Sv Comment 10

---

Thank you for pasting the SV’s feedback. This is actually very constructive, but it is compressed and conceptual—so let me untangle it slowly and translate it into “what you must do”, aligned with your Chapter 4, RO, RQ, and DBA expectations.
I’ll structure this into five clear parts so you can see the logic.
1. What your SV really means by “What is the research problem for the DV?” Your DV = Employee Performance.
Your SV is saying:
You treated employee performance as if it is self-explanatory, when in a DBA it must be problematized.
In DBA logic: A DV is not just something to be improved.
It becomes a research problem when:
It is declining It is inconsistent It is good but fragile It is measured narrowly It is known generally but unclear in mechanism It behaves differently in certain contexts Your SV explicitly reminds you:
❝ Something bad can be a research problem. Something good can also be a research problem.
What is known and unknown can also be a research problem. ❞
This is very important.
2. How to frame the DV problem properly (what is missing now) Your current DV write-up is descriptive, not analytical.
You likely wrote something like:
“Employee performance is important for organizational success…”
That is true, but not yet a problem.
What your SV wants instead: You must show tension, uncertainty, or unresolved reality around employee performance.
Example of a DBA-level DV problem framing: Organizations report acceptable or even high performance Yet they face: burnout disengagement high turnover inconsistent output sustainability fatigue Meaning:
Performance exists, but its drivers are unstable or misunderstood 👉 That is the problem.
3. How to expand the DV background analysis (what to add) Your SV says:
“Your write up on the DV is too brief. Require more background analysis of the situation.”
This means you need 3 layers, not 1.
Layer 1: Macro-level (what is happening now) Changing work expectations Sustainability pressures Supervisory roles becoming more complex Performance no longer driven purely by incentives or KPIs Layer 2: Organizational-level Organizations invest in: sustainable practices leadership programs Yet performance outcomes are: uneven context-dependent person-dependent Layer 3: Individual-level Employees respond differently to: the same supervisor the same sustainability initiative Suggesting individual factors matter, but how? ➡️ This naturally justifies your IVs without forcing them.
4. What your SV means by “two types of gaps” This is critical for a DBA.
(A) Conceptual Gaps These relate to knowledge and theory.
Examples already present in your study (but not made explicit enough):
Studies examine: sustainable practices → performance PSS → performance BUT: Often separately Often without integrating individual factors OR: Focus on attitudes (satisfaction, commitment) Not actual performance dimensions 👉 Your conceptual gap:
Lack of an integrated framework combining organizational, supervisory, and individual resources to explain employee performance.
This aligns perfectly with:
SET COR Your Chapter 4 findings (B) Contextual Gaps These relate to where, who, and under what conditions.
Your study already has this, but again—it must be explicit.
Possible contextual gaps you are addressing:
Industry-specific (e.g., sustainability-driven sectors) Geographic / regional context Employee demographic composition Supervisory structure differences 👉 Your contextual gap:
Existing findings may not fully explain employee performance dynamics within this specific organizational and cultural context.
5. What your SV means by “The conceptual framework together with the research design must address both gaps” This is not a criticism—it’s a checklist.
Your SV wants to see that:
Element Must show DV background Why performance is problematic now Conceptual framework How variables fill conceptual gaps Research design Why this context fills contextual gaps DBA contribution Practical + theoretical insight Good news:
👉 Your study already does this — it just needs to be made visible in writing.
6. What you should do next (very concrete) Step 1: Rewrite DV section Expand to 2–3 pages Frame performance as: important but unstable, inconsistent, or insufficiently understood Step 2: Explicitly label gaps Use subheadings:
Conceptual Gaps Contextual Gaps Do not assume the examiner will infer them.
Step 3: Tie back to DBA purpose End the section with:
“Thus, this study responds to both conceptual and contextual gaps by…”
7. Reassurance (important for you) This feedback does not mean:
your theory is wrong your variables are weak your design is flawed It means:
“You are thinking like a researcher, now write like a DBA.”
If you want, next I can:
Rewrite the DV research problem section for you Or rewrite the gap section using your actual variables Or map this feedback line-by-line to your current draft You’re not behind.
You’re exactly where a DBA should be—at the refinement stage.



Norsanina.blogspot.com

---