Since the other reviewer did consider the part on "embedded research" to be not detailed and well-founded enough, I did not reduce it.
Therefore, I have dealt with the quality of my data in more detail and described more comprehensibly in which contexts they were collected, to which types of organizations/processes they referred and where ethical problems might occur.
Point 2: The context (of growth of MO’s and the policies of engaging these MOs in integration policies) should be described more systematically before “discussion” of results, etc.
Response 2:
The structure of the paper has been fundamentally changed in order to better represent the development and manifestations of MO as well as discourses on it. In chapter 2.1 the emergence, functions and evolution of MOs is outlined, academic concepts/debates are presented. Chapter 2.2 focuses on a possibly new role for MO since 2005 and 2015/16 in Germany.
Point 3: Author is advised to take a different starting point: please write an essay on “the function/role of MO’s in integration policies in the FRG in the last decade and the consequences for these MOs.” Refer to and use all the literature (including statements of federations of MOs, general service providers, governmental agencies) as relevant documents for analysis. And come to your conclusions as plausible explanations for the growth of MOs, but also for their vulnerability (or unsustainability).
Response 3:
Unfortunately, I cannot follow this advice in the proposed way. It would mean writing a completely different text, which could not take into account the strengths/interesting aspects of my inside/outside perspective either. I think that by changing the structure and presenting the development of MO in more detail/referring to relevant studies, I am at least partially doing justice to the proposal. The price of the in-depth information from the inside perspective here is that I cannot conduct an exhaustive literature and document analysis. This is not possible in terms of time, as I work more than full-time for an MO. I don't think this detracts from the added value of this article, which offers other insights. I would therefore like to encourage you to recognize that this article offers other insights at the interface between practice and academia.