Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Bangladesh’s Ready-Made Garments (RMG) Industry: Exploring Workplace Well-Being Issues in Policy and Practice

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in red colour in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

·         Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

·         Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

·         Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

·         Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

·         For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

·         Is the article adequately referenced?

·         Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Data collected are original and important. However, they are not clearly presented in the data analysis section (that is, 5 and 5.1). Maybe, it will be better to start presenting data from real interview, which are original and well-structured data.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, I have added more explanations with quotes from interview narratives both in 5.1 and 5.2 sections (in Section 5. Result). I highlighted the revisions in red in the revised manuscript, please refer to the revised manuscript. Considering the high volume, it is not included in this response report.

Comments 2: As for the context, in section 3.1 the authors explained the situation of violence against women in Bangladesh. I suggest to add a few words also on the legal system, that is to explain if and which laws were implemented (if any) for the specific crimes of domestic violence or violence in the workplace specifically against women.

Response 2: Agree. I have, accordingly, added sentences about the current laws on preventing violence against women in Bangladesh in Section 3.1 in red in the manuscript. For example, Violence against women in the family and society is currently dealt with under various laws including the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act 2000, the Domestic Violence Act 2010, Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (CrPC) in Bangladesh (Yasmin, 2020). The scopes and applications of these laws are discussed in the findings section.

Comments 3: In 3.2 p. 6 line 288 when the authors state "Factory management in the RMG industry is male-dominated.", I suggest to provide a percentage attesting the male vs. female presence in RMG industry in Bangladesh as compared, for instance, to Australia or other countries.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I have added a sentence on the percentage of male-female managers in Section 3.2 in red in the manuscript. For example, Studies suggest that women workers’ participation in managerial and supervisory positions is below 10 per cent with very low participation (below 5 per cent) as managers in the factories (ILO & UN Women, 2020, p. 16; Raihan et al., 2019, p. 122).

Comments 4: As for the interviews, it was not clear why data have been translated into Australian English and not analyzed in the original Bengali language. Please, briefly clarify this point.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. All interviews were conducted in Bengali (the local language) and transcribed by the researcher (the first author, fluent in both Bengali and English). Then de-identified transcripts were then translated into Australian English by qualified translators to analyse those using Nvivo software. The English translations were also easy to understand for another author of this article whose main language is English. I have added more explanations in Methods Section 4 (in all sub-sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) to clarify the data collection techniques and data analysis management in the manuscript in red.    

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: There are some repetitions that could be avoided (e.g. page 5 line 213 and followings repeat 'theory/theories' a lot, and it could be changed for a better stylistic impact).

Response 1:  Thank you for your advice. I have searched the whole Theory section 2.2 (as the page numbers have been changed), but couldn’t find the word ‘theory/theories’. I am still looking for these, if I find I will change these definitely.

Point 2: page 4, line 163 presents a syntactic problem: I suggest to reformulate by deleting "broadly" from the quotation.

Response 2: Thank you, I have deleted the word ‘broadly’.

Point 3: Some formatting problems are also present through the manuscript, and they should be fixed during the editing process

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. I will format the manuscript according to the journal guidelines once it is accepted.  

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in red colour in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

·         Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

·         Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

·         Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

Methods Section 4 has been revised in red in the manuscript

·         Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

Discussion and Conclusion Section 6 has been revised in red in the manuscript

·         For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Findings Section 5 has been revised in red in the manuscript

·         Is the article adequately referenced?

·         Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The font size changes starting on page 3

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Font size is same in whole document now. I will format the manuscript according to the journal guidelines once it is accepted.

Comments 2: You state that coding methods and thematic analyses are conducted. Expand on this. The methods are quite unclear. What was the process? Who coded? How was agreement between coders determined? How was the codebook developed? Informing on the frequency of the themes you discussed could also help strengthen your argument. 

Response 2:  Thank you for your comment. Agree. I have, accordingly, expand the sub-section ‘4.3 Data Collection, Management and Analysis’ and revised the paragraph on coding and thematic analysis in red in the revised manuscript. For example, “After reading and memoing the transcripts, the researcher categorised and coded them according to the themes and concepts of the study. The interview transcripts were re-read and annotated the text concerning the research questions and a draft code list was prepared (by the first author after a series of discussions with the other two authors), this process helped to gradually develop a codebook. The first author organised the NVivo to annotate interview transcripts and maintain reflections as memos on individual transcripts using pre-defined codes and themes based on document analysis. A systematic thematic categorisation was conducted again during the annotation and analysis of interview data. New themes were also developed and added to the existing list of themes based on the frequency of the texts in the interview narratives. Annotation and interpretation of the data also helped to derive a set of sub-themes that assisted in generating a summary of the findings of this research”.

Comments 3: Why were researchers/academics interviewed for this study?

Response 3: Thank you. “Researchers who study the RMG industry and labour rights issues and academics who have expertise in law and gender disciplines including research experiences in the RMG industry, are included as participants to get a comprehensive view about this research problem. The notion of engaging a wide range of participants was to cover all relevant issues of this research, as women workers could not be included in this study due to the travel restriction during pandemic and women workers’ limited access to the technology that was adopted during data collection”. These sentences have been added to the sub-section 4.2 Research Settings, Participants and Recruitment. This sub-section has also been modified/revised as required, can be seen in red in the manuscript.  

Comments 4: What was the actual sampling method used?

Response 4: Thank you for this question, it is purposive sampling. Sentences have been added to clarify this issue in the sub-section ‘4.2 Research Settings, Participants and Recruitment’ can be seen in red in the revised manuscript. Fro example, “The identification and selection of the RMG factories, public and private organisations for this research followed purposive sampling. The garment factories were selected randomly based on workforce size, and production capacity from the databases maintained by the two garment industry employer associations (e.g. Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers Exporters Association and Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers Association).”       

Comments 5: Expand on how the interviews were conducted.  Were the researchers also part of the interview process? Is it possible to include the guides in the appendices?

Response 5: Thank you for these questions. The sub-section ‘4.3 Data Collection, Management and Analysis’ has been revised to include the answers, which can be seen in red in the revised manuscript. The interview guides are included as Appendix 2 in the manuscript.

Comments 6: When presenting the results I suggest including more than quote per theme. This will help strengthen the overall arguments being made, or show contract between different districts for example. Then expand on what these quotes are saying after it is provided. 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, I have added more explanations with quotes from interview narratives both in 5.1 and 5.2 sections (in Section 5. Result). I highlighted the revisions in red in the revised manuscript please refer to the revised manuscript. Considering the high volume, it is not included in this response report.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in red colour in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

·         Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Must be improved

Revised

·         Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

Yes

·         Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

Methods Section 4 has been revised in red in the manuscript

·         Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

Discussion and Conclusion Section 6 has been revised in red in the manuscript

·         For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Findings Section 5 has been revised in red in the manuscript

·         Is the article adequately referenced?

·         Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Must be improved

Yes

Discussion and Conclusion Section 6 has been revised in red in the manuscript

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The article is written very short and there is not enough analysis about the topic. The results part of the methodology was completely vague for me. I recommend that the article be carefully revised.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The article has been carefully revised. The Methods, the Findings and the Discussion sections have been expanded with major revisions. I highlighted the revisions in red in the revised manuscript please refer to the revised manuscript. Considering the high volume, it is not included in this response report.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in red colour in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

·         Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Must be improved

Revised

·         Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

Yes

·         Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

Methods Section 4 was  revised in the first revision

·         Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

Discussion and Conclusion Section 6 has been revised in red in this second revision

·         For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Findings Section 5 has been revised in red in this second revision

·         Is the article adequately referenced?

·         Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Must be improved

Yes

Discussion and Conclusion Section 6 has been revised in red in this second revision again

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I have read the revised manuscript. Yet, it is needed a revision to be accepted. Continuity is not well seen in the discussion and results sections.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. The Discussion and the Findings sections have been re-read and revised carefully again. The corrections in the first revision have been accepted and turned in black letters. So that the new corrections in this second revision can be easily located which are in red. Please refer to the revised manuscript attached. Considering the high volume, it is not included in this response report.