"Prosecution in the eyes of the justice-involved: A community-based participatory research approach" (by Belen Lowrey-Kinberg): Review 1

Vote: Do not publish.

Although the paper has an interesting premise, the work sadly does not meet the quality for publication. In general, the paper needs to be re-worked and structured more academically, draw on wider community-based research literature, and be more methodologically sound.

Rationale for CBR

The rationale for CBPR could do with updating significantly, community-based research is widely acknowledged as an effective tool for research, and the concept that only academics and researcher are producers of knowledge would be challenged. I understand positioning CBPR in this context may be novel, however, I would still contextualize it within wider research practices.

I understand having a section on Marxist thought; however, this is not necessary and does not add to the paper, nor is it built into an overarching frame in which we should understand the outcomes from the research. I would recommend re-engaging with community research literature and giving the reader a wider understanding of why and how CGPR has been adopted. If a Marxist perspective is required, I would suggest discussion around Weber and power, rather than material contexts.

Elements of CBPR

Please add the citation to the first paragraph when discussion involvement of the community in research.

Methods

The methodological section requires a significant re-work, currently it is descriptive and needs to be much more academic, as this legitimizes your research process. I am unconvinced you have taken a grounded theory approach; you discuss themes and do not generate theory. I believe thematic approach would have been more appropriate (See: Clarke and Braun, 2006). Although detail is given on recruitment and participation, however, given the scope of the paper I would want more details on the ethical and safeguarding considerations, i.e., was there a distress protocol in place for difficult conversations. Further to this, you discuss the use of Zoom, but there is no discussion on the risks of it within community-based research, or how it can embed researcher/participant power dynamics, alienate quieter members, or how the digital divide may exclude communities (after which you can discuss how you over came this).

Focus Group Questions

It is questionable that the paper positions itself as building ‘bottom-up’ research and stresses it told participants they were in power, before setting out rules of conduct and requesting positive and negative experiences in court, which could re-establish hierarchy.

Findings

The findings section details responses to questions, but does not evaluate them, build them into any theoretical frame, or consider how they may interlink. Although its important we effectively capture the voices of marginalized groups, we still need to engage and evaluate, as well as compared to existing literature. There are opportunities to bring in literature from outside the field to discuss power dynamics and antagonistic relationships, which could have added a lot of depth to what was emerging in your research.

Various

There are several spelling errors (i.e., Carl Marx instead of Karl Marx).

Some references are either not included or are misspelled.