Identity Complexity’s Influence on Multicultural Families’ Ethnic Identity Development and Acculturation Outcomes: A Qualitative Study among Binational (Estonian–Foreign) Parents in Estonia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Identity complexity’s influence on multicultural families’ ethnic identity development and acculturation outcomes: a qualitative study among binational (Estonian-foreign) parents in Estonia” deals with an important and contemporary subject and offers some new insights into the migration field of research related to ethnic identification. The paper analyses connection identity forming within multiethnic couples, and their negotiation acculturation strategies for themselves and their children.
The paper is clearly written, however, its structure deviates from the structure common to empirical results presentation. Namely, the author(s) presented the Methods section as the last section of the paper, after the discussion and conclusion. There is no clear reason for this enlisted by the authors. This section would be more appropriate before the results to get the basic information about the persons who took part in the research. Furthermore, related to the used terminology I would suggest instead of parents to use the term couples. Even though some of the research questions refer to their children, the main focus is on the two partners’ similarities and differences in their identification strategies as they are of different descent.
The theoretical background related to acculturation strategies by Berry is only offered at the end, in the methods section. As one of the main theoretical starting points it should be elaborated in the introduction /theory background of the research.
Minor remarks:
On page 2, ln 54 I suggest avoiding the wording “authors have explored the influence of intersectional characteristics such as…” since the causal relation cannot be determined within this type of qualitative research. Use instead terms relation or effect.
On page 5, in the second citation in the first paragraph respondent first states that he/she is Lithuanian, however talks later about Latvians. Is this an error?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine, only minor corrections are required.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments
This is a good study exploring the development of ethnic identity and acculturation among binational individuals. The authors argue that identity complexity plays a significant role in shaping participants’ perceptions of their ethnic identity and cultural adaptation. This paper could be improved through a clearer conceptual framework, in-depth discussion and restructuring of the submitted article.
1. Introduction
This section establishes a well-established research context by clearly outlining the existing gaps and the significance of the present study. It would be better to highlight the focus on this case, as expressed in line 338: ‘is not to present an identity complexity scale’ and maintain alignment with this focus throughout the article.
2. Literature review/conceptual framework
1) This part appears to be missing from your work. Several concepts/ideas have been introduced or discussed in the article, including identity complexity, acculturation and intersectionality, ethnic identity, and social identity. My concern is that all these are explored in the study and need to be reported in one article? If yes, the authors should be integrated to provide a robust framework for the research design, data analyses, and reflections on findings.
2) Also, the most relevant studies could be reviewed by restating the research gaps, and it would be better to come up with research questions to demonstrate how you will address the gaps.
3. Methods
1) Part 4 Materials and Methods need to be placed before the result section.
2) Table 1 could be merged with Table 3 to give demographic information of participants since the identity complexity scale is not the focus.
3) Details on participant recruitment, the interview protocol (including the number of questions asked), and the balance between the semi-structured interview and interview questionnaire need to be provided.
4) The authors may need to give more information on thematic analysis. Table 4 mostly gives examples of participants’ reporting rather than presenting the coding process. For instance, what are the identifiable subthemes contributing to the three main themes? Will the higher/low identity complexity be emphasised, or will its dynamics interplay with ethnicity development during the cultural adaptation process?
4. Findings and discussion
1) More discussion could be provided on the research focus, such as ethnic identity development and responses to acculturative strategies.
2) In reporting the data, the authors may consider whether to include children’s ethnic identity representation, which seems not quite relevant to the main topic, such as acculturative strategies. But this mainly depends on the revised conceptual framework.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your revision. This is a good paper to be published.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
