A finished DBA-805 Topic 2 theory appraisal criteria paper example, fixing and weighting six criteria before any theory is examined, then piloting them on two theories with mixed results. Searches like "dba 805 topic 2 assignment example", "dba805 topic 2 sample" and "dba-805 topic 2 example" land here.
What a finished DBA-805 Topic 2 theory appraisal criteria paper looks like
Six criteria appear in the finished paper before a single theory is named, each with a question and a failing answer. Four come from Whetten's building blocks: the constructs a theory names, how they relate, why the relationship should hold, and the who, where and when that bound it. Two come from Bacharach: falsifiability and utility. Mechanism and falsifiability carry double weight, and the paper says why, since a doctoral program is judging theories as knowledge rather than as tools. The pilot follows. Upper echelons theory, from Hambrick and Mason, scores well on constructs and relationships but weakly on falsifiability of its mechanism, because demographic proxies stand in for the cognition it theorizes. Structural contingency scores high on utility and low on falsifiability, where fit is often identified after performance is known.
How a DBA-805 Topic 2 example is structured
Sequence is the paper's safeguard: criteria are written, weighted and dated before any theory enters. Each of the six criteria then receives a short section holding its source, the question it asks and an example of a theory failing it drawn from outside the pilot. The weighting section follows, defending double weight for mechanism and falsifiability and single weight for the rest. Only then is the pilot introduced, and the choice of its two theories is justified: the writer expected them to rank differently, which makes a biased instrument easier to detect. Both theories are then scored against all six in one table, and every score is justified in prose beside it. The charge that weighting is itself a verdict in disguise gets its own section, answered by rescoring with equal weights. The last section states which criterion the writer is least sure of and why.
Four criteria from Whetten's building blocks
Constructs defined, relationships specified, a stated reason the relationship holds, and explicit limits of who, where and when supply the first four tests.
Two more from Bacharach
Falsifiability asks whether any observation could count against the theory, and utility asks whether it explains and predicts something a researcher or manager needs.
Weights fixed and dated first
Mechanism and falsifiability count double because the course judges theories as knowledge, and the weights are recorded before either pilot theory is opened.
Upper echelons and its proxy problem
Hambrick and Mason theorize executive cognition and values, yet many tests measure age, tenure and functional background, so the mechanism itself goes largely untested.
Contingency fit found after the fact
Structural contingency earns high utility, but studies that define fit only once performance is known leave the theory unable to lose.
Equal weights reverse the order
Rescored without weights, contingency edges ahead on utility, and the paper reports that reversal openly before defending its weights by the course's aim.
Where marks go in DBA-805 Topic 2
Criteria drafted with a favored theory already in mind cost the most here, and a pilot that crowns one theory on every row is the usual evidence. Listing Whetten's questions without turning them into criteria a theory could fail leaves the instrument descriptive. Papers that weight nothing imply that utility and falsifiability matter equally, a position they rarely defend and doctoral readers rarely accept. Some omit the pilot entirely, so the criteria are never shown to discriminate between theories. Others pilot on two theories from one tradition, which cannot reveal bias against the other traditions. Hiding a weighting sensitivity is worse than having one, and a paper that reports its own reversal earns trust the rest of the argument can spend.
Get a DBA-805 Topic 2 example written to your instructions
Send the DBA-805 Topic 2 instructions and the rubric your section posted, plus any theories or criteria the prompt names. We write a custom example to them, with criteria fixed and weighted before any theory appears, a pilot on two theories expected to rank differently, and the weighting objection tested openly, in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
DBA-805 Topic 2 questions, answered
What are Whetten's building blocks of theory?
David Whetten proposed that a complete theory answers four sets of questions: what factors it includes, how they relate, why the relationships should hold, and who, where and when they apply. The last set marks a theory's boundary conditions. The example converts each block into a criterion with a failing answer, so a theory can be judged on it rather than merely described through it.
What criteria did Bacharach propose?
Samuel Bacharach argued that organizational theories should be evaluated chiefly on falsifiability and utility. Falsifiability concerns whether the theory is constructed so that it could be refuted; utility concerns whether it explains and predicts in a way that is useful. The example adopts both, weights falsifiability double alongside mechanism, and explains that choice before any theory is scored, so the weighting cannot be tuned to a result.
Why pilot the criteria on two theories?
A set of criteria is an instrument, and an instrument has to show it can discriminate before its readings mean anything. Piloting on two theories the writer expects to rank differently exposes a set that quietly favors one, since a biased instrument gives the same theory the top score everywhere. In the example each theory fails at least two criteria, which is the evidence that the set sorts rather than flatters.