Significance to practice, to scholarship and to social change, each argued with sources rather than asserted, is the Week 5 deliverable in DBAX 9101, with the author's stake excluded as grounds. Searches like "dbax 9101 week 5 assignment example", "dbax9101 week 5 sample" and "dbax 9101 week 5 example" land here.
What a finished DBAX 9101 Week 5 significance argument looks like
Three pages in three argued sections, each opening with a claim and closing with its evidence. The practice section identifies who else faces the decision, founders of small business-software firms negotiating a first contract with a much larger buyer, and shows the cost of getting it wrong: discounts set for one customer that become the floor for every later one. The scholarly section places the problem against pricing research, much of which studies established firms with pricing histories, and argues the contribution along Corley and Gioia's two dimensions, originality and utility, conceding that the likely contribution is incremental rather than revelatory. The social-change section, which Walden's mission makes a standing expectation, traces the effect to jobs at firms that survive their first large deal. The last paragraph names the significance the study declines to claim.
How a DBAX 9101 Week 5 example is structured
Order follows distance from the author. Practice comes first because it is closest to the problem's origin, and the section works outward from one firm to the population of firms facing the same decision, citing sources for how common that decision is. Scholarship comes second and does the hardest work: it names what existing research explains, identifies the specific part it leaves unexplained, and states the contribution modestly enough to be believed. Social change comes third, drawn as a chain of consequences with each link supported, rather than a final paragraph of hope. A short section then removes the author: personal interest, career history and the desire to help one's own employer are named and set aside as motives rather than grounds. The argument closes with the limits of its claim, stated before a reader can raise them.
Who else makes this decision
Founders of small software firms facing a first large buyer, described as a population with sources for its size rather than as the author's circle. The section shows the decision recurring, which is what lets the problem matter beyond one firm.
What pricing research leaves open
Established firms with pricing histories dominate the studies cited. The gap named is narrower than a missing topic: how a price gets set when no history exists and the buyer holds most of the leverage.
A contribution sized honestly
Corley and Gioia distinguish incremental from revelatory contributions and scientific from practical utility. The argument places itself as incremental and practical, which is a claim a reader can accept rather than one that invites dispute.
Social change as a chain
Better first contracts, firms that survive to a second round of hiring, jobs that last. Each link carries a source or an explicit hedge, and the chain ends where support runs out instead of reaching for community transformation.
The author's stake, set aside
A founder's own pricing mistake prompted the study, which the argument admits once. It then treats that history as motive, keeping it out of every claim about why the problem deserves a reader's attention.
Where marks go in DBAX 9101 Week 5
The first thing graders do with this argument is subtract the author. Whatever remains, once personal experience and professional passion are removed, is the significance being marked, and arguments that collapse at that point land low however fluent they are. The scholarly section carries the heaviest share at doctoral level, since naming precisely what existing research explains and what it leaves open separates a contribution from a restatement of the topic's importance. Sizing the claim matters as well: an argument promising to transform pricing theory reads as naive, and one placing itself honestly on Corley and Gioia's dimensions reads as informed. The social-change section earns credit for traceable consequences and loses it for aspiration. Significance attached to the author's own employer, with no case that other organizations share the problem, is marked as local.
Get a DBAX 9101 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Forward the Week 5 prompt and rubric, the bounded problem from last week, and any significance paragraph you have drafted. A three-part significance argument on a nearby problem, sized on Corley and Gioia's terms, is drafted in 24-48h with the first one free. The case for why your own problem matters rests on sources you choose.
DBAX 9101 Week 5 questions, answered
Does significance to one organization count at all?
It counts as a starting point. A problem that costs one organization money shows the stakes are real, but a doctoral study has to show the same condition appearing where the author has never worked. The argument uses the single case to make the cost concrete and then cites sources showing the same decision faced across a population of firms.
How much should the social-change section claim?
Only what a chain of supported steps can reach. Walden's mission places positive social change at the center of doctoral work, and the temptation is to end with community-wide benefits far out of proportion to one modest study. A stronger section traces two or three consequences, each backed by a source or openly hedged, and ends at the last link a reader could check. Modest claims survive committee reading.
Is a practical contribution enough, or does it need to be theoretical?
For a DBA, a practical contribution is legitimate and often expected, since the program is oriented toward applied problems. Scholarly significance still has to be shown, though it can be modest: extending an explanation to a setting it has not covered, or clarifying a mechanism practitioners already suspect. Corley and Gioia's utility dimension treats practical usefulness as a genuine contribution.