Social Representations of Trans People in the Workplace
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. I would recommend that the authors use the term “transnegativity” rather than “transphobia” (i.e., not all of the negativity directed against trans persons is attributable to fear).
2. The authors should briefly clarify the analysis that was used to produce the quadrants (see Table 2). For instance, it appears that lower AOE values denote terms that appear earlier in the free association task. Is that correct? What exactly do contrasting core concepts signify?
3. How are the cut-off values for the AOE determined (i.e., 2.40 and 2.10 respectively)?
4. For the findings reported on lines 212-218, can any statistical analyses be conducted (e.g., chi-square comparing the proportion of positive, negative, neutral terms for those with/without contact)?
5. Line 7: use “social representations (SRs)…”
6. Line 36: add “the” before “Contact Hypothesis”
7. Line 45, suggested edit: “…challenges the notion of the gender binary, which contravenes the assumption that gender categories…”
8. Line 55: sentence is incomplete (“…to the prejudice associated”)
9. Line 80: use “social representations”
10. Line 95: use “SRs”
11. Line 97: use “…functioning of SRs, defining…”
12. Line 115, suggested edit: “…a questionnaire we created was…”
13. Line 127: is DP the same as SD?
14. Line 131: delete “The” before “participation”
15. Line 207: The sentence beginning, “Next, in order to infer…” is awkward and should be rewritten.
16. Table 2: should “contr. core” bottom right be “2nd peripheral”? (Also see Table 4.)
17. Table 3: should the colour code for discrimination, prejudice, and difficulties be red rather than yellow?
18. Lines 220-221: should the authors be focusing on the terms appearing in the central core rather than the central core and the 1st periphery? See also lines 222-224.
19. Lines 227-232: The authors should acknowledge that respondents’ perceptions are being measured, which may or may not map onto the lived experience of trans working people.
20. Line 233: use “…taking into consideration…”
21. Lines 233-238: This text is disjointed and unclear.
22. Lines 254-260: This interpretation doesn’t really fit with the findings obtained (i.e., among those reporting contact, 26.65% of terms were negative whereas among those reporting no contact, 25.94% of terms were negative). This isn’t much of a difference. As well, the authors want to make it clear that most of the negative terms generated did not reflect negative assessments of trans people but, rather, awareness of the negativity directed against members of this marginalized group.
23. Line 264: what does “denominated social desirability” mean?
24. Line 268: text is awkward
25. Line 278: should “politics” be “policies”?
26. Lines 282-283: This text does not match Table 4.
See comments sent to authors
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I would recommend that the authors use the term “transnegativity” rather than “transphobia” (i.e., not all of the negativity directed against trans persons is attributable to fear).
Response 1: The term “transphobia” is the most used term in the literature, representing the specific type of discrimination and prejudice against trans people, including the fear but also the disconfort, hatred, disgust and harmful treatment against all persons expressing non-normative gender identities and expressions. It is very important to note that the suffix “phobia” does not mean that a transfobic pearson suffers from any kind of phobic clinical disorder or a phobic reaction. The suffix is only used to represent the fear or irrational hate or disconfort partially perpetuated by a cultural ideology (Balzer & Hutta, 2013; Hill, 2002; Hill & Willoughby, 2005).
Point 2: The authors should briefly clarify the analysis that was used to produce the quadrants (see Table 2). For instance, it appears that lower AOE values denote terms that appear earlier in the free association task. Is that correct? What exactly do contrasting core concepts signify?
Response 2: Yes, it is correct since it is a complementary analysis. The analysis was done using the software EVOC, which has 16 programs and we used four of them: Lexique, to isolate lexical units; Trievoc, to organize the evoked terms in alphabetical order; the Rangmot, to record the frequencies and average orders of evocation; and Rangfrq, to ​​organize the results in the four-quadrant table.
The contrasting core represents the nominal codes with lower frequencies, which were evoked only by a restricted number of people (Abric, 1993, 1994; Vergès et al., 2002).
Point 3: How are the cut-off values for the AOE determined (i.e., 2.40 and 2.10 respectively)?
Response 3: The cut-off values are determined when performing the analysis on EVOC, until a significant number of codes appear. For the first 2.40 was enough, but for the second one we had to changed it for a a lower value to allow more codes to appears. In most studies using SRs and EVOC the AOE are usually between 2 and 2.50 (Vergès et al., 2002).
Point 4: For the findings reported on lines 212-218, can any statistical analyses be conducted (e.g., chi-square comparing the proportion of positive, negative, neutral terms for those with/without contact)?
Response 4: Please provide your response for Point 2. (in red)
Point 5: Line 7: use “social representations (SRs)…”
Response 5: Done
Point 6: Line 36: add “the” before “Contact Hypothesis”
Response 6: Done
Point 7: Line 45, suggested edit: “…challenges the notion of the gender binary, which contravenes the assumption that gender categories…”
Response 7: Done
Point 8: Line 55: sentence is incomplete (“…to the prejudice associated”)
Response 8: Done – sentence completed
Point 9: Line 80: use “social representations”
Response 9: Done
Point 10: Line 95: use “SRs”
Response 10: Done
Point 11: Line 97: use “…functioning of SRs, defining…”
Response 11: Done
Point 12: Line 115, suggested edit: “…a questionnaire we created was…”
Response 12: Done
Point 13: Line 127: is DP the same as SD?
Response 13: Yes – changed.
Point 14: Line 131: delete “The” before “participation”
Response 14: Done
Point 15: Line 207: The sentence beginning, “Next, in order to infer…” is awkward and should be rewritten.
Response 15: The sentence was rewritten.
Point 16: Table 2: should “contr. core” bottom right be “2nd peripheral”? (Also see Table 4.)
Response 16: Yes, thank you for noticing this. It was already changed.
Point 17: Table 3: should the colour code for discrimination, prejudice, and difficulties be red rather than yellow?
Response 17: Yes, thank you for noticing this as well. It was already changed.
Point 18: Lines 220-221: should the authors be focusing on the terms appearing in the central core rather than the central core and the 1st periphery? See also lines 222-224.
Response 18: Since the central core is responsible for assigning meaning, identity, coherence and continuity to SR over time, we focused mainly on those terms for this study even though the terms in the 1st periphery also provides insightful results (Abric, 1993, 1994).
Point 19: Lines 227-232: The authors should acknowledge that respondents’ perceptions are being measured, which may or may not map onto the lived experience of trans working people.
Response 19: That information was added to that paragraph.
Point 20: Line 233: use “…taking into consideration…”
Response 20: Done
Point 21: Lines 233-238: This text is disjointed and unclear.
Response 21: The sentence was rewritten.
Point 22: Lines 254-260: This interpretation doesn’t really fit with the findings obtained (i.e., among those reporting contact, 26.65% of terms were negative whereas among those reporting no contact, 25.94% of terms were negative). This isn’t much of a difference. As well, the authors want to make it clear that most of the negative terms generated did not reflect negative assessments of trans people but, rather, awareness of the negativity directed against members of this marginalized group.
Response 22: The sentence was rewritten.
Point 23: Line 264: what does “denominated social desirability” mean?
Response 23: The sentence was rewritten.
Point 24: Line 268: text is awkward
Response 24: The sentence was rewritten.
Point 25: Line 278: should “politics” be “policies”?
Response 25: Yes – changed.
Point 26: Lines 282-283: This text does not match Table 4.
Response 26: That sentence is not regarding the four quadrant table, instead refers to the most evoked concepts overall on that question.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for letting me review this very interesting article, below I pointed out the points of improvement detected.
1. The summary could indicate more of the results obtained and the title does not relate to the research, write it better to synthesize the research, because it does not focus exclusively on trans people, since the questionnaire is for a whole population and not only on how trans people feel. In the summary, there are very long sentences that prevent it from being understood.
2. Contextualise the research more in the area and focus more on the topic to be achieved, move the objectives to after the introduction and remove them from the methodology. If hypotheses can be added, add them.
3. The methodology is not clear at all, is it qualitative or is it all quantitative? Clarify the methodology of how the data is analysed and explain the mixed methodology used. The sample could be enlarged to give greater rigour to the results obtained.
4. The discussion is brief compared to the conclusion. Summarise the conclusion and use that space in the discussion. Add in the discussion, strengths, limitations and future studies, it is perceived by the text but it is not complete.
Add more updated references that are related to the construct when strengthening the discussion.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The summary could indicate more of the results obtained and the title does not relate to the research, write it better to synthesize the research, because it does not focus exclusively on trans people, since the questionnaire is for a whole population and not only on how trans people feel. In the summary, there are very long sentences that prevent it from being understood.
Response 1: The title and summary were rewritten.
Point 2: Contextualise the research more in the area and focus more on the topic to be achieved, move the objectives to after the introduction and remove them from the methodology. If hypotheses can be added, add them.
Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We added a parapraph to better contextualise the area of the research and also moved the objectives to the introduction. Since this is a very exploratory study we have not felt the need to use hypotheses, only in a following study (already in progress) where we are applying instruments.
Point 3: The methodology is not clear at all, is it qualitative or is it all quantitative? Clarify the methodology of how the data is analysed and explain the mixed methodology used. The sample could be enlarged to give greater rigour to the results obtained.
Response 3: We have use a quantitative approach (questionnaire) with 2 qualitative open questions. We have better explained that now in the article.
Point 4: The discussion is brief compared to the conclusion. Summarise the conclusion and use that space in the discussion. Add in the discussion, strengths, limitations and future studies, it is perceived by the text but it is not complete.
Response 4: The discussion and conclusion were rewritten to accommodate the suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for allowing me to review the article again.
The article has improved but a greater impact can be made on the comments of the previous review since some have not been addressed in depth.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you once again for your review - we very much appreciate it.
Do you think you could be more clear in your suggestions so we can better understand what you think we still need to do or change in the article? We have tried our best to include your inicial suggestions.
Thank you very much!
Kind regards,
