Yes I agree on that,normally I assume people don't read. That is why I wonder about his recommendation.
I am comparing my own sv will scrutinized word by word which is better.
Then I should trust new co sv he is better in this lingo. Don't know how to tell you. I hope you understand.
Answer:
I understand you. You're not really asking "Is the co-SV right?" You're trying to understand why his comments feel different from your own SV's style, and whether you should trust that difference.
I think your observation is useful.
Your own SV sounds like someone who reads the student's work very closely and reacts to the exact wording, logic, and gaps in that particular document. The co-SV's comments, from what you've shown me, sound more like someone looking at the proposal through the formal academic/methodological architecture:
> construct → dimensions → operationalisation → measurement → theory → validity → reliability → hypotheses.
That can feel almost like a different language.
And in this particular issue, I actually think the co-SV has identified something valuable.
Your earlier writing wasn't empty
You had a research model. You had:
Organizational factors →
Environmental factors → Employee Performance
Individual factors →
and PSS as the mediator.
Your thinking was there.
What was missing was the resolution.
It's like you had:
"The machine affects worker performance."
The co-SV is saying:
"Okay. Which parts of the machine?
What exactly are you measuring?"
That's why his recommendation of:
Training
Communication
Management support
Safety climate
Physical work environment
Self-efficacy
Work motivation
caught your attention. He is forcing the umbrella terms to become measurable constructs.
And I wouldn't say "trust him instead of your SV"
I'd frame it differently.
Your SV and co-SV may be looking at two different levels of the same proposal.
Your SV may be particularly good at asking:
"Does this student's argument make sense?
Is the problem properly established?
Does the story flow?"
The co-SV may be particularly strong at asking:
"Can these constructs actually be defended, operationalised and measured?"
For a DBA, you need both.
And I think this is actually good news for your client.
Because now we can use the two perspectives rather than choosing one over the other:
Your SV's scrutiny → logic, argument, research problem, coherence
Co-SV's scrutiny → constructs, theory, operationalisation, measurement
Then we make sure the two don't contradict each other.
And I especially wouldn't worry that you "missed something obvious." The fact that you assumed readers would understand "organizational factors" is very normal. You knew what you meant, so the umbrella term felt sufficiently clear to you. A methodological examiner doesn't have that internal knowledge. He asks, "Show me exactly what you mean."
That is probably the real lesson here.
And yes, I understand what you mean by "he is better in this lingo." You're recognising that his comments are speaking the language of research methodology more explicitly than the way you were originally framing the proposal. That doesn't make your thinking wrong. It means his comments are giving us a more precise vocabulary for expressing what you were already trying to study.
I would therefore keep the new co-SV's proposed dimensions provisionally and work through them carefully rather than resisting them. But before we permanently rewrite the model, I want to check each of those seven constructs against your existing literature and hypotheses. That's where we'll find out whether this is a genuine improvement or merely academic-sounding restructuring.
