| Course | DBAX 9101 Business Research Project Stage 1 |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Peer critique |
| Length | About 390 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 9101 Week 10
Week 10 Discussion: Critiquing a Classmate's Stage 1 Framing
The Weak Joint a Framing's Author Cannot See: Peer Critiques of Two Stage 1 Framings, One on Founder Succession in Family Firms and One on Revenue Management at Independent Hotels
Critique for Arturo
Arturo, your framing on succession in family-owned manufacturing firms has improved a great deal since Week 1; the specific business problem now names owners and a missing set of strategies. The joint I would press on is between your purpose and your population. Your purpose explores "strategies founders use to prepare a successor," but your population is founders who have already handed over the business. They can describe what they did, but their memory of preparation years ago may be shaped by how the handover turned out. Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) would ask what assumption sits underneath: here, that recalled strategies are the same as the strategies used. Could you include one founder currently preparing a successor, or use documents from the preparation period, such as board minutes or training plans, to check what founders recall?
Critique for Mei
Mei, your study of revenue management at independent hotels is well bounded, and the feasibility table is honest about the difficulty of getting pricing data. The joint I would question is between your research question and your sample size. You plan to interview three general managers, which is reasonable for a multiple case study, but your question asks how independent hotels "compete with chain properties on price," which is a market-level question. Three managers can tell you how they set prices; they cannot tell you how independent hotels as a group compete. Guest et al. (2006) found that a small, homogeneous sample can reach saturation on a focused question, but the question has to be narrow enough for that to apply. Would narrowing it to the pricing strategies these managers use when a new chain property opens nearby keep your sample and sharpen your answer?
What Critiquing Showed Me
Reviewing these framings made me reread my own. My weakest joint is similar to Arturo's: I study owners who survived late payment and ask what they did, but their accounts may credit strategy for what was partly luck or a patient bank. Yin (2018) recommends corroborating interviews with documents, and I will ask owners for payment correspondence from a specific slow-payment episode so their account can be checked against the record.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330882
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
The Walden DBAX 9101 Week 10 instructions
In Week 10 you review the Stage 1 framings of two classmates. In each, find one weak joint between problem, purpose, question, population or design, rather than reviewing everything. Acknowledge a genuine strength first. Explain why the joint holds less than it appears to, using course concepts and at least one source. Propose a specific change or check the classmate could make, such as a different data source or a narrower question. Then reflect on what critiquing others showed you about your own framing, name your weakest joint and describe the step you will take. Keep each critique to a few paragraphs so the classmate can act on it quickly.
How this DBAX 9101 Week 10 example is built
The first reply praises a sharpened problem statement, then notes that founders who have already handed over may recall preparation through the outcome, citing Alvesson and Sandberg, and suggests adding a founder in mid-preparation or using documents from that period. The second praises an honest feasibility table, then notes that a market-level question cannot be answered by three managers, citing Guest and colleagues, and proposes narrowing it to pricing when a chain property opens nearby. A closing reflection recognizes the same recall risk in the author's own study and plans to request payment correspondence from a specific episode, citing Yin. Each critique runs to one paragraph, so the classmate can act on it in a single sitting.
Where the marks sit in the DBAX 9101 Week 10 rubric
The skill rewarded here is precision: one weak joint, explained and paired with a fix, is worth more than many general comments. Opening with a real strength shows collegiality. Grounding each critique in a source or course concept shows learning. A proposed check the classmate can actually carry out makes the critique useful. Turning the lens on one's own framing, and committing to a step, shows reflection. Brevity respects the classmate's time. Critiques that summarize the classmate's draft, praise without challenge or list every possible weakness with equal weight earn less credit in this discussion. Reflection ending in a concrete change to the author's own plan shows that the critique exercise worked in both directions.
DBAX 9101 Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks
Lay your classmate's problem, purpose and question next to one another and look for the place where one does not quite support the next. Common weak joints include a population that cannot answer the question, a question broader than the sample and a design that does not fit the purpose verb. Name the joint, explain why it matters and suggest one way to check or fix it. Then reread your own framing looking for the same kind of joint; you will often find it. Many students write critiques that are either all praise or a long list of concerns, neither of which helps. One well-chosen joint is enough. Finding that joint quickly is a learned skill, and our writers can help you practice it.
Get a DBAX 9101 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Paste in the pair of posts your replies address, along with the critique instructions and rubric for Week 10. Replies built from the actual wording of those posts return in 24-48h, and the first one is free. Peers are referred to by a neutral label throughout, so the drafts carry no one's identity out of the thread.
More DBAX 9101 papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 9101 Week 1: Topic to Problem Discussion
- DBAX 9101 Week 2: Problem Candidates Comparison
- DBAX 9101 Week 3: Problem Evidence Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 4: Study Boundary Statement
- DBAX 9101 Week 5: Significance Argument Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 6: Purpose Statement Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 7: Research Question Draft
- DBAX 9101 Week 8: Framework Fit Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 9: Study Feasibility Sketch
- DBAX 9101 Week 11: Assembled Stage 1 Document
- DBAX 8151 Week 10: Peer Critique Replies
- DBAX 8101 Week 10: Doctoral Revision Log
- DBAX 8006 Week 10: Claim Audit Revision Pass
DBAX 9101 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 9101 Week 10 sample paper?
Both critiques and the closing reflection are open to read below at no cost.
What does the first DBAX 9101 Week 10 critique question?
Whether founders who have already handed over recall their preparation accurately.
What does the second critique question?
Whether three hotel managers can answer a market-level question.
What fix does the second critique suggest?
Narrowing the question to pricing when a new chain property opens nearby.
Which weak joint did the author find in the subcontractor study?
The same recall risk, to be checked against payment records.