Children of Holocaust Survivors: The Experience of Engaging with a Traumatic Family History

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

This was a very interesting piece of research to read. The quality of the writing was excellent and really enabled a very clear understanding of what was being presented to be achieved. 

I have a few comments to the authors - detailed below - with my most significant concerns around the representation of the participants in the IPA analysis and while recognising the double hermeneutic inherent in IPA work the authors need to ensure that the representations of the first author do not take precedence over the participants themselves. I speak more to this below. 

Introduction

The introduction is generally written to a very high standard. I found the flow of the argument to be logical and coherent and it made for a very clear rationale to be drawn. I feel that all of the critical information was reviewed though I have a few things I would appreciate the authors addressing:

1.     In the final paragraph of 2.1 the authors commence by saying how the way in which information was communicated between generations was potentially more important than the content of those disclosures. They then provide some examples of this - but I do not believe the examples provide clarification of the difference between the what and how aspects. For instance, I believe the authors are trying to say that if the survivor presented information about "survival and resilience as well as vulnerability and suffering" in an age appropriate way to their children this could be considered positive. However, that sentence does not tell me how something might be age appropriate nor does is explain the way in which suffering was conveyed to children in a way that was not information but rather more process driven. I agree with the sentiment of the paragraph but the examples need more work to make sure they are achieving the desired purposes. Perhaps one approach here might be to provide an example of an age-appropriate and an age-inappropriate way to sharing about "suffering".

2.     In section 1.3 - It may be useful in, when discussing the evolution of the family historian, to consider (or at the least note) the impact of the internet and other technologies and how they make information more accessible but potentially less (psychologically) safe for offspring. This would tie in with the increasing interest in this since the 2000s that you mention.

3.     In general there isn’t a strong theoretical thread in the introduction. At the very least some additional time could be spent look at transgeneration trauma (or trauma more generally) as the family historian would be both impacted by the families history, but also be a part of its transmission. This would also help in linking through to the research questions where an inquiry into their motivations (any therefore identity) and experiences of taking on this role exist.

Methods

Again, this is a well written section. I would like to see the theoretical positioning come somewhat earlier in this section because it actually informs the design, recruitment, and procedure and therefore would be useful to know before reading these sections.

While I appreciate the focus of this study is on the role of the family historian I am not sure why the participants are represented as a family group. I cannot see any evaluation that looks at the family system itself – and therefore the need to identify individuals in this way is unclear. Within the analysis all quotes are reported at an individual level but these cannot be connected back to the participant table limiting the readers capacity to reflect on how the stories are being represented. Indeed, without the use of pseudonymns in this instance it is impossible to tell how the participants are represented throughout the analysis and to get any solid “feel” for the participants as individuals. That is critical in qualitative, particularly IPA, work. Are both (or in some cases all three siblings) claiming to be family historians? If so, how does that work in the family to have such a role competed for. Linked to this I cannot see any inclusion criteria around whether individuals do self-report as a family-historian. It would be good to understand the premise under which each was recruited?

For the interview schedule I would like to see one or two sentences (at least) which directly state how the items were created – were these informed by the lead researcher alone, by the team of researchers, by the existing literature etc.

Analysis

It is important to include some information about how all the codes and themes were arrived at. I can see the iterative process described (briefly) but were their multiple coders involved, where themes discussed, were themes member checked with participants? Was their any disconfirming analyses conducted?

I appreciate the lead authors personal statement – critical for IPA. However, additional information is required – is the lead author the only one that was involved in analysis. If so, lots more information is required about the reflective practices embarked on and if not, we need some understanding of the other authors too which invariably shaped the analysis as it is reported.

Findings

For each theme it would be good to include several sentences either to open the theme up, or to summarise it at the end, that captures the essence of the theme. There are many quotes, in indeed a narrative stream beneath each which is cohesive, but it would be good to see the authors appreciation of why those aspects belong together within that theme. Without truly describing the theme this belongingness if not clear. Please provide a greater description of what each theme is representing.

The integration of literature, and even at times the reflective work, can be seen integrated throughout this section to an excellent standard.

At times I do question the volume of “author sharing” throughout. As an IPA analysis such reflective practice is warranted – but volume wise it should not dominate. With 24 participants its important their voices are heard. Again, without pseudonyms it is different to track how and where each participant is represented. I would like to see some sort of evidence trail of how the participant disclosures are tracked from quotes, to codes, to themes and at the very least be able to read the analysis and be convinced that all participants are represented.

Discussion

Many themes are introduced in the analysis and a thematic map would help to demonstrate how these themes are interrelated with one another. Pure text based representation doesn’t allow for this. Moreover, in the absence of a supraordinate theme the “take home” message isn’t as clear. Consider whether a supraordinate theme is present, and particularly if it isn’t, then include a thematic map.

Future research directions would be enhanced by talking about how the family historian role of the second generation may vary significantly to those of current third and fourth generations. We can see through other research how the ways Holocaust histories are communicated and experienced across the generations is different (See Cohn & Morrison, 2017) for a summary of these generational differences in behaviours, identities, and wellbeing (some of which are discussed in your own introduction e.g., the Double Wall of Silence that is not seen in third and fourth generations).

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a qualitative study on second generation Holocaust survivors living in Australia and how they relate and experience to their parents’ traumatic past. The paper is well-written and I enjoyed reading it. I think the authors can elaborate some more on the survivors and their descendants from a lifespan perspective. The fact that the parents are very old and the offspring themselves are older adults or at least middle-aged has to shape the dynamic between the generations and affect the second generation in their pursuit for their family history. A related study found that communication styles related to the Holocaust are related to secondary traumatization and age-related themes in the second generation (Shrira, A. (2016). Perceptions of aging among middle-aged offspring of traumatized parents: the effects of parental Holocaust-related communication and secondary traumatization. Aging & Mental Health, 20(1), 65-73.). I think it would be also interesting to discuss the study findings from the perspective of the intertwinement of resilience and vulnerability so frequently mentioned in the literature on intergenerational transmission of the Holocaust (Shmotkin, D., Shrira, A., Goldberg, S. C., & Palgi, Y. (2011). Resilience and vulnerability among aging Holocaust survivors and their families: An intergenerational overview. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(1), 7-21.; another good example can be found in: Kidron, C. A., Kotliar, D. M., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2019). Transmitted trauma as badge of honor: Phenomenological accounts of Holocaust descendant resilient vulnerability. Social Science & Medicine, 239, 112524.). Finally, a few words about the unique characteristics of Holocaust survivor families living in Australia would be instructive. Relatedly please specify how exactly did you define Holocaust survivors for the current study.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have found the authors have address all of my concerns to a very high standard (consistent with the rest of the work here). I particularly appreciated that they did not just "drop in" sentences/paragraphs to meet my suggestions but rather integrated such information throughout the paper. 

I still have to agree to disagree about the placement of the design section - however given the thought and consideration the authoring team gave to all other recommendations (and questions) I am happy  enough to accept that this is a difference in opinion as opposed to a flaw of the research or write up. 

This is a fine paper - well conceived, undertaken and written up. A pleasure to review. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded to all my comments. I have no additional comments beside the fact that some works cited in the text are not mentioned in the reference list (or at least I couldn't find them). For example, Rutland 2005, Shrira et al 2011; Markus 2018.