Written so another reader could reproduce it, the Week 2 search protocol for DBAX 9102 logs databases, strings, dates, criteria and counts at each stage of screening. Searches like "dbax 9102 week 2 assignment example", "dbax9102 week 2 sample" and "dbax 9102 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished DBAX 9102 Week 2 search protocol looks like
Four to five pages, mostly tables. A sources table names each database searched, Business Source Complete, ABI/INFORM, PsycINFO and Web of Science, with the platform and the date each search ran. The string table follows, one row per concept, listing synonyms joined by OR and concepts joined by AND: schedule stability, predictive scheduling, fair workweek and just-in-time scheduling, set against turnover, quits and retention. Date limits carry their reason. Inclusion and exclusion criteria appear as numbered rules applied to titles, then abstracts, then full texts, and a PRISMA-style flow diagram reports the count remaining after each pass, with placeholder figures marked as such. Dissertations and working papers are searched deliberately, because Rosenthal's file-drawer problem predicts that null results sit unpublished. Backward and forward citation chasing close the search.
How a DBAX 9102 Week 2 example is structured
The protocol opens on a one-sentence review question and the coverage it aims for. Cooper's taxonomy of reviews supplies the term: exhaustive with selective citation, meaning every eligible study is found while only those carrying the argument are discussed. Sources and strings come next, since the rest of the document depends on what was searched and with which words. Criteria follow as rules, each tied to the review question, so a reader learns why a study of salaried managers was excluded while one of hourly shift leads stayed. Screening is reported in the order it happened, with counts and the reason for each exclusion at full-text stage. Supplementary routes, gray literature and citation chasing, sit after the database work and report what they added. A final section lists the protocol's known weaknesses, such as English-language limits, where a rerun would meet the same edges.
The question and the coverage claimed
One sentence of review question, then a stated coverage aim. Claiming exhaustive coverage invites a reader to find the missing study; claiming a representative sample invites a question about how it was drawn. The protocol names its aim so the rest can be judged against it.
Strings a reader can paste
Every string appears exactly as entered, field codes and truncation symbols included. Synonyms sit in rows by concept. A reader who copies the fair-workweek string into ABI/INFORM should retrieve the same records, give or take what the database has added since the logged date.
Exclusion rules with reasons
Rules are numbered and each carries its link to the question: salaried populations excluded because schedule control differs, studies before the date limit excluded because scheduling software changed the practice. Full-text exclusions record which rule each rejected study failed.
Counts after every cut
The flow diagram reports records identified, duplicates removed, titles and abstracts screened, full texts assessed and studies included. Figures in the example are placeholders and labeled that way. The shape is what a reader checks: where the pile shrank, and on which rule.
What the search cannot see
English-only sources, subscription databases the author could reach, a single screener at title stage. The protocol lists each limit with its likely direction of bias, so a reader judging the eventual verdict knows which studies might be missing and why.
Where marks go in DBAX 9102 Week 2
Reproducibility earns the largest share. A protocol that names databases but not strings, or strings but not dates, cannot be rerun, and graders at this stage test that directly by imagining the rerun. Exclusion rules are read next: rules tied to the review question earn the analytic share, while rules that appear only as a count, such as forty studies removed as irrelevant, suggest screening by impression. The flow diagram is checked for internal arithmetic, and totals that fail to reconcile draw comment at once. Credit also follows the gray-literature decision, since a search confined to journals has quietly chosen a population of published results. A limits section earns a smaller, reliable share. Protocols that summarize findings are doing the appraisal's job early, because Week 2 reports what was searched, not what was found.
Get a DBAX 9102 Week 2 example written to your instructions
A reproducible protocol starts from the Week 2 instructions and rubric, your review question and the databases your library licenses. Strings table, criteria and flow diagram arrive in 24-48h, and a first request costs nothing. Counts inside are placeholders, since the figures you report must come from searches you ran.
DBAX 9102 Week 2 questions, answered
How many databases should the protocol cover?
Enough to reach the disciplines the question touches. A question about scheduling and turnover crosses management, labor economics and psychology, so one business database misses much of it. Three to five is common at doctoral level, with a sentence per database explaining what it adds. Adding databases that index the same journals raises the duplicate count without raising coverage, and the protocol should say which ones overlap.
Should the search be registered in advance?
Registration is standard for formal systematic reviews in health research and rarer in business. Some DBA sections ask for a protocol dated before screening begins, which serves a similar purpose: it shows the criteria were not adjusted to the results. Where your section does not require it, the protocol can still record the date each rule was fixed, which answers the same suspicion at lower cost.
Does the protocol need a second screener?
It helps and is not always possible. Dual screening on a sample of titles, with agreement reported, is the stronger practice; a single screener should say so in the limits section and describe any checks made, such as rescreening a random subset after a delay. Tranfield, Denyer and Smart's adaptation of systematic review to management research treats transparency about such choices as its core requirement.