Week 1 discussion
DQ1 Research
Philosophies/Methodologies
It is crucial for you, as an independent scholar, to
understand the differences between two major research philosophies (also
referred to as research methodologies), quantitative and qualitative research.
The selection of a research method (quantitative or qualitative) is critical to
writing many components of your Doctoral Study. Quantitative research is
associated with a positivist research philosophy. Positivist (quantitative)
researchers employ a “deductive” approach, requiring them to identify and use an
existing theory to test hypotheses after collecting quantitative data. On the
other side of the spectrum, qualitative research is associated with an
interpretive research philosophy, with data collection serving to explore a
phenomenon through the constructed meanings of the participants. The ultimate
decision of methodology is based upon a critical review of the literature on a
specific topic and research question.
To prepare for this Discussion, review Chapters 4 and 5 in
Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2015), and consider how the different research
philosophies can influence choice in research methodologies, as well as how
these choices can impact a doctoral research study.
By Day 3
Post an analysis of the relationship between your personal
research philosophy and quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Your
analysis should include the following:
Identify the key concepts, propositions, precepts, etc., of
your personal research philosophy, including any rationale for your choice.
Analyze the relationship between your research philosophy
and the chosen research methodology for your Doctoral Study.
Analyze how the choice of methodology can impact a Doctoral
Study, as well as influence later research decisions and results.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 1 Discussion 1 Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Assess your colleague’s choice of research philosophy and
choice of methodology, including feedback for their rationale and impact.
Validate your colleague’s choices with evidence or
alternative suggestions for further discussion and research.
Link your colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
DQ2 Ethical Considerations in Practice
One way of broaching the topic of ethics in professional
practice is to focus on particular ethical dilemmas that arise in the research
or practice that surrounds management activities themselves. For example,
well-known ethical dilemmas exist in the field of human resources, and other
dilemmas surround the handling of financial transactions and decisions.
To prepare for this Discussion, review the week’s Learning
Resources, and consider the unique ethical challenges for different target
populations when conducting doctoral research. Consider your own Doctoral
Problem Statement that you drafted at the end of the previous course (DDBA
8161) and the target populations that would be reviewed by an international
review board (IRB). For example, a research study that focuses on government
employees must take into consideration issues such as security clearances,
access to data, and restrictions on publication. Be sure to review the
organizational access checklist outlined in Box 6.10 on page 239 in Saunders,
Lewis, and Thornhill (2015).
By Day 4
Post an analysis of ethical considerations for target
populations within the doctoral research process. Your analysis should include
the following:
Briefly describe a target population within your Doctoral
Study, including any relevant factors that could be scrutinized by an IRB
committee.
Identify specific ethical considerations for the target
population within your Doctoral Study, including access, data, or publication
restrictions, for example.
Explain how this population and its ethical considerations
impact both the process and the overall value of your doctoral research study.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 1 Discussion 2 Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 6
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Compare your perspective with that of your colleague on how
values underlying the ethical process are empowering or constraining in
research.
Pose a follow-up question to your colleague for further
discussion.
Link your colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings,
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
Week 2 discussion
Critical Analysis in
a Literature Review
Critical analysis is a crucial part of the literature review
process, so it is important to understand their unique roles and impacts. How
are these concepts different from one another, and how do they contribute to
research development?
To prepare for this Discussion, consider the difference
between reviewing the literature and creating a literature review, including
how the process of synthesizing your understanding can impact both the
literature review and your personal research philosophy. For this Discussion,
locate a current business research study (within the last 5 years) from the
Walden Library, and determine whether it is viable and substantive enough for inclusion
in a literature review.
By Day 3
Post an evaluation of critical analysis within the context
of a literature review, using your selected business research study as evidence
for your assertions. Your evaluation should include the following:
Briefly describe the study’s key components, such as
purpose, problem, framework, and findings.
Assess the study’s viability within a literature review,
including characteristics like current knowledge, substantive data, and
relevance. Be sure to include supportive examples.
Explain how critical analysis of the literature on your
topic (problem/phenomenon) can inform your view of the problem and your
ultimate research philosophy. Be sure to include supportive examples.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 2 Discussion Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Address the content of your colleague’s statement, including
their critical analysis of their chosen research studies.
Compare your critical analysis and explanations with those
of your colleague.
Pose a follow-up question to your colleague for further
Discussion.
Link each colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
Week 3 discussion
The Importance of
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework in Research
In research, there are two major forms of reasoning that
guide quantitative and qualitative research: deductive and inductive. These
major forms of reasoning play a crucial role in the development of theoretical
and conceptual frameworks, as well as effective research studies. Your work
this week will contribute to your submission of a Draft Doctoral Study
Prospectus in Week 7.
To prepare for this Discussion, consider the differences
between these frameworks and their impact on your work in developing your
Doctoral Study. Be sure to review page 16 of the DBA Prospectus Guide, Section
1.10 of the Doctoral Study Rubric and Research Handbook, as well as the video
on theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
By Day 3
Post an analysis of the role of theoretical/conceptual
frameworks in your Doctoral Study research. Your analysis should include the
following:
Briefly describe your Doctoral Study’s theoretical/conceptual
framework, including use of deductive or inductive reasoning.
Explain how this framework applies to your specific study,
including relevant and supportive examples.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 3 Discussion Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Critique your colleague’s choice of theoretical/conceptual
framework, including suggestions for improvement.
Link a colleague’s posting to other postings or to course
materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
Week 4 discussion
Peer Critique of
Revised Problem Statements
Receiving peer review feedback is very valuable to achieving
learning outcomes. Essentially, “peer review” is an academic term for quality
control. Articles published in a peer-reviewed journal are closely examined by
a panel of reviewers who are experts on the article’s topic, thereby ensuring
accurate content and scholarly integrity. For this Discussion, you and your
colleagues will conduct peer reviews of your respective Problem Statements.
To prepare for this Discussion, review the criteria for
evaluating a business problem statement located on page 13 of the DBA
Prospectus Guide, as well as Section 1.3 in the Doctoral Study Rubric and
Research Handbook, provided in this week’s Required Readings. Consider how the
choice of quantitative or qualitative research methodology does or does not
impact specific evaluation criteria.
By Day 3
Post a draft of your revised Problem Statement. Your draft
should include the following:
One quantitative Problem Statement, based on the draft
Problem Statement you submitted in Week 8 of DDBA 8161
One qualitative Problem Statement, based on the draft
Problem Statement you submitted in Week 8 of DDBA 8161
Refer to the Week 4 Discussion Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings by
critiquing their draft Problem Statements as follows:
Provide suggestions for revision to the quantitative Problem
Statement, supporting your suggestions with references to the Doctoral Study
Rubric and Research Handbook.
Provide suggestions for revision to the qualitative Problem
Statement, supporting your suggestions with references to the Doctoral Study
Rubric and Research Handbook.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
Week 5 discussion
Alignment Within
Quantitative Studies
For independent scholars, determining alignment among the
key components of the quantitative prospectus is an important task within the
research process. Ensuring proper alignment among the problem statement,
purpose statement, and research questions/hypotheses can increase the
propensity for your research to be a significant contribution to the scholarly
conversation on your research topic. Also, assessing the alignment among these
critical components in extant quantitative literature will provide the
knowledge required to ensure proper alignment in your own professional research
career.
To prepare for this Discussion, choose one of the three
quantitative studies that you analyzed for your Assignment in Week 2, and
consider how the key components of this study (problem statement, purpose
statement, theoretical framework, research question(s), and hypotheses) did or
did not align within the overall study.
By Day 3
Post an assessment of your chosen quantitative study
utilized in Week 2. Your assessment should include the following:
Briefly describe the key components of your chosen article:
problem statement, purpose statement, theoretical framework, research
question(s), and hypotheses. (Note: You will attach a copy of this study to
your Discussion post.)
Analyze the alignment between these components, including
areas of misalignment.
Explain the level of alignment between these specific
components, including any areas that may be lacking.
Recommend at least one change that could improve alignment
within this study, including a rationale for your recommendation.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 5 Discussion Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Address the content of your colleague’s analysis and
evaluation of the topic, as well as the integration of the relevant resources.
Address a question posed by your colleague for further
Discussion.
Link your colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings,
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
Week 6 discussion
Alignment Within
Qualitative Studies
For independent scholars, determining alignment among the
key components of the qualitative prospectus is an important task within the
research process. Ensuring proper alignment among the problem statement,
purpose statement, and research question(s) increases the prospect of your
research contributing significantly to the scholarly conversation on your
research topic. Also, assessing alignment among these critical components in
extant literature will provide the knowledge required to ensure proper
alignment in future research you may conduct throughout your professional
career.
To prepare for this Discussion, choose one of the three
qualitative studies that you analyzed for your Assignment in Week 2, and
consider how the key components of this study—problem statement, purpose
statement, conceptual framework, research question(s), and interview
questions—did or did not align within the overall study.
By Day 3
Post an assessment of your chosen qualitative study utilized
in Week 2. Your assessment should include the following:
Briefly describe key components of your chosen article:
problem statement, purpose statement, conceptual framework, research
question(s), and interview questions. (Note: You will attach a copy of this
study to your Discussion post.)
Analyze the alignment between these components, including
areas of misalignment.
Explain the level of alignment between these specific
components, including areas that may be lacking.
Recommend at least one change that could improve alignment
within this study, including a rationale for your recommendation.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 6 Discussion Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Address the content of your colleague’s statement, as well
as the integration of relevant resources.
Address a question posed by your colleague for further
Discussion.
Link your colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings,
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
Week 7 discussion
Understanding the
Research Process
Throughout this course, you have explored different
components of the research process, specific to your Doctoral Study, and have
begun to develop the foundation for the next steps you will take in your
independent scholarship as a doctoral-level researcher. In order to ensure you
are well-equipped for this undertaking, it is important to stop and take stock
of the knowledge you have already gained so that you can assess where you might
need additional support.
To prepare for this Discussion, in addition to reviewing
this week’s Learning Resources, consider the knowledge and skills gained in the
activities completed throughout this course. Consider how this course has
influenced your understanding of the research process from previous courses or
personal experience.
By Day 3
Post an assessment of your understanding of the research
process. Your assessment should include the following:
How has your learning from this experience influenced what
you will do going forward through your doctoral study process? Be sure to
provide supportive examples.
What areas of weaknesses can you build upon going forward
into your Doctoral Study? Be sure to provide supportive examples.
What opportunities have you identified for promoting
positive social change based on your increased understanding? Explain.
What further questions do you still have about the doctoral
research process?
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 7 Discussion Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Address the content of your colleague’s statement, as well
as the integration of relevant resources.
Address a question posed by your colleague for further
Discussion.
Link your colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings,
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
Week 8 discussion
DQ1 Judging Research
Quality
Determining the quality of a research study involves many
factors, not least of which is the choice of methodology. Both quantitative and
qualitative research methods include specific criteria by which studies can be
judged and applied within a given field. Further, the understanding and use of
these criteria can have a significant impact on researchers as they both review
and add to the field of knowledge.
To prepare for this Discussion, review the resources from
Morse (2015) and Heale and Twycross (2015) before considering the difference in
quality criteria for quantitative (reliability and validity) and qualitative
(dependability, credibility, transferability, and trustworthiness)
methodologies. Further, consider how these concepts can be applied within your
development as a research professional and a global change agent.
By Day 3
Post an application of research quality criteria within the
context of your work as a doctoral researcher and global change agent. Your
application should include the following:
As an independent scholar, what does the concept of
“research quality” mean to you? Explain, and provide supportive examples.
In your opinion, what are the most critical components for
evaluating the quality of a quantitative or qualitative research study?
Explain, and provide supportive examples.
As a global change agent, how will you ensure research
quality in your doctoral research study to promote positive social change?
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 8 Discussion 1 Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 5
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings in one
or more of the following ways:
Provide an additional example to support your colleague’s
explanation of research quality. Explain your suggestion.
Address a question posed by each colleague for further
Discussion.
Link your colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings,
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
DQ2 Use and Misuse of
Research Studies for Social Change
There are many examples in the news, and it is important to
delve into this deeper from a professional perspective. For instance, one
non-replicated study is publicized and spread across the media, prompting the
urge for change or outrage, but some significant and relevant details are
omitted and the study can be misused. Also, studies that focus on replicating
other studies to develop comprehensive knowledge may be more difficult for
researchers to accomplish or get funding for, thereby diminishing the appeal
for this level of responsible research.
To prepare for this Discussion, review the resources from
Bartholet (2014), O’Connor (2013), and Fedina (2015), and reflect on the
growing use of reporting on research studies in different avenues of popular
media (television, social media, radio, etc.). Also, consider what major
aspects of a research study may or may not be discussed when shared in the
media, and how these choices may impact a study’s relevance in the field of
study and greater community. Further, consider how the concept of research
quality can be applied to widely publicized studies, and how the different
criteria (credibility, validity, etc.) can be an opportunity for promoting
positive social change.
By Day 4
Post an analysis of the use and misuse of research studies
for promoting positive social change. Your analysis should include the
following:
How does misuse occur when publicizing emerging research
studies? Explain with supportive examples.
What is the responsibility of a researcher when promoting
positive social change? Explain.
How can researchers utilize research studies to promote
change within their given field?
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific
citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional
scholarly source.
Refer to the Week 8 Discussion 2 Rubric for specific grading
elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your
work.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 6
Respond to two or more of your colleagues’ postings, in one
or more of the following ways:
Address the content of each colleague’s statement, as well
as the integration of relevant resources.
Address the question(s) posed by each colleague for further
Discussion.
Link your colleague’s posting to other colleagues’ postings,
or to other course materials and concepts, where appropriate and relevant.
Please note that, for each response, you must include a
minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the
responses to your initial posting. Note what insights you gained as a result of
reading the comments your colleagues made.
Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for
entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.
