Rural Women’s Invisible Work in Census and State Rural Development Plans: The Argentinean Patagonian Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper tackles a timely topic that interrogates the intersection of gender agriculture and family farming. This is important given the focus on the Family Farm and the SDGs call for equality. The use of historical census as a source of information is a powerful methodology which directly informs policy making and distribution of resources. I commend the authors for tackling such a complicated subject

although the paper tackles a relevant and timely issue - it is not recommended for publication in its current form.

The structure can be strengthened by more coherent ordering. for example the repletion of the methodology an aim of the paper in lines 481-502 should be in the initial stages.

The results section/historical analysis can be improved through use of subheadings to clarify themes and organise the narration accordingly 

The discussion should elaborate on the findings and the implications of these for women's visibility, policy formulation and family farming - currently it is too short and abrupt to do justice to the preceding section.

 

Here are my suggestions:

I do not believe the title adequately reflects the subject matter of the paper.  The unit of analysis is not clear and or consistent

 

The terms "concealment/invisibilisation" should be replaced by more appropriate terminology in the manuscript. there are other terms which if revised can strengthen the paper. Examples include

invisibility line 2

familiar line 23

repeating line 36

discriminations line 49

invisibi… line 52

Ist sentence line 74 

major line 75

drafted line 83

landslide line 100

sterility line110

denied line 156

articulation line 210

manual arts line 262

sexism line 266

paticula...line336

autoconsumption line 345

imaginery 469

cut line 398 

The revision of these terms will significantly increase the flow in the paper. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Please see the attached file.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article raises  interesting question of the female labour recognition in rural areas. The authors should however better identify literature gap that they aim to fill and state clear research problem and their novel contribution. Women labour recognition is not only Argentinian problem and may attract interest of international audience. What kind of recognition are you talking about (financial recognition, statistical recognition, political recognition etc.)? More precise definition/classification is required. The authors should significantly expand the review of state-of-the art focusing  more on English sources. The literature review in present form is not very useful for English-speaking readers. The article structure lacks consistency. Methodological section should address the motivational and research objective in a clear way. Actually it is hard to say what hypothesis the presented data are supposed to advocate ? What do they prove ? Be more precise in conclusions and recommendations. What is a message that you want to send to policymakers ? It is also not clear why some data are omitted by public census. Explain motivation of decisionmakers. The title says  “rural planning”. This notion should be precisely defined . It is not clear how the recognition of female labour might impact on the “rural planning”. The article is plenty of a such vague expressions that reader may have problem to understand what the authors mean:

• “and the uses of land outside the extractivism”
• “crossing the borders between human and non-human”
• “recognition politics”
• “permanence of female subalternity”
• “they were conceived as part of natural resources”
• “unequal financial recognition of the effort”
• “This virginal space's fertility”
• “In our study, censuses information introduces the construction of that vulnerability in a land characterised by the strength of their women”
• “the female work was denied” in what sense ?
• “The “self-consumption” production needs to be complexified in all Patagonia”
• “The paradoxical over-dimension of the market”
• “Number of variables per production”
• Thus, what is “seen” is the dynamism of the market and the male as the capitalized – capitalized in what sense ?

When it comes to minor issues you should work on figure presentation and description. In figure 0.19 means 0.19% ?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of this manuscript seems relevant and interesting to readers of Land. However, I feel that the “Introduction” is inadequate as an incentive for a reader to continue. Several crucial ingredients are missing. One is a thorough justification for the study; and this is my main concern regarding your paper. It aims to to explore different topics (e.g. feminism, ecofeminism, women devaluation, rural and urban conceptions of women) but it is difficult to find why all these issues connect. I feel that you might better explain the focus and relationships among all these constructs. Additionally, more effort is needed in order to justify the relevance of the Patagonian case, beyond ‘certain particularities’ and ‘being a rural region’. It seems that it is not sufficient to undertake a study. One must also make clear that the missing parts are relevant and important. Additionally, there should be a short explanation of the contribution(s) of the study.

The following part, Literature Review, can also be improved. You often refer to feminist economy, feminism and ecofeminism. Nevertheless, it does not rely sufficiently upon critical gender or feminist literature. As it stands, the paper is underdeveloped theoretically in terms of its use of feminist frameworks. If you want to continue this stream of research, I would strongly recommend becoming more familiar with feminist engagements in the literature. In this vein, you might perhaps reconsider your assumption that you follow McDowell suggestion on developing a theory in terms of differences and diversity. You note that your article is responding to that challenge, but after reading more deeply and critically relevant literature on this issue you could better accomplish this objective.

The ensuing part, Discussion, is quite inadequate. Again, doubtful general conclusions are made based on previous assumptions. This is not only inappropriate but misleading since some issues are not part of your study. Instead, you should strictly base your discussion on your results and identify your contributions to the literature. Besides, both limitations and further research implications should be included.

• Minor issues:

Abstract: Relating the order you disclose to explain your research (a historical study of censuses; systematisation of rural development plans, and the systematisation of research articles related to the subject), in my view the reference to previous research could be better placed at the first step. Moreover, you seems to follow another order when explaining your methods.

• In Patagonia, the race was presented with a masculine connotation, because the males were the ones who acted and held ethnic Why? Could you please reference this?
• You devote strong adjectives to former censuses. I wonder if you are analyzing those documents under an extratemporal approach (e.g. the occidental over the native, the foreign over the national, men over women, and the urban over the rural were assumptions of the censuses)
• There are some grammatical errors in the manuscript. There were a number of unfamiliar choices of words, which in some places made comprehension difficult. Moreover, in some of the other sections the need for more coherence and consistency in the argument was mentioned. This point should be reiterated because the issue is amplified through the current presentation of the literature.
• Summarizing, the title and abstract for this paper sounded very interesting, however, the paper does not live up to the expectations raised in the abstract. Overall, I was left struggling to find what is new in this paper. You highlight theoretical contributions, but, it is difficult to establish what the theoretical contribution is. All an all, I feel that the way you present your study is unclear and confusing.  I encourage you to critically review your paper, and try to better explain your contribution in order to increase your options and the attractiveness of your ideas. I hope my suggestions be useful in order to do that. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

Please see the attached file.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a lot of work towards getting the paper into an article that can be disseminated. I commend the effort. The extensive revisions make the manuscript more coherent and also reveals other issues.

1. The key words female work is interchanged with labour in the manuscript – be consistent
2. Find a place in the manuscript to define the key words/phrases. The point is for the authors to explain their key concepts and how they deploy them in the manuscript. Are these possible key words too” feminisation”, “territory”?
3. The introduction is too long and winding. It is difficult to read this mix of for example theoretical reflection line 27; findings line 67; methodology line 72; background line 880-81 and literature line 82, 146, 162-174; aim of the article line 102, 185-190; justification line 109, 151-15,229,244,2676; argument line 115; description of the study area line 175; findings line 67.I suggest the authors construct an abstract in line with other articles as shown by the journal instructions to authors. Alternatively, they organise the information in the introduction by sections
4. Line 144 presents a research question – I suggest research questions are introduced in this section
5. The justification for the research and /or why is this study necessary should also be consolidated in this introductory section (line 244, 268,229,151, 109, 567, 831
6. The structure of the paper/layout (line 178-184) should be inserted after the abstract and/or introduction to enable the reader to understand the sequencing of the manuscript

The section headed Materials and methods

1. It is unclear if materials refer to literature in which case all the literature from the introduction and the discuss and conclusion should also be presented in this part of the paper. As it is the literature is presented throughout the paper which makes it difficult to appreciate the existing knowledge on the subject and the authors’ point of departure. E.g. line 713-730 belong in the literature section not as a conclusion by the authors

Line 687para beg line 644 (I apologise I do not have time to highlight all the literally references) the point is that these should be consolidated on one, section as background, what is known about the subject and the omissions/limitations and what the study seeks to address

 

2. This is the section where the authors engage with the theoretical issues
3. This the perfect place to include a paragraph on a description of the study area which currently is spread in various sections (line 175,195-228, line 515-523, line 428)
4. At this point is where the authors (290-298) explain why they decided to use census data, the cherry case study, livestock, soy beans, apples, market etc. I also suggest the authors also highlight
5. There is also an attempt to interrogate the concepts and present them (see point 2). In this case I suggest a paragraph where all the concepts are presented in this section.
6. Methods refers to the research methods and I suppose the census is a source of materials data. The research methods and sources of data should be stated clearly in one section

The measure of work I assume this section is now focussed on research findings –if this is the case- the literature should be reduced and/or moved to the relevant section earlier in the paper

1. Line 289 -711 are the research findings I assume if so these should be presented using subheadings that respond to the research aims, questions and justifications highlighted in the introductory questions. The constant reference to area description, literature and introduction of new terminology/concepts makes it difficult to follow the presentation in this section- I elaborate and make some suggestions:
2. authors decide if they will use women’s work or labour and use it consistently
3. I suggest they use different headings /subheadings according to their research data sources e.g. a) census b) cherry case study c)….
4. I suggest use of subheadings like conceptualisation, for example indicators, data source, outcomes, implications for women’s work and or labour OR the authors identify some themes that run through each year of census which are relevant to their inquiry and use these to frame and present the data. The last paragraph will summarise the findings from the census data and the implications for women’s work, family farming etc under each heading suggested under section 2
5. Figure 2 should be further interrogated and/or discarded. It is not clear what “general” trends are. line 352-355 is not conclusive on the explanation of figure 2. The authors note the decline but they do not explain the upward trends in the graph
6. Is the cherry a specific case study- if so have a specific sub-heading and make reference to it in the methodology and materials section
7. Is the national livestock a specific case study?
8. Is the market a specific issue?
9. If 5-6 are specific issues cases, they should be highlighted and for each of the presentations – the implications for invisibility of women’s labour should be highlighted
10. Line 486 makes reference to FAO guidelines. Right now we are in the middle of the FAO Decade on Family Farming. Does it have any relevance for this study?
11. Is family agriculture the same as family farming? What is family scale? –could it be subsistence perhaps? is self- consumption (line 603) subsistence

Discussion

This section should focus on what the authors found in their inquiry and the implications for their research questions and/or aims of the study, this is not the place for the justification of the study nor further literature review. This sections are solely about the authors discussion of their own findings in the research

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

 

Thanks for your confidence, your detailed review and your words.

Please, allow us to explain the changes and improvements based on your comments and suggestions. We appreciate and agree with all of them.

 

In response to the overall assessment, we should point that, in this new version:

 

We improve the language, with the review of native speakers English

 

We improve the research design, the descriptions of the methods, the presentation of the results and the conclusions taking your requests. You can review the modified attached article trough a change tracker. We explain each change in the article titled “land 722995 track with comments”.

 

 

In response to your specific comments

 

You indicated

 

The authors have done a lot of work towards getting the paper into an article that can be disseminated. I commend the effort.

 

Thanks

 

You indicated

 

The extensive revisions make the manuscript more coherent and also reveals other issues.

1. The key words female work is interchanged with labour in the manuscript – be consistent

We unify the terms

 

 

2. Find a place in the manuscript to define the key words/phrases. The point is for the authors to explain their key concepts and how they deploy them in the manuscript.

Are these possible key words too” feminisation”, “territory”?

We add these keywords

 

 

3. The introduction is too long and winding. It is difficult to read this mix of for example theoretical reflection line 27; findings line 67; methodology line 72; background line 880-81 and literature line 82, 146, 162-174; aim of the article line 102, 185-190; justification line 109, 151-15,229,244,2676; argument line 115; description of the study area line 175; findings line 67.I suggest the authors construct an abstract in line with other articles as shown by the journal instructions to authors. Alternatively, they organise the information in the introduction by sections

We made these changes. We organise the introduction in line with this comment.

 

 

4. Line 144 presents a research question – I suggest research questions are introduced in this section

We made this change.

 

 

5. The justification for the research and /or why is this study necessary should also be consolidated in this introductory section (line 244, 268,229,151, 109, 567, 831

We increased the justification for the research. In order to that, we explain the scale of family farming. We also organised the argument.

 

 

6. The structure of the paper/layout (line 178-184) should be inserted after the abstract and/or introduction to enable the reader to understand the sequencing of the manuscript

We introduced the structure of the paper in the abstract and we increased this explanation in the introduction.

 

 

You indicated

 

The section headed Materials and methods

 

1. It is unclear if materials refer to literature in which case all the literature from the introduction and the discuss and conclusion should also be presented in this part of the paper. As it is the literature is presented throughout the paper which makes it difficult to appreciate the existing knowledge on the subject and the authors’ point of departure. E.g. line 713-730 belong in the literature section not as a conclusion by the authors Line 687para beg line 644  the point is that these should be consolidated on one, section as background, what is known about the subject and the omissions/limitations and what the study seeks to address

We agree with you, thanks for pay attention of this issue. We clarified the sources, in order of that, we increased the presentation details. We organised the Material and Methods section in: Data Sources; Theory; Outcomes; Implications for the recognition of women rural work and implications for the recognition of family agriculture.

We add subheadings in this section.

We explain sources and existing literature between lines 286 to 311.

 

 

2. This is the section where the authors engage with the theoretical issues

We agree with this comment. We improve this section adding theoretical issues.

 

 

3. This the perfect place to include a paragraph on a description of the study area which currently is spread in various sections (line 175,195-228, line 515-523, line 428)

We agree, we tried to concentrate the description of the area

 

 

4. At this point is where the authors (290-298) explain why they decided to use census data, the cherry case study, livestock, soy beans, apples, market etc. I also suggest the authors also highlight

We highlight the cases and we introduced subheadings to order these results.

 

 

5. There is also an attempt to interrogate the concepts and present them (see point 2). In this case I suggest a paragraph where all the concepts are presented in this section.

We introduce a sub section named ‘theory’ to clarify the concepts

 

 

6. Methods refers to the research methods and I suppose the census is a source of materials data. The research methods and sources of data should be stated clearly in one section

We clarified the methods in a sub section named “outcomes”

 

The measure of work I assume this section is now focussed on research findings –if this is the case- the literature should be reduced and/or moved to the relevant section earlier in the paper

We agree

 

 

1. Line 289 -711 are the research findings I assume if so these should be presented using subheadings that respond to the research aims, questions and justifications highlighted in the introductory questions. The constant reference to area description, literature and introduction of new terminology/concepts makes it difficult to follow the presentation in this section-

We agree

 

 

I elaborate and make some suggestions:

Thanks for that

 

2. authors decide if they will use women’s work or labour and

use it consistently

We made it

 

 

3. I suggest they use different headings /subheadings according to their research data sources e.g. a) census b) cherry case study c)….

We made it

 

 

4. I suggest use of subheadings like conceptualisation, for example indicators, data source, outcomes, implications for women’s work and or labour OR the authors identify some themes that run through each year of census which are relevant to their inquiry and use these to frame and present the data. The last paragraph will summarise the findings from the census data and the implications for women’s work, family farming etc under each heading suggested under section 2

We use subheadings

 

5. Figure 2 should be further interrogated and/or discarded. It is not clear what “general” trends are. line 352-355 is not conclusive on the explanation of figure 2. The authors note the decline but they do not explain the upward trends in the graph

We improve the graphic explanations. We organize the references in Figure 2.

 

 

6. Is the cherry a specific case study- if so have a specific sub-heading and make reference to it in the methodology and materials section

We introduce a subheadings, we clarified the cases.

 

7. Is the national livestock a specific case study?

Yes, it is. We clarified it with a subheadings.

 

8. Is the market a specific issue?

Yes, it is. We clarified it with a subheadings.

 

 

9. If 5-6 are specific issues cases, they should be highlighted and for each of the presentations – the implications for invisibility of women’s labour should be highlighted

We agree

 

10. Line 486 makes reference to FAO guidelines. Right now we are in the middle of the FAO Decade on Family Farming. Does it have any relevance for this study?

No, it doesn't. Nothing changes in Patagonia.

 

 

11. Is family agriculture the same as family farming? What is family scale? –could it be subsistence perhaps? is selfconsumption (line 603) subsistence

We clarify the scale of family farming (líneas 174-249). We clarify the link between family farming and family agriculture for our case (línea 141).

 

 

Discussion

This section should focus on what the authors found in their inquiry and the implications for their research questions and/or aims of the study, this is not the place for the justification of the study nor further literature review. This sections are solely about the authors discussion of their own findings in the research

We improve the Discussion taking this mention into consideration.

 

We take this opportunity to thank the remarkable effort in your first evaluation and the considerable improvement that has meant its look on our paper. Your second evaluation implied a new great effort. The details of your considerations help us in our objective of communicate from Patagonia. Thanks for that,

 

The authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the improvements made by the authors. I just miss the more pragmatic conclusions in the final section, which would recommend how to solve the problem of the invisible women labour . Please, correct the description of Figure 4 - it is not clear what you mean by "Number of variables per production".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

 

Thanks for your confidence and your words.

Please, allow us to explain the changes and improvements based on your comments and suggestions. We appreciate and agree with all of them.

 

In this new version:

 

We improve the language, with the review of native speakers English

 

We improve the research design, the descriptions of the methods, the presentation of the results and the conclusions taking your mentions and Reviewer’s 1 requests. You can review the modified attached article trough a change tracker. We explain each change in the article titled “land 722995 track with comments”.

 

We improve the graphic titles in general

 

We introduce a paragraph in conclusions, attending your comment.

 

We thank the remarkable effort in your first evaluation, your recent review, and the considerable improvement that has meant its look on it. Your words really help us in a very difficult context.

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations for this improved work. I am specially grateful as you considereded and correctly addressed my suggestions, also shedding light on my main doubts.

I understand your motivation, and I am also grateful for your sincerely paragraph on the main issues sublying your interest on publishing this work.

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

 

 

Thanks for your confidence and your nice words. Your support was very important to us.

 

In this new version:

 

We improve the language, with the review of native speakers English

 

We improve the research design, taking Reviewer’s 1 requests. You can review the modified attached article trough a change tracker. We explain each change in the article titled “land 722995 track with comments”.

 

We thank the remarkable effort in your first evaluation of this article and the considerable improvement that has meant its look on it. Your words really help us in a very difficult context.

 

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf