Terminology and Language Used in Indigenous-Specific Gender and Sexuality Diversity Studies: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review was a highly worthwhile exercise, but I would agree with the limitation identified about limitation by the English language and academic journals, and I encourage the researchers to extend their reviewing work in the ways they suggest in the final section.

Is this for the Special Issue on Intersectionality and gender-related violence? (It would seem ideally suited to me)

I have one query and then some minor suggestions which are sometimes only about improving language/expression and are listed below. My main query was the tension between the apparent criticism that there is not a shared language for Gender and Sexuality (G and S), and the idea that any shared language would have colonised indigenous concepts or understanding. If you agree that this is a tension, then perhaps acknowledging this would work and could invite constructive suggestions.

Personally I wanted to know who was doing the reviewing - about whether the authors were indigenous scholars - at the outset, rather than in the reflections, but I can see the fit there. My preference if for that to be moved to earlier.

Suggested improvements:

-        Can the research question and ‘specific’ explanation of it be any better expressed?

-        Explaining some of the search term acronyms for accessibility (e.g. QUILTBAGS, and maybe 2S..) and not to reinforce the assumption that certain terms are ubiquitous.

-   Please add a line or two of justification of the PRISMA approach at the start. How does it differ from other methods for reviewing literature such as systematic reviewing?

-         Can you explain why MSM and other abbreviations were excluded (as opposed to MSM and men who have sex with men’ both being search terms)?

-         Could this be explained please: “critera for inclusion were set on the systematic review of Indigenous worldviews on 93 the development, understanding, and expression of gender and sexuality.” Would it work to say: ‘This was a systematic review of indigenous worldviews on the development, understanding and expression of G and S, and inclusion criteria were set. These were:….’

-         P6 here I had a realisation: . “To 143 identify if the Indigenous related keywords would show the same result, these auth” which shows the explanation needed earlier. Is the aim to identify texts that discuss sexuality from indigenous perspectives or to see if any different terms are used in the indigenous literature than in the literature as a whole?

-         On p12 I struggled to understand how the 5 themes did not overlap. For instance how are these distinct from the articles identified in the theme above? “Twenty-five journal articles examined colonialism and settler colonialism’s impacts 272 on the conception, construction and experience of gender and sexuality”.

-         On p12, does this need a word qualifying gender? “the [particular?] framing of gender as deviant, immoral, and inferior (Wood- 277 ward 2015).” Or ‘the way gender is framed being deviant..’?

-         When you say this, is it together (i.e. intersecting race and gender/sexuality) or are these 2 separate areas? ”Ten journal articles examined Indigenous and gender and sexuality diverse healthcare and relevant support

-         Isn’t it odd (inconsistent) to be criticising the lack of consistency in terms? On p13? Doesn’t this mean that diverse meanings including indigenous sexualities have not been completely stamped out?

-         On p13 who does the ‘their’ refer to in this? ‘Comparably, it appears that a small sample of academic researchers have attempted 321 to be inclusive of Indigenous gender and sexuality diverse groups by exploring their be- 322 liefs, values, and attitudes.’

-         Also p13 – I think this could be expressed more strongly by using ‘should’ or otherwise ‘areas that you think should have/ are in need of further research’: ‘This also indicates future re- 328 search fields.’

-         I think this should say ‘outputs’: p13 – “Indigenous scholarly outcomes have been published”

-         Rephrase needed: p13 ‘Focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles has 349 been largely ignored other resources’ [suggestion: ‘has meant that other resources have been largely ignored’?]

Apologies for the delay in reviewing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the paper is extremely important since while the fields of gender and postcolonial studies have developed a lot in recent decades, terminology in these fields shows great variety. Therefore, the research is much needed.

 

However, there are some inconsistencies throughout the paper:

 

1. In some instances (highlighted in the pdf) the authors mention some researcher and then provide the reference for another work. It would be advisable to make reference to the original source (unless the author referenced offers some interpretation of said original source. In this case, it should be mentioned).

 

2. There are some mistakes in English (the reviewer is not a native speaker, so this should be revised by a language reviewer)

 

3. Although the study is necessary and the outcomes useful in further research in this field, the second part of the article in which the surveyed literature is classified and grouped under different groups is difficult to understand. The so called “themes” seem not to have been established based on a strict taxonomy and the topics within these themes seem to somehow be established subjectively/randomly. Maybe these “themes” and related subcategories should be based on previous research, and if the current classification is created anew by the authors, it needs further explanation and clarity (maybe in the form of a table). Furthermore, such categorization is not related to the terms extracted and shown in the tables, so the usefulness of such categories and subcategories is apparently missing. I would advise to restructure this part of the article and clearly state what is the purpose of such classification and how this relates to the analysis of terminology for sexual/gender diversity and Indigenous-related terms.

 

4. The discussion and conclusion fail to cover all the contents of the article. A clearer objective (or objectives) is required to open for discussion and recover in the conclusions later on with the results. Also, no mention is provided to the classification of the articles and terms. Some sentences seem redundant and somehow repetitive.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have seen that most of the comments and suggestions were addressed. Although I see clearly the importance of such study in current gender studies (particularly from an intersectional perspective), I think that more can be done with the data collected. I have the impression that the article can be just a list of terms and that no further knowledge is generated. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf