Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Gender at the Intersection with Race and Class in the Schooling and Wellbeing of 
Immigran t-Origin Students  
 
 
Version: 1 Date: 03 Mar 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Colleen  Fisher  
 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "At the Intersection of Race and 
Gender in the Schooling and Wellbeing of Immigrant -Origin Girls:  A Mixed Methods Study.  
The manuscript is well written and addr esses a potentially important issue - how gender(izing) 
and racial(izing) impact on education and wellbeing of girls from a South Asian background.  
There are potential learnings for outcomes for other immigrant groups.  The authors should be 
commended on this.  There are, however, a range of issues that need to be addressed before the 
manuscript is publishable.  These are highlighted.  
 
1.  The research question/aim.  The research aim or research question needs to be explicit.  
At the manuscript is written,  I was continually trying to ascertain what exactly the 
manuscript was addressing.    In the abstract a question is asked: "Does improved 
educational performance translate into greater social integration and wellbeing"?  Is this 
the research question?  If so, then I'm not convinced that the manuscript answers it.  
Lines 101 - 103 suggest that "this article explores socio -educational experiences among 
Quebec's South Asian high school students through the intersecting lens of race and 
gender".  This could wel l be the aim, but it needs to be more explicit rather than being the 
final sentence in a paragraph.  Lines 141 - 143 note the context of the larger research 
program "exploring family, community, and systemic dynamics that influence the socio -
schooling exper iences of South Asian students in French -language high schools in 
Montreal".   If this is the aim of the broader research project, the focus of this particular 
manuscript needs to follow this statement and be  clear and explicit.  
 
 
2. Whilst it is an appro priate framework through which to interpret the data, I feel that the 
concept of 'structural violence' could be further described.  Galtung provides some very 
good and succinct dimensions of structural violence and these could be incorporated to 
provide co ntext for readers who are unfamiliar with the concept.  Galtung also uses the 
term 'social injustice' interchangeably with structural violence.  Given the readership of 
the journal, this term may be more familiar and thus, useful to include for the readers .  
 
3. I was left wanting more context and information both about South Asian populations in 
Canada and Quebec (and Montreal?) as well as information on the schooling system in 
Canada (including an explanation of some of the class levels (eg, 'Welcoming Cl ass')).  
Given the international readership of the journal, this contextual information is important 
to include and placing it in the 'Background' section would 'set the scene' for what is 
presented further in the manuscript.  I would suggest that the info rmation on the South 
Asian community presented  at lines 518 -564 could be moved to this earlier 
'Background' section.  Currently it is in the 'Discussion' section, yet doesn't provide 
discussion on the findings presented and as such, is out of place.  
 
4. The 'Methods' section needs expanding.  
 
a. More information is needed on the research design.   It is described as a mixed method 
study, which is appropriate, and it can be gleaned that the study is QUAL + quan, but 
more details necessary.  
b. More detail s around analysis of the qualitative data is required.  Currently the reader is 
merely told that interviews were transcribed, read and coded.  A more detailed and 
nuanced description is needed as is strategies undertaken to ensure rigour.  What type of 
analysis of the qualitative data was undertaken?   
 
A more detailed description of the quantitative data is also required.  What is meant by 
"….though they remain limited to the response categories provided in the original 
questionnaire."? (line 186 -187) What  is meant by "..the qualitative approach offered great 
sensitivity to a wide range of themes that were not as easily addressed in the closed -ended 
questionnaire, including complex topics and the heterogeneity of responses"?(Lines 187 -189).  
 
c. The section on sampling and sample requires clarity.   Who are 'non -teaching personnel"? 
(line 147).  Who were recruited through the community -based data collection?  Adults? 
Children? Both? It is noted that the schools through which students were recruited were 
"loca ted in socio -economically under -privileged areas of the city". (Lines 146 -147), yet 
"data collection involving family members included mothers and fathers of  diverse 
social classes….".  Does the differing social class impact on experiences?  Attitudes? 
Behaviours?  Some comment around this is necessary.  What was the response rate for 
the questionnaire?   
 
Were parents involved in the qualitative component of the study or just the quantitative 
component?  What were the inclusion and/or exclusion criteria f or participating for each of the 
participant groups?  
 
Additionally a clear description of the final sample would be useful to include.   Line 163 makes 
note of 'community practitioners'.  Who are these practitioners - ie, what is their professional 
background.  
 
As such, a table describing each participant gr oup would be useful.  This would also serve the 
purpose of eliminating ambiguity in the 'Results' section.  For example, a question I have is 
whether the 'six teachers' noted in line 200 (Results section) were participants in the study. It 
would also answe r my question regarding the gender of the parents involved.   
  
d. Data collection instruments - was the questionnaire piloted?  If so, this needs to be 
included, if not then comments as to why not would be valuable.  
  
5. Results  
 
a. Throughout the 'Resu lts' section, reference is made to "Personal Communication" .  If 
these individuals were not participants in the research, then a description of what personal 
communication was undertaken, and with whom, needs to be included in the 'Methods' 
section.  If t hey were, in fact, participants in the research, then normal qualitative 
conventions on reporting quotes needs to be adhered to.  
b. What is meant by 'This emerged in encounters between school workers and South Asian 
families" (Line 222).  Is this a reflect ion made by school workers and evident in the data?  
c. There are occasions in the Results section where claims are made, but there is no 
evidence provided - (Line 240; lines 315 -321; Lines 375 -380; Line 391 -393; Line 412 -
414;  
d. Whilst it is noted in the  manuscript that the quantitative findings provide context and 
complement the qualitative findings, there is very little evidence of the quantitative 
results in the Results section.  
e. What is meant by 'South Asian patriarchy'?  This needs unpacking. Simi larly 'collectivist 
patriarchal values' (Line 458) needs unpacking and clarification.  
f. Lines 372 -373 suggest that "Low expectations of South Asian girls by school personnel 
exposed ignorance of South Asian cultures." How so?  This needs unpacking.  
 
6. There was a disconnect between the 'Results' and the 'Discussion'.  This latter section 
should be a discussion of the  presented results in the context of the current literature and 
as such should be re -written.  For example Lines 476 -492 should be related to the current 
study. Lines 506 - 560 do not appear to relate to the results presented, are more akin to 
'Background' information and so, could be moved to that section.  Similarly, there 
appears to be 'Discussion' in the 'Results' section.  For example, L ines 216 - 218, 280 -
281, 304 -3-7, 401 -405; 455 -463 could all be moved to the 'Discussion' section.  
 
7. The conclusion is very long.  I feel that some of the content could be moved to the 
discussion section and the conclusion made much more succinct.  
 
8. Is the referencing style used in the manuscript acceptable for BMC Women's Health? 
Additionally there are page numbers missing for direct quotes in various places 
throughout.  
 
9. There are a range of references that are quite old - can these be updated?  For  example, 
lines 78, 307 (Wadhwani), 486, 497 (Gibson) , 511 (Agnew), 530 (Ledoyen), 546 
(Jacobson, Ng, Naidoo, Ghosh)  
 
10. Line 178 notes that 'parents of underage participants ' provided written informed consent 
for 'publications related to this study'.  Is that all they provided consent for?  
 
11. The manuscript, whilst generally well written should be proof read.  For example, line 
100:  is 'Dismantling' the most appropriate word?  Consider using 'Deconstructing'. Line 
124 what is meant by 'victims and pe rpetrators' of patriarchy?  Are these the most 
appropriate words? Line 226 - change 'teenaged' to 'teenage'? Line 266 - change 
'accostumed' to 'accustomed'?  Sentence lines 393 -395 needs to be re -written;  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments t o the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comment s to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comment s to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the man uscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that  may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, eith er now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare tha t I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal