Preparation of Two Participatory Social Housing Interventions in a Marginalised Roma Community in Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article follows very close a very interesting case study, revealing the conundrums of interventions in marginalized Roma communities. 

abstract: "35 affluent families", I would suggest "better-off families", nobody is affluent in Pata Rat 

Page 2: A critical reflection is introduced here, but it is not clear what is the topic, or what is the problem: "following a hasty family reintegration program, carried out in the context of the rapid reform of the child protection system particularly in the EU pre-accession period, but with recurring instances ever since." I would suggest that the statement is either clarified, or removed.

Chapter 2: Too general comments about the Roma. Moreover, the Covid crisis in the Roma communities was well covered by several authors in great detail, a thing that is just introduced here and then followed by another topic. The interesting thing would have probably been to see the struggles of this particular community, but these are not properly illustrated, so it is not clear what is the role of the section in the article. Despite a brief observation at the end of the article about the lack of support of the authorities there is no consistent information about the Covid impact.

The theoretical framework is somehow reduced to the 'housing first' and 'community participation' ideas, and while this serves well the research, it does not cover enough the understanding of the challenges of integration, the mechanisms of segregation, or the role of policies in regards with the Roma. This section/part can be improved (it might serve well to have a dedicated section). Also, the reflection on the neo-liberal 

The methodology is clear, and the results show a great interest in the dialogue with the community, which is a rare example of a good fieldwork. Since qualitative methods were employed, the results deserve a more detailed discussion in what regards the reasons, or the rationale behind the choices that are so well described. 

Though IMRaD structure is rather boring and unrewarding, I think that the policy of titles in the article follows that well, with some excess of subtitles and underdeveloped phrases that belong more to a report than a scientific article.

 

 

 

   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestions!

Point 1. abstract: "35 affluent families", I would suggest "better-off families", nobody is affluent in Pata Rat

Response 1. We accepted your suggestion. 

Point 2. A critical reflection is introduced here, but it is not clear what is the topic, or what is the problem: "following a hasty family reintegration program, carried out in the context of the rapid reform of the child protection system particularly in the EU pre-accession period, but with recurring instances ever since." I would suggest that the statement is either clarified, or removed.

Response 2. We have reformulated the phrase: "Some inhabitants moved into the community upon reaching adulthood after they had outgrown the child protection system and left without any housing possibilities.  The lack of specific, efficient services targeting family and social reintegration after institutional care, coupled with an unstable economic and social context, led to many young adults ending up settling in this area (Tonk, Adorjáni and Lăcătuș 2017)."

Point 3. Chapter 2: Too general comments about the Roma. Moreover, the Covid crisis in the Roma communities was well covered by several authors in great detail, a thing that is just introduced here and then followed by another topic. The interesting thing would have probably been to see the struggles of this particular community, but these are not properly illustrated, so it is not clear what is the role of the section in the article. Despite a brief observation at the end of the article about the lack of support of the authorities there is no consistent information about the Covid impact.

Response 3. We agree with your comment. We eliminated the general statement about the Roma and restructured and developed the subchapter with more specific information regarding the impact of Covid-19 on segregated Roma communities.  You can see the modified subchapter The effect of pandemic on marginalised Roma communities.

Point 4. The theoretical framework is somehow reduced to the 'housing first' and 'community participation' ideas, and while this serves well the research, it does not cover enough the understanding of the challenges of integration, the mechanisms of segregation, or the role of policies in regards with the Roma. This section/part can be improved (it might serve well to have a dedicated section). Also, the reflection on the neo-liberal 

Response 4. We believe the comment is well founded, so we introduced a new subchapter The need for de-segregate Pata-Rât. 

Point 5. The methodology is clear, and the results show a great interest in the dialogue with the community, which is a rare example of a good fieldwork. Since qualitative methods were employed, the results deserve a more detailed discussion in what regards the reasons, or the rationale behind the choices that are so well described. 

Response 5. We have refined the methodology, restructured the results part, revised the discussion section and introduced a Conclusion chapter to describe more clearly the policy and practical implications of the research. 

Point 6. Though IMRaD structure is rather boring and unrewarding, I think that the policy of titles in the article follows that well, with some excess of subtitles and underdeveloped phrases that belong more to a report than a scientific article.

Response 6. Thank you for the comment! We have tried to make the sentences clear and to link the subchapters more. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1) The paper lacks a clear conceptual framework that links the extant literature with what you are currently investigating.

2) The key research questions or hypotheses are missing for the study.

3) What's the point of engaging in the debate on rights-based vs. needs-based housing policies in the paper?  The findings of the research were not discussed in relation to that debate.

4) If there was no sampling strategy for the data collection, how could the authors ensure that the samples were representative? 

5) Apart from sampling, what are the limitations of the research? How do these limitations affect the interpretation of the research findings?

6) The part on policy or practical implications of the research findings is weak. The authors should strengthen that part.

7) The writing style is weird. I would suggest the authors to restructure the paper. Try to avoid using short paragraphs (with 2-3 lines). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestions and comments!

Point 1. The paper lacks a clear conceptual framework that links the extant literature with what you are currently investigating.

Response 1. We developed the conceptual framework by introducing a new subchapter (The need for de-segregate Pata-Rât), developed the Subchapter The impact of pandemic on marginalised Roma communities and enriched the literature.

Pont 2. The key research questions or hypotheses are missing for the study.

Response 2. The paper presents action research results and this is more clearly highlighted in the Introduction and Methodology. 

Point 3. What's the point of engaging in the debate on rights-based vs. needs-based housing policies in the paper?  The findings of the research were not discussed in relation to that debate. 

Response 3. This paper does not address the rights and needs-based housing policy debate. We take a rights-based approach and argue in the paper that the intervention we present, which can be seen as a housing-ready intervention, is not consistent with a rights-based approach. To make this more clear for the reader we reviewed both the theoretical and discussion parts. 

Point 4. If there was no sampling strategy for the data collection, how could the authors ensure that the samples were representative? 

Response 4. Thank you for your comment! As the research population was fully covered, we did not need to aim for representativeness. We have reformulated the methodological section to better highlight this issue.

Point 5. Apart from sampling, what are the limitations of the research? How do these limitations affect the interpretation of the research findings?

Response 5. Thank you for your comment! We introduced the Limitation section with the following content: 

"The main limitation of the research is that lacks empirical data regarding the impact of Covid-19 on the Pata-Rât communities. Thus, the conclusions regarding the relationship between the changing in preferences regarding social housing accession criteria and the impact of the Covid-19 is hypothetical. Another limitation of the research is that for maximising confidentiality in relation with the respondents, socio-demographic data were not registered. Thus, the interpretation of the results cannot be supported by a more nuanced analysis."

Point 6. The part on policy or practical implications of the research findings is weak. The authors should strengthen that part.

Response 6. Thank you for the feed-back! We introduced the Conclusions part, which referred specifically to the practical and policy implications of the research findings. 

Point 7. The writing style is weird. I would suggest the authors to restructure the paper. Try to avoid using short paragraphs (with 2-3 lines). 

Response 7. The short paragraphs were merged, and the text was sent to a new editor. We hope that the language is now more comprehensible.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily.  I don't have any further comment on the paper.