DDBA8300 All discussions - December 2017

Asked by bizgrad
Dated: 11th Jan'18 08:02 AM
Bounty offered: $92.00

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.

DDBA8300 All discussions - December 2017
Answered by bizgrad
Expert Rating: 2385 Ratings
Dated: 11th Jan'18 08:02 AM
5 words and 1 attachment(s).
Tutorial Rating: Not Rated
Sold 0 times.
(preview of the tutorial; some sections have been intentionally blurred)
…refer…