(De)constructing a Dar-ul-Uloom Aalim’s Identity in Contemporary Britain: Overcoming Barriers of Access

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an examination of an important and much needed area of research. It, therefore, has the potential for a valuable contribution. The literature review provides an adequate analysis of key research in the topic, although it may be enhanced. To reach publication status, the paper requires additional work:

1. Add to the abstract: a brief, clear, and precise description of the methodology, including sample size, the number of interviews, and year of data collection.
2. The language requires review and proofreading for precision, hedging, fluency, and punctuation. Sometimes repetition could be enhanced. See, for example, Line. 30, origins....originate ... Lines: 38-39, settlers ... to settle ..
3. Some references require updating, i.e., Line 41-43: "To date, there are also now over 30… (Geaves, 2012). Lines: 47-49: "..in the current geopolitical climate,… (Geaves, 2012).
4. Line 97: Correct spelling: Lahmar, not Lahmer
5. Review the references to meet the APA 7 style requirements. Also, some links are no longer working.
6. Access at what level? As access to individual ‘Alim outside dar al-ulum is not a challenge to many researchers per se, the challenge is to gain in-depth research from within dar al-‘ulum. Perhaps the focus on the insider/outsider in accessing this ‘Alim participant’s views and experiences would be more unique to this case-study than accessing dar al-ulums per se, as the sample is restricted to one ‘Alim rather than to his dar al-‘ulum institute. Hence, focusing on what is unique about the level of access to this case study might be more valuable.
7. The section titled "The sample and data collection" requires restructuring and precision; the information about the interviews for this study is scuttered and vague at times. For example,

Line 318: "This paper reports on data and analysis from interviews with a participant …", but how many interviews with this participant?

Line: 325: "(not reported on here)."; There is a need here for a precise mention of how many interviews are related to this paper’s analysis and findings. Also, how long was each interview?

Line 326: "Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews with the participant." Do you mean these are the data based on which the analysis in this study is conducted? Requires clarification.

Line 339-340: "After ethical approval was gained from the University of XXX, the interview was conducted with the voluntary participant, between October and November 2020." The three interviews or interview?

In sum, the methodology, Sample and Data Collection, and The Interview and Reflexivity sections are long and repetitive at times. For a better engagement with the reader for a paper rather than a thesis style, these sections will benefit from merging, restructuring, focus, precision, more critical engagement, and language proofreading.

Line 407: "the most significant factors that." How to measure the level of significance in this in-depth qualitative study Factors: How can we prove that these are factors in this case? The language needed review in reporting the analysis to match the methodology.

Line: 423: "the most significant influencing his identity was the outer layer..". Again, how was this level of significance measured?

Line 427: Figure 1. Is interesting, but there is not sufficient data analysis in the paper to justify these conclusions. There is no evidence of data presented in section 6.1. Identity Construction, to support the analysis.

The paper needs to present a critical discussion of the findings.

The conclusion seems too long and requires focus and precision.

Author Response

 

We would like to thank the reviewer for their detailed and helpful feedback

Responses point by point below:

The paper presents an examination of an important and much needed area of research. It, therefore, has the potential for a valuable contribution. The literature review provides an adequate analysis of key research in the topic, although it may be enhanced. To reach publication status, the paper requires additional work:

 

Add to the abstract: a brief, clear, and precise description of the methodology, including sample size, the number of interviews, and year of data collection.

 

Lines14-15 – Precise description of methodology, number of interviews and year of data collection added.

 

The language requires review and proofreading for precision, hedging, fluency, and punctuation. Sometimes repetition could be enhanced. See, for example, Line. 30, origins....originate ... Lines:

38-39, settlers ... to settle ..

 

Line 30 – ‘the origins of’ removed

Line 39 – ‘settle’ removed

 

Some references require updating, i.e., Line 41-43: "To date, there are also now over 30… (Geaves, 2012).

 

Line 41 – ‘to date’ removed – the data from 2012 is the latest data available.

 

Lines: 47-49: "..in the current geopolitical climate,… (Geaves, 2012).

 

Reference updated.

 

Line 97: Correct spelling: Lahmar, not Lahmer

 

Spelling corrected.

 

Review the references to meet the APA 7 style requirements. Also, some links are no longer working.

    

Access at what level? As access to individual ‘Alim outside dar al-ulum is not a challenge to many researchers per se, the challenge is to gain in-depth research from within dar al-‘ulum. Perhaps the focus on the insider/outsider in accessing this ‘Alim participant’s views and experiences would be more unique to this case-study than accessing dar al-ulums per se, as the sample is restricted to one ‘Alim rather than to his dar al-‘ulum institute. Hence, focusing on what is unique about the level of access to this case study might be more valuable.

 

We have addressed this issue regarding access to individual Ulamaa (which as you state may not be as challenging as acquiring in-depth research from within DUs). We have therefore, reworded lines 53-54, 58-59, and 172-174 to instead, focus on the absence of literature documenting how Ulamaa construct and negotiate their religious and national identities.

 

The section titled "The sample and data collection" requires restructuring and precision; the information about the interviews for this study is scattered and vague at times. For example, Line 318: "This paper reports on data and analysis from interviews with a participant …", but how many interviews with this participant?

 

Line 335 (previously line 318) - Three one-hour interviews added.

 

Line: 325: "(not reported on here)."; There is a need here for a precise mention of how many interviews are related to this paper’s analysis and findings. Also, how long was each interview?

 

These interviews were not the focus of this paper. As stated in line 339-340, this paper reports on data and analysis from 3 one-hour interviews with a single participant (line 340).

 

Line 326: "Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews with the participant." Do you mean these are the data based on which the analysis in this study is conducted? Requires clarification.

 

Yes, we have clarified this further by adding ‘for this study’ in line 348.

 

Line 339-340: "After ethical approval was gained from the University of XXX, the interview was conducted with the voluntary participant, between October and November 2020." The three interviews or interview?

 

The three interviews – this has now been clarified (lines 361-362)

 

In sum, the methodology, Sample and Data Collection, and The Interview and Reflexivity sections are long and repetitive at times. For a better engagement with the reader for a paper rather than a thesis style, these sections will benefit from merging, restructuring, focus, precision, more critical engagement, and language proofreading.

 

We have made changes throughout to refine the focus and avoid unnecessary repetition.

 

Line 407: "the most significant factors that." How to measure the level of significance in this in-depth qualitative study Factors: How can we prove that these are factors in this case? The language needed review in reporting the analysis to match the methodology.

 

Line 474-475 – Language revised to ‘throughout the interviews, the participant highlighted the impact his local community had in shaping his identity.’

 

Line: 423: "the most significant influencing his identity was the outer layer..". Again, how was this level of significance measured?

 

Through the participant’s voice – this has now been clarified in line 495.

 

Line 427: Figure 1. Is interesting, but there is not sufficient data analysis in the paper to justify these conclusions. There is no evidence of data presented in section 6.1. Identity Construction, to support the analysis.

 

We were conscious about including this diagram in the first place and appreciate this feedback. We have decided to remove the figure as we agree that the level of data presented in this paper does not support that analysis.  

 

The paper needs to present a critical discussion of the findings.

 

More discussion and analysis added throughout.

 

The conclusion seems too long and requires focus and precision.

 

We have amended and moved the section about limitations to the start of our analysis.

Thank you again for your helpful feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper engages with an important topic on a subject which has received relatively little scholarly attention.  It appears to be part of a larger doctoral study and has used an interview with a single individual as the basis for the paper. 

The overall impression I have of this paper is that it is premature, and in some senses academically ‘immature’.  This becomes evident when sweeping generalisations are made, and concepts are used without fully appreciating their nuances.  There is considerable discussion, for example, of the position of researchers as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, but this dichotomy has been extensively critiqued, not least in relation to research done by Muslims and with other Muslims.  See for example: Abbas, T. (2010). "Muslim-on-Muslim Social Research: knowledge, power and religio-cultural identities." Social Epistemology 24(2): 123-136.  This lack of nuance becomes problematic in relation to statements about the supposed “shared values” between a so-called ‘insider’ researcher and a research participant.  Individuals might very well have a similar background and biography, but to assume that this is sufficient in order to claim that they have “shared values” is a problematic assumption.  

The claims in the paper are based on analysis of a single interview.  This really isn’t sufficient as a source of data. So, the section heading ‘sample and data calculation’ is misleading.  A single interviewee doesn’t constitute a ‘sample’.  Furthermore, we are not informed about how the interviewee was selected, and even more surprisingly, we hear the ‘voice’ of this individual very little!  It would have been possible to profile the interviewee, without revealing their identity.  So, although the author mentions the “self-narrative” of the interviewee, there is remarkably little interview data where we as the readers might engage with that narrative. 

There is a section on ‘Data analysis’, but no information is actually provided about the strategy and methods used to analyse the interview. 

It is unsatisfactory to claim that all representations of Islam and DUs are controversial in the media and in public discourse.  Which media?  What public discourse?  Furthermore, there is some excellent coverage of Islam and Muslims in the media (as well, of course, of some very negative portrayals).  But to characterise all media representation as negative is simply inaccurate. 

The author makes reference to ‘the Muslim community’.  There is no such thing.  Given the diversity of Muslims in Britain, to refer to a community in the ‘singular’ fails to reflect the fact that Muslim are members of many communities. 

Some of the key supporting references in the paper (e.g. Merton 1972) are out of date and thus in appropriate for the claims being made. 

The author makes reference to ‘British values’ without explaining what these might refer to – and is there even a consensus about this!?

There some poor and clumsy phrasing (E.g. line 592-594). 

The claim that ulama are “a major part of the social fabric of Britain” is not supported by any evidence! 

Many references to journal articles in the bibliography were supplied without page margins, or were otherwise incomplete. 

Overall, this paper adds little, if anything, to our understanding of DUs and their graduates in Britain, largely because its evidence base is so thin. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their detailed and helpful feedback

Responses point by point below:

This paper engages with an important topic on a subject which has received relatively little scholarly attention.  It appears to be part of a larger doctoral study and has used an interview with a single individual as the basis for the paper.

 

The overall impression I have of this paper is that it is premature, and in some senses academically ‘immature’.  This becomes evident when sweeping generalisations are made, and concepts are used without fully appreciating their nuances.  There is considerable discussion, for example, of the position of researchers as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, but this dichotomy has been extensively critiqued, not least in relation to research done by Muslims and with other Muslims.  See for example:

Abbas, T. (2010). "Muslim-on-Muslim Social Research: knowledge, power and religio-cultural identities." Social Epistemology 24(2): 123-136.

 

This lack of nuance becomes problematic in relation to statements about the supposed “shared values” between a so-called ‘insider’ researcher and a research participant.  Individuals might very well have a similar background and biography, but to assume that this is sufficient in order to claim that they have “shared values” is a problematic assumption.

 

Line 325 – Shared values have now been referred to as shared familiarities (as stated by Griffith, 1998).

 

The claims in the paper are based on analysis of a single interview. This really isn’t sufficient as a source of data. So, the section heading ‘sample and data calculation’ is misleading.  A single interviewee doesn’t constitute a ‘sample’. 

 

Line 334 – Section heading changed to ‘data collection’

 

Furthermore, we are not informed about how the interviewee was selected, and even more surprisingly, we hear the ‘voice’ of this individual very little! 

 

Lines 336-340 – Information about how the interviewee was recruited has been added.

 

It would have been possible to profile the interviewee, without revealing their identity.  So, although the author mentions the “self-narrative” of the interviewee, there is remarkably little interview data where we as the readers might engage with that narrative.

 

Lines 442-460 – Participant profile added

 

*The participant’s name has been given a pseudonym to protect his identity.

 

There is a section on ‘Data analysis’, but no information is actually provided about the strategy and methods used to analyse the interview.

 

Added in lines 419-424.

 

It is unsatisfactory to claim that all representations of Islam and DUs are controversial in the media and in public discourse.  Which media?

What public discourse?  Furthermore, there is some excellent coverage of Islam and Muslims in the media (as well, of course, of some very negative portrayals).  But to characterise all media representation as negative is simply inaccurate.

 

Line 151 – added ‘most’ other representations of Islam.

 

The author makes reference to ‘the Muslim community’.  There is no such thing.  Given the diversity of Muslims in Britain, to refer to a community in the ‘singular’ fails to reflect the fact that Muslim are members of many communities.

 

Line 266 – changed to Muslim communities

 

In all other sections, the single community is referring to the DU community.

 

Some of the key supporting references in the paper (e.g. Merton 1972) are out of date and thus in appropriate for the claims being made.

Relevant updated references used

 

The author makes reference to ‘British values’ without explaining what these might refer to – and is there even a consensus about this!?

 

Sentences added

There some poor and clumsy phrasing (E.g. line 592-594).

 

Revised

The claim that ulama are “a major part of the social fabric of Britain” is not supported by any evidence!

 

Line 766 – rationale for this statement added.

 

Many references to journal articles in the bibliography were supplied without page margins, or were otherwise incomplete.

 

We were unsure which references the reviewer was referring to – but we have done another check.

 

Overall, this paper adds little, if anything, to our understanding of DUs and their graduates in Britain, largely because its evidence base is so thin.

 

We have deepened our analysis but have strengthened our argument that the paper is also discussing the data collection methodology.

 

Thank you for your helpful feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

This was a joy to read and presents an original piece of research. Well done. A few things can be added/adjusted to improve the paper.

1.  Perhaps think about "situating" the paper in the field (line 52 onwards).

2. Talk about your thesis - what is it about? (line 52 onwards).

3. Overall, the paper seems overloaded with references - do you need so many references to support one point? Think of a strategy to reduce it, perhaps by latest publication, for example?

4.  The paper spend a lot of time on the literature review - can you think about dedicating more time to the findings section which is relatively sparse. This is where you are adding new insights so readers would like to know more!

5. On line 165,  this is essentially what is new about your paper - give it more prominence. 

6. Also, have you considered looking at Hamid Mahmood's MA thesis?

7.  Again, in the methodology section, have you thought about your references?

8. The positionality section was interesting. Again, think about reducing it to make more space for findings section.

9. In the interview and reflexivity section, around line 387 onwards can you provide examples of where you actually did it in the interview?

10. Section 6: Findings and Analysis is the real core of the paper and will interest readers but it comes ways too late (I think).

11. The figure 1. is excellent but i think the text before on line 423 onwards need to be clear - you said outer layer - but then talked about the outer community. 

12. Can you tell us more about the other layers, if possible?

13.  Check spelling for "her" on line 427.

14.  There was no italicised text (line 429).

15.  This whole section is fascinating but lacked unpacking. You talked of clothing, for example, but didn't engage in discussion. Why do you think this is? Where does this come from? Their teachers who are seen as models? 

16. The struggle of this alim is very real. Perhaps focus on that. There is an expectation gap. Why is the community focused on identity as opposed to things like belief, theology and the like?

17. I love how you unpacked and seperated the (South Asian) culture and talked of compatibility with British values. Very nuanced.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their detailed and helpful feedback

Responses point by point below:

This was a joy to read and presents an original piece of research. Well done. A few things can be added/adjusted to improve the paper.

 

1. Perhaps think about "situating" the paper in the field (line 52 onwards).

Revised

2. Talk about your thesis - what is it about? (line 52 onwards).

 

This is mentioned in lines 336-340.

 

3. Overall, the paper seems overloaded with references - do you need so many references to support one point? Think of a strategy to reduce it, perhaps by latest publication, for example?

 

References have been reduced throughout.

 

4. The paper spend a lot of time on the literature review - can you think about dedicating more time to the findings section which is relatively sparse. This is where you are adding new insights so readers would like to know more!

 

More analysis added.

 

5. On line 165, this is essentially what is new about your paper - give it more prominence.

Revised

 

6. Also, have you considered looking at Hamid Mahmood's MA thesis?

 

Yes – this was a source used in the main thesis.

 

7. Again, in the methodology section, have you thought about your references?

 

References have been reduced.

 

8. The positionality section was interesting. Again, think about reducing it to make more space for findings section.

 

Revised

 

9. In the interview and reflexivity section, around line 387 onwards can you provide examples of where you actually did it in the interview?

Revised

 

10. Section 6: Findings and Analysis is the real core of the paper and will interest readers but it comes ways too late (I think).

 

Revised.

 

11. The figure 1. is excellent but i think the text before on line 423 onwards need to be clear - you said outer layer - but then talked about the outer community.

 

Figure has been removed due to the lack of space for thorough analysis about it in this paper, and in response to another reviewer’s feedback.

 

12. Can you tell us more about the other layers, if possible?

 

Added in lines 487-490.

 

13. Check spelling for "her" on line 427.

 

N/A (figure has been removed).

 

14. There was no italicised text (line 429).

 

N/A (figure has been removed).

 

15. This whole section is fascinating but lacked unpacking. You talked of clothing, for example, but didn't engage in discussion. Why do you think this is? Where does this come from? Their teachers who are seen as models?

 

Added in lines 484-516.

 

16. The struggle of this alim is very real. Perhaps focus on that. There is an expectation gap. Why is the community focused on identity as opposed to things like belief, theology and the like?

Revised

 

17. I love how you unpacked and seperated the (South Asian) culture and talked of compatibility with British values. Very nuanced.

Thank you for your comments and positive response to our paper.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has certainly improved and is heading towards being more publishable.

While a case-study approach clearly has validity, the author/s of this paper maintain that their work has important things to say about the identity of ulaama in Britain more broadly.  I maintain that this is difficult to support on the basis of a single research participant.  The authors have adopted an “interpretive philosophical perspective” (line 204) whereby “meaning is subjective and highly individualised”.  This being the case, the claim that the paper has something important to say about a large community of people (ulaama) is difficult to substantiate. 

While the literature review is adequate, I note on second reading that there is a considerable body of material missing relating to ulaama and their training in Britain.  Scholars such as Philip Lewis (and Lewis and Birt), as well as Geaves, have written numerous articles on this subject.  I would have expected to see much greater reference to this work in the literature review.

There is only one sentence about data analysis (line 355).  This is inadequate.  What were the “emergent themes”?  Given that the paper rests on data collected from just a single individual, a full understanding of the methods of data analysis becomes paramount. 

There are still minor errors of proof-reading and presentation in both the body of the text and in the bibliography, and a need for attention to detail.  For example, the reference to A. Ali in the bibliography: this book was published by Routledge in India, not Oxfordshire.  These slippages do not inspire confidence in the academic rigour and accuracy required for a peer-reviewed international journal article. 

Author Response

Response:

This paper has certainly improved and is heading towards being more publishable.

While a case-study approach clearly has validity, the author/s of this paper maintain that their work has important things to say about the identity of ulaama in Britain more broadly.  I maintain that this is difficult to support on the basis of a single research participant.  The authors have adopted an “interpretive philosophical perspective” (line 204) whereby “meaning is subjective and highly individualised”.  This being the case, the claim that the paper has something important to say about a large community of people (ulaama) is difficult to substantiate. 

Thank you for the feedback. We have responded to each comment below

Our paper does not claim to represent the Ulamaa of Britain. We have clarified this stance throughout the paper – please see lines:

57 – we clarify that our paper will provide analysis of the participant’s identity construction.

Line 61 – we state that our research ‘contributes’ to understanding the identity of Ulamaa, clarifying that it does not represent all Ulamaa.

63 – again we refer to the single participant.

365 – we state that the paper does not provide a representative analysis of all Ulamaa in Britain, rather it is a first step (due to the gap in literature) in overcoming barriers to access and filling the gap in the literature.

373-374 – we state that our conclusions are only relative to the participant’s reality of his identity and our interpretations of that reality.

669-670 and 671-673 – we clarify that this is the participant’s own story of life in Britain which helps us begin to understand the identity of British Ulaama from their own frame of reference.

716 – we clarify that our paper is limited to exploring the individual identity construction of an Aalim.

735 – there was a typing error in the previous submission referring to our future study which read:

our work explores the identities of Ulamaa in a collective context, filling the gap in literature about the study of DU Ulamaa in Britain.

This has now been changed to:

our work will explore the identities of Ulamaa in a collective context, filling the gap in literature about the study of DU Ulamaa in Britain.

 

While the literature review is adequate, I note on second reading that there is a considerable body of material missing relating to ulaama and their training in Britain.  Scholars such as Philip Lewis (and Lewis and Birt), as well as Geaves, have written numerous articles on this subject.  I would have expected to see much greater reference to this work in the literature review.

We considered all these authors in our previous submissions however, although most of the authors’ mentioned above write about DUs and Deobandis, their work is somewhat outdated and due to feedback from reviewers about using contemporary literature, we decided to take many of the references out.

Some references to the other authors however, remain, Geaves’ work has been cited throughout the paper – for example, lines 44, 46, 51, 96 and Lewis’ work has also been cited – for example lines 34 and 40). References to Birt (2005) (line 139) and Birt and Lewis (2011) (line 164) have also been added as per your comment.

Furthermore, along with the issue of being outdated, there are also nuanced reasons why we have not included wider reference to these authors, for example, although Birt writes about DUs and Deobandi Ulamaa, his work is very much focussed on the professionalisation of Ulamaa. His work focuses on chaplaincy and the training of religious leaders (Imaams) not specifically on the identity of Ulamaa. Our research highlights that there is a clear distinction between the Aalim and the Imaam.

There is only one sentence about data analysis (line 355).  This is inadequate.  What were the “emergent themes”?  Given that the paper rests on data collected from just a single individual, a full understanding of the methods of data analysis becomes paramount. 

A more detailed account of the methods of data analysis has been added – lines 361-379.

The emergent themes are mentioned in lines 404-405 and now also added in lines 371-372.

There are still minor errors of proof-reading and presentation in both the body of the text and in the bibliography, and a need for attention to detail.  For example, the reference to A. Ali in the bibliography: this book was published by Routledge in India, not Oxfordshire.  These slippages do not inspire confidence in the academic rigour and accuracy required for a peer-reviewed international journal article. 

We have also undertaken thorough proof reading of the article.

 

Presentation of article has been revised and formatted.

 

The copy of A Ali’s text we have used was not published in India, we have a hard copy of the text and its place of publication is Oxfordshire – we have attached a picture of the information page for your reference.

 

All references have been revised and formatted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved to a publishable standard.