A finished DBA-955 Topic 6 design choice justification example, matching a how-and-why question about restaurant switching to a multiple-case design and explaining why two alternatives were set aside. Searches like "dba 955 topic 6 assignment example", "dba955 topic 6 sample" and "dba-955 topic 6 example" land here.
What a finished DBA-955 Topic 6 design choice justification looks like
The research question comes first in the finished justification, along with the kind of claim it seeks: an explanation of how independent restaurant owners come to switch distributors, not an estimate of how common switching is or how much each factor contributes. Following Yin, it argues that case study suits how and why questions about contemporary events the researcher cannot control. Two alternatives are then set out fairly. A survey of the employer's customers would measure stated reasons across many restaurants but would reach only those who stayed, and respondents would treat the candidate as their sales representative. A single case of his own firm would offer depth and no contrast. The chosen design studies several restaurants that switched in either direction, recruited through a regional restaurant association, with interviews, invoices the owners volunteer and menu changes as sources.
How a DBA-955 Topic 6 example is structured
The justification runs in six parts, each answering a question likely to come from the committee. The first states the research question and the kind of claim it can support, explanatory and bounded to the cases studied. The second explains why a qualitative design fits that claim and a quantitative one would answer a different question. Part three presents the rejected survey at full strength, crediting its reach before explaining the two problems that sink it here. The fourth part weighs a single case against multiple cases and chooses replication across restaurants, as Yin describes it, over depth in one. The fifth addresses recruitment and the insider problem, routing access through the restaurant association so no participant is a current account of the candidate's employer. The final part lists the claims the design will not support, including any statement about how often restaurants switch or which factor matters most.
The claim classified before the method
An explanation of how switching happens is distinguished from an estimate of how often it happens, since each of those claims calls for a different design.
Case study fitted to how and why
Following Yin, the example treats case study as suited to explanatory questions about current events that the researcher observes but cannot manipulate.
The survey credited, then set aside
A survey would reach many restaurants, but only the employer's remaining customers, and each respondent would be answering the salesperson who calls on them.
Replication chosen over single depth
Several restaurants that switched in both directions allow patterns to be compared across cases, which one close study of the candidate's firm could never provide.
Recruitment routed around the employer
Enlisting participants through a regional restaurant association keeps current accounts out of the sample and separates the research role from the sales role.
Claims the design will not support
The justification ends by listing conclusions beyond its reach, including how common switching is and which single factor matters most to owners.
Where marks go in DBA-955 Topic 6
The costliest pattern here is a design chosen first and justified afterward, which committees detect because claim and method never quite meet. A common version names qualitative design and cites Yin without explaining why this particular question is a how or why question, turning a methodological argument into a citation. Rejected alternatives dismissed in a line signal that nothing was really compared. Insider candidates often propose to sample their employer's customers because the list is at hand, and graders expect the sales relationship to be recognized as a threat to candor before it becomes a finding. Designs that promise to identify the most important factor from a handful of cases claim a quantitative result from qualitative data. A justification silent on what the design cannot conclude leaves the committee to draw that line, usually more tightly.
Get a DBA-955 Topic 6 example written to your instructions
Send the DBA-955 Topic 6 instructions and your classroom rubric. We write a custom structural example to them, showing a design matched to its claim and alternatives weighed, in 24 to 48 hours, and the first one is free. Your dissertation is your own work: chapters are never written for a reader, and your IRB application, site permission letters, committee correspondence and signatures remain yours.
DBA-955 Topic 6 questions, answered
When is a case study the right dissertation design?
Case study fits a question about how or why events unfold in a live setting the researcher cannot control, where context is part of the answer. Yin's work on case study research is the standard reference for that position. It suits the restaurant question because switching unfolds through relationships and events over time, and it fits poorly when a question concerns frequency or the size of one factor's effect.
Why not survey my company's own customers?
Because the list reaches only the customers who stayed, and each respondent would be answering someone they know as a salesperson. Both problems bias what the study can find. The example routes recruitment through an outside association so current accounts are excluded and the research role stays separate from the sales role, a choice the committee is likely to ask about.
How many cases does a multiple-case design need?
There is no fixed number, and the example avoids inventing one. The choice depends on the replication logic the study follows, the contrasts it needs to make and the depth each case requires within the time available. Committees expect the number to be justified by those reasons. The composite distributor case on this page is illustrative, and your own design is yours to argue.