{"id":8948,"date":"2021-11-28T14:42:59","date_gmt":"2021-11-28T14:42:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=8948"},"modified":"2022-02-20T22:14:55","modified_gmt":"2022-02-20T22:14:55","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-15-transition\/peer-reviewed-papers\/collective-capabilities-for-resisting-far-right-extremism-online-and-in-the-real-world\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Collective capabilities for resisting far-right extremism online and in the real world)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: A<\/h1>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/h3>\n

Yes<\/p>\n

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/h3>\n

The paper is interesting and the focus on capabilities is productive. And as far
\nas I can tell, the relevant literature, including very recent one, is referenced.
\nWhat is perhaps missing is a more explicit discussion on the limitations of this
\napproach.<\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/h3>\n

One problem is the phrasing of one of the questions, namely \u201cWhat do these
\ncapabilities tell us about resisting transitions more broadly?\u201d What exactly is
\nto be resisted, the (digital) \u201ctransition\u201d more generally, or the far-right using
\nthe transition\u2019s potential to further their agenda? The Q suggests the former,
\nthe main argument the latter. This imprecision appears in the paper again and
\nagain.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the concept of \u201ctransition\u201d should be bit clarified. A transition implies
\nthe change from A to B. What what is A and what is B? Or, is this seen as
\nsomething more open, an IT-enabled social transformation whose direction is
\ncontested? The article, IMHO, focuses on one conflict over the direction of
\nthis transformation.<\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/h3>\n

Overall, it\u2019s not poorly written, but sometimes it\u2019s a bit imprecise and inelegant, impeding the flow of reading. To paraphrase David Graeber. It\u2019s not always \u201ckind to the reader\u201d. <\/p>\n

\u201cPolitical and social theorist Michael Edwards highlights three ways collective life can be understood as civil society (2014).\u201d Wouldn\u2019t it be easier to say, \u201c\u2026 highlights three collective dimensions of civil society.\u201d <\/p>\n

\u201cTechnologists have their own myth of transition, disruption (Lepore, 2014)\u201d this could be rephrased easily to be more elegant and easy-to read, eg. \u201c.. their own myths of transition and disruption\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n

\u201cFinally, the substantive goal of this paper has been achieved.\u201d I would leave out such formulation, because they sound a bit self-congratulatory. It\u2019s for the reader, not the author, to decide of the paper managed to fulfill its goals.<\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/h3>\n

The introduction is takes too long to provide an overview of the article. I propose to move the section on the socio-economic crises and its consequences to section II. <\/p>\n

The structure of the paper is a bit convoluted. It might help to move section 2.3 further up, to clarify the perspective on IT and social change. Perhaps Langdon Winner is a bit too prominent here, given that the paper is quite old. <\/p>\n

I would structure it like this: Intro, theories of transition, sociol-political background, info on Uplift. The we have all the context we need to proceed to the actual research.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: B<\/h1>\n<\/p>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/h3>\n

The articles takes on the important task of understanding how civil society can mitigate the
\nharms of far-right extremism through collective action. By transforming this question into a case
\nstudy of Uplift’s Far Right Observatory, the article does important work of reflecting on how this
\nmitigation can begin. I was particularly impressed with the model presented at the end of the
\npaper where collective actions were broadly conceived as: the application of law, localizing acts
\nof content regulation, being attentive to the network of power between civil society organizations
\nand more established infrastructural and media institutions. The case of Uplift provided
\ninteresting and unique data on how this model could be mobilized. However, the quality of the
\nwriting and the structure of the paper prevents the significance of its contribution from being
\nreadily understood.<\/p>\n

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/h3>\n

After reading the first few pages of the paper, the context and the review of literature provided
\nled me to believe that the paper was focusing specifically on far-right activity. This was
\nconfirmed by the concentration on exploring the conditions that facilitated its contemporary
\nemergence. However, the content of the empirical study is not about far-right activity itself.
\nInstead, the study is an examination of the capacity to observe and mitigate the harms of the far-
\nright. Because this is the primary site of study, it was surprising not to find a review of literature
\nof other similar organizations or even theoretical literature describing the necessity of such
\norganizations to maintain civil democracies. I think that shifting the emphasis of the literature
\nreview towards organizations combating far-right extremism, rather than extremism itself, would
\nbetter prepare the reader for understanding Uplift’s novel project. What I did find intellectually
\ninteresting was the content of Table 3. In fact, it was only after reading that table that I
\nunderstood how all the pieces of the article were intended to fall into place. I would suggest that
\nthis table (or a comparable sentence \/ paragraph about it) should appear much sooner in the paper
\nas it answers the question that is not fully articulated in the beginning: What are the harms of far-
\nright activity to civil society?<\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/h3>\n

Considering the comments concerning the literature review, it was difficult to assess the degree
\nto which Uplift is presenting unique capacities to mitigate the harms of far-right activity amongst
\nsimilar organizations. While there is a brief moment where it is related to other advocacy groups,
\nit would have been preferable to know how Uplift’s organizational structure, capacities, and
\nsuccesses compare to these other groups.<\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/h3>\n

Unfortunately, the value of the empirical study is hidden behind the significant number of typos,
\nincomplete sentences, and missing punctuation. While these issue exists throughout the paper,
\nmost of the obvious errors occur in sections 1 and 2. In this regard, the paper requires an
\nattentive and careful process of proofreading by the author to finesse the structure and quality of
\nthe paper’s sentences. These surface-level issues also extend into the organization of the paper as
\na whole. It came as a surprise later on in the paper that the focus of the empirical study was not
\njust the organization Uplift, but specifically its Far-right Observatory \u2014 a term that only first
\nappears on page nine. The paper would be much more successful in communicating the value of
\nthe study if it was restructured to highlight the Observatory from the very start. Both these
\nsentence-level and structural issues have made it difficult to assess the quality of the research
\nconducted and to understand precisely how the author came to their conclusions. This means that
\neven after a substantial effort to increase the quality of the writing, there may be further
\nmethodological and theoretical concerns that would emerge.<\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/h3>\n

I would recommend that the introduction needs to be significantly rewritten to make a clear
\nconnection between the topic of mitigating far-right activity, the literature review that directly
\nsupports the empirical study, and the study itself. Again, I think that this could be a valuable
\ncontribution of research, but it needs a scaffold to support it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review C<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: C<\/h1>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/h3>\n

Yes<\/p>\n

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/h3>\n

Yes, the treatment of transition as a \u201cnegative\u201d process that needs to be \u201cstopped\u201d is
\ninteresting.
\nI think that a wider comparative analysis of similar initiatives and\/or research work
\nwould be important to include. Unfortunately, I cannot provide concrete references,
\nand I would say it is not enough to include such work as references, but comment on
\ntheir own results and how they compare with this very interesting case.
\nPerhaps there are also studies for the case of Uplift and others from different
\ndisciplinary perspectives, e.g., anthropology or ethnography? I think it would be
\ninteresting to include some discussion on the complexity of managing organizations,
\nthe role of different actors, human relationships, etc. Also, perhaps work on more
\n\u201ctechnical\u201d questions regarding privacy and security for the type of digital solutions
\ndiscussed.
\nFinally, another important missing discussion in this paper, is the question of how to
\ncomplement resistance to collective action toward positive change. How Uplift sees
\nits role to this end?<\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/h3>\n

It is a strong point of this paper the active involvement of the author in the case study
\npresented. However, this pauses some methodological questions and I think it would
\nbe important to give some more information on the specific role of the author and thementioned discussions\/interactions that led to the conclusions summarized in the
\ndifferent tables.
\nAnd additional point that perhaps could be discussed:
\nThe main \u201csolution\u201d proposed in this paper comes through a sort of \u201cleft\u201d surveillance.
\nI understand the logic of it, but it could also backfire somehow if the protect society
\nfrom far-right extremism we should exercise a form of \u201cleft\u201d surveillance.<\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/h3>\n

The paper feels written in a rush. There is a lot of room for improvement in the writing
\nand structure.<\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/h3>\n

I would reduce significantly the introduction and I would add more details on the \u201craw
\ndata\u201d leading to the presented tables. And ideally, also one more section comparing
\nUplift with other case studies and commenting on the details of the exchanges
\nbetween the other like-minded organizations mentioned, MoveOn in the US,
\nCampact in Germany, 38 Degrees in the UK and GetUp! in Australia.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reviewer: A 1) Is the subject matter relevant? Yes 2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred? The paper is interesting and the focus on capabilities is productive. And as<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"parent":8923,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template_full_width.php","meta":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8948"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8948"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8948\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10143,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8948\/revisions\/10143"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8923"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}