| Course | DBAX 8006 Contemporary Challenges in Business |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Problem shortlist |
| Length | About 810 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 8006 Week 2
More Coverage Than Evidence: A Problem Shortlist That Sets Five Contested Business Questions Beside the Peer-Reviewed Work Each Already Has and Keeps the One Whose Evidence Can Carry a Position This Term
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 8006: Contemporary Challenges in Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
More Coverage Than Evidence: A Problem Shortlist That Sets Five Contested Business Questions Beside the Peer-Reviewed Work Each Already Has and Keeps the One Whose Evidence Can Carry a Position This Term
The Selection Rule
Most business problems worth arguing about publicly have more coverage than evidence. A problem with almost no peer-reviewed work cannot support a defensible position within a term; a problem with a settled literature leaves nothing to argue. This shortlist sets five candidate problems side by side, records the claim circulating in coverage, the strongest peer-reviewed study already published and the design behind it, and keeps the one whose evidence is substantial but still contested enough to argue. Rousseau (2006) defined evidence-based management as translating the best available research into organizational practice, which requires first knowing how much research exists for a given question.
The Shortlist
Table 1
Five Candidate Problems and Their Evidence
| Problem, as a question | Claim in coverage | Strongest peer-reviewed study | Design | Gap between claim and study | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Does a four-day office mandate improve performance over hybrid work? | Office time restores collaboration and productivity | Randomized trial of hybrid work at one travel firm | Field experiment | Study tested hybrid against full office for one firm; no test of mandates | |
| Does automation in a firm's own operations reduce its headcount? | Robots and software are eliminating jobs | Firm-level studies of robot adoption in Spain and Canada | Panel data, firm level | Firm studies find adopters grow; job losses fall on competitors | |
| Do phased minimum wage increases cut restaurant jobs? | Higher wages close restaurants | Bunching estimator across many state increases | Quasi-experimental, many events | Strong evidence, but disputed for large increases | |
| Does posting salary ranges narrow pay gaps? | Transparency closes pay gaps | Studies of mandated disclosure in Denmark and Canada | Natural experiments | Gaps narrow, partly because wages of the higher-paid slow | |
| Do share buybacks displace investment? | Buybacks starve firms of investment | Firms near earnings targets that repurchase cut investment | Regression discontinuity | Effect shown for a narrow group of firms, not for buybacks overall | |
Studies described here are discussed in the source base; the table records the shape of the evidence, not a full review.
Reading the Table
The first candidate has a single strong trial and little else, so any position would rest on one firm. The fourth, pay transparency, is promising but the evidence is mostly from countries with different labor laws from the United States, which would make any U.S. claim speculative. The fifth, buybacks, has a well-identified study but for a narrow group of firms; it is better suited to a counterargument exercise later in the course than to the main position.
The second and third candidates both have substantial evidence. The minimum wage literature is large but has been argued over for three decades, and a term paper is unlikely to add to it. The automation question has a growing body of firm-level research with designs that can be compared, a clear gap between coverage and evidence and a practical stake for managers deciding whether to automate.
The Choice
The shortlist keeps the automation question: does automation in a firm's own operations reduce its own headcount? It meets the selection rule. There is enough peer-reviewed work to support a position, including studies using different designs and countries, and the evidence is still developing, so a careful argument can say something useful. The question also lets the term separate two claims that coverage merges: that automation reduces employment in a local labor market, and that it reduces employment at the adopting firm. Acemoglu and Restrepo (2020) provide evidence for the first; firm-level studies such as Koch et al. (2021) bear on the second.
How the Choice Could Fail
The automation question could still disappoint. The firm-level studies come from manufacturing in Spain and Canada, and the course's audience mostly works in U.S. service firms. If the argument cannot bridge that gap honestly, the position will have to be narrower than readers hope, limited to manufacturing or stated as a hypothesis for service firms. That is an acceptable outcome. A narrow position that the evidence supports is more useful to a manager than a broad one that coverage supports, and the course rewards the first.
What the Shortlist Leaves for Later
The buyback and pay transparency questions are kept as material for later exercises, where a narrower claim is enough. The office-mandate question is set aside until a second rigorous study appears. Briner et al. (2009) call for decisions built on the strongest evidence to hand and candid about its gaps; here that principle governs the choice of problem itself.
Limits
The table summarizes each literature from its strongest study and may understate how much work exists on the questions not chosen. The judgment that the automation evidence is "still developing" could change quickly, since firm-level data on new forms of software automation are appearing each year.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188-2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716
Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Concept cleanup time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.23.4.19
Koch, M., Manuylov, I., & Smolka, M. (2021). Robots and firms. Economic Journal, 131(638), 2553-2584. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab009
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679
DBAX 8006 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms
Week 2 asks you to shortlist several candidate problems and choose one for the term. Frame each candidate as a question. For each, record the claim circulating in coverage, the strongest peer-reviewed study, the design behind it and the gap between the claim and the study. State the rule you use to choose, and apply it openly. Explain why the losing candidates lose, and what each might still be useful for. Say how your choice could fail and what an acceptable narrower outcome would be. Close with the limits of the shortlist, including how the table might understate the evidence on candidates you did not choose.
How the DBAX 8006 Week 2 example is put together
The shortlist opens by stating its rule, citing Rousseau on evidence-based management. A table compares five candidates on claim, strongest study, design and gap. A section explains why the office-mandate, pay-transparency and buyback questions are set aside and why minimum wage, though well studied, is less promising. A section chooses the automation question, citing Acemoglu and Restrepo and Koch and colleagues on the difference between market and firm effects. A section explains how the choice could still fail. A section cites Briner and colleagues, and a limits section notes how quickly the automation evidence is changing. The table records the design behind every strongest study, which lets a reader judge the evidence without opening each paper.
Reading the DBAX 8006 Week 2 rubric
Problem shortlists earn credit for an explicit selection rule applied fairly. Framing each candidate as a question is expected. Recording the strongest study and its design for every candidate, not only the winner, is weighted heavily because it shows the choice rests on evidence. Explaining the gap between coverage and research demonstrates critical reading. Saying how the chosen problem could fail shows foresight. Keeping losing candidates for later uses shows planning. Shortlists that choose by interest alone, compare candidates without evidence or present only the winner tend to receive lower marks. A single, readable table is the expected centerpiece for this doctoral assignment. Recording why each losing candidate lost, in a sentence or two, makes the choice transparent to a reader who would have chosen differently.
DBAX 8006 Week 2 help from the desk
List four or five problems that interest you and write each as a question. For each, find the single strongest peer-reviewed study and note how it was designed: experiment, natural experiment, panel data or survey. Then write the claim you see in coverage and compare. A problem with no solid study cannot carry a term; a problem with a settled literature leaves nothing to argue. Choose the one in between. Students often pick the problem they find most interesting and then search for evidence, which can leave them with nothing to stand on. Write your rule down before you choose. If you need help locating the strongest study on a question, our writers can search with you.
Get a DBAX 8006 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Pass along the Week 2 instructions with the rubric and any required number of candidates, and a finished shortlist with its evidence table comes back in 24-48h, free on a first request. Listing the problems already on your mind helps; the sample ranks its own set, and the choice among yours stays with you.
More DBAX 8006 papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 8006 Week 1: Currency Test Discussion Post
- DBAX 8006 Week 3: Claim-Sorted Source Base
- DBAX 8006 Week 4: Bounded Position Memo
- DBAX 8006 Week 5: Weighed Evidence Section
- DBAX 8006 Week 6: Buyback Counterargument
- DBAX 8006 Week 7: Scheduling Consequence Analysis
- DBAX 8006 Week 8: Noncompete Comparative Case
- DBAX 8006 Week 9: Sourced Peer Responses
- DBAX 8006 Week 10: Claim Audit Revision Pass
- DBAX 8006 Week 11: Integrated Final Paper
- DBAX 8101 Week 2: Doctoral Draft Map
DBAX 8006 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 8006 Week 2 sample paper?
The full problem shortlist, comparison table included, is available below at no cost.
How many candidates does the DBAX 8006 Week 2 shortlist compare?
Five, from office mandates to share buybacks.
What is the selection rule?
Keep the problem whose evidence is substantial but still contested enough to argue.
Which problem is chosen?
Whether automation in a firm's own operations reduces that firm's headcount.
Why are the others kept?
Pay transparency and buybacks suit later, narrower exercises; office mandates await more studies.