Title: Attitude and intention of migrant populations in the Netherlands regarding Female Genital
Mutilation/Cutting
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study on women's attitudes with a lot of potential. However, there are
various flaws. First of all, I cannot see how the data presented in this paper leads to the conclusion
that the longer migrants reside in the Netherlands, the less likely they are to endorse FGC. This
may well be the case as other studies have successfully shown (i.e. MenSpeakOut). However,
the data presented does not lead to this conclusion because this point is no explicitly addressed
and supported with data that shows that this is the case. If a quantitative analysis is not possible,
then other interesting qualitative data need to show that this is the case.
2. I am not sure that the claim that this is the first study addressing migrants attitudes on FGC
in the Netherlands is correct. I.e. Vloesbergh? And the Men Speak Out study which are well
known across EU. I am rather surprised by this statement as one of the authors and another
person invloved in this study were also part of the Men Speak Out study. Perhaps a more nuance
discussin on what has and has not been done in the Netherlands would be more appropriate.
Overall, this paper is written in a rather simplistic manner with alot of generalising statements.
The individual citations merit more indepth discussion. It is not clear what the analytical purpose
of the article is as the information is rather generalised, even more so than previous work done
in the Netherlands.
In the following has more specific comment on the paper:
The abstract needs to be re-written as it stands it is incorrect i.e. line 16 and 17 that migrants'
views on FGM remains unexplored in the Netherlands.
from line 19 onwards. Restructure language, the sentences are too short. I disagree that thematic
saturation has been reached, there are so many topics to explore.. more nuance would sharpen
the argument of the paper, as it stands it comes across as overly simplistic.
From line 34. I am not sure how the conclusions have been drawn if not with reference to other
studies
Line 63 introduced is not a good term, search for more scientific or academic formulation
Line 66 The statement that FGC predates Christianity and Islam is a generalisation, an opinion
of one academic. It may have ermerged in other days in different places. THere are studies that
look at why some communities adopt the practice and others have not.
From line 88 onwards you discuss the objectives of this paper. Perhaps these aspects should
go into the abstract and appear again in the discussion and conclusion to sharpen the overall
argument of the paper.
Methods
Line 111 how were COREQ guidelines used? Please elaborate. This is unclear.
Data collection section 123-143  this section is very unclear. Please provide more detail on these
theories and their relevance to your study. Perhaps you could have a separate section sepxlaining
these theories in more depth? Data Collecting and setting does  not seem to be the right place
to discuss theoretical approaches!?
Results
The first page needs to be restructured. It's about the study participants and would be more
appropriate in the methods section to strengthen the  idea that saturation has been reached. The
restults should develop the different themes more strongly from the beginning. WHy have these
themes been chosen?
Each section finishes with the citation. Although the citations are very intersting, more analysis
is needed, they cannot finish off a section. Please draw some insightful conclusions from them
at the end of each section.
I.e. citation finishing line 326  is very striking and needs to be contextualised. One may have the
impression that this is a general view among all migrant men in the Netherlands, although it is
not at all, but you don't discuss this. Do you have other data to discuss this point further? What
did the men say on the marriageability and wanting to marry uncut wives. Then men's views are
invisible, which again makes me doubt that saturation has been reached.
Please rewrite the conclusion once a stronger argument has been developed throughout the paper
with supporting data from the research with varying views from study participants.