To the reviewers
Since the last time I received the correction comments, I have been editing my dissertation in line with the given comments. I have worked closely with my supervisor who has been helpful in this whole process.
I have done a whole modification of the literature review which according to the comments given was too long and repetitious. I managed to identify the redundant parts, and I have come up with a more hypothesis based literature review section.
I have summarized some of the changes that I made in the table attached. Some sections of the literature review were completely omitted due to their redundant nature. New sections were introduced to cover up for the unrepresented hypotheses. This was in an effort to key in the relevant literature.
I would like to thank you for your initial comments which have helped me refine this thesis up to this level. I am glad to work with you all and I anticipate better things ahead.
Best regards
Jameela Almur
Reviewer’s comments Actions took/Remarks Text Cf. Page(new doc.)
(a) Literature review
The literature review is sometimes pertinent but also at times irrelevant, and it is in any case far too repetitious. It needs drastically slimmed down and rendered strictly relevant to the research topic.
Repetitious sections have been identified and deleted. Section 2.3 of the initial draft was having same information as section sections 2.37 and 2.36. These were pooled together, and the redundant words deleted.
Section 2.2 Causes of stress at work, was repeated in other sections, and there was no need of having it. This was replaced by a more objective section 2.2 Sources of Stress.
Section 2.10 on Stress management was repeated in section 2.2.1, Partly in 2.35 and 2.36. All the information was summarized and consolidated into one section.
Literature review section was reduced to 76 pages from an initial total of 120. Text within the literature review. Page 37 – 104
Most of the literature provided was not relevant to the study. Section 2.8.1 which is about illness is much more biological than business related. The literature provided under causes of stress at work was not sufficient, and more literature from other relevant sources added.
Literature provided under section 2.25 was irrelevant. It was all about a university. This was replaced with relevant literature.
The section on strategic management was cut down, and only relevant information relating to stress included. Initially, it was biased towards actual strategic management.
Some new sections were introduced. They include, Genesis and definition of stress, Sources of stress at work, Characteristics of stress, Stress Response Cycle, Productivity, Individual consequences of stress and their impact on productivity, Effects of stress in relation to demographic factors and many more. These were important in addressing some of the hypotheses that were left out.
A total of 37 new sources were used to provide relevant literature. Majority were journals.
Text within the literature review Page 37 – 104
