DBAX 9104 Week 7 Conclusion Sizing Paper Example

From How Small Producers Win Shelf Space to What Four Breweries in One State Did: Sizing the Conclusions of a Multiple-Case Study of Craft Breweries Moving Into Grocery Distribution, One Claim at a Time

Student Name

Walden University

DBAX 9104: Business Research Project Stage 4

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

From How Small Producers Win Shelf Space to What Four Breweries in One State Did: Sizing the Conclusions of a Multiple-Case Study of Craft Breweries Moving Into Grocery Distribution, One Claim at a Time

Conclusions Drafted at the Size I Hoped For

I drafted the conclusions of my study in the voice of someone who had studied the craft beer industry. I had studied four breweries. The study examined how four independent craft breweries in Pennsylvania moved from taproom and bar sales into grocery and convenience store distribution between 2022 and 2025, using interviews with owners, sales managers and distributor representatives, along with sales records and distribution agreements. This paper takes each draft conclusion, sets it against the evidence that supports it and rewrites it at the size that evidence can carry.

The Sizing Table

Table 1

Draft Conclusions, Evidence, Qualifiers and Sized Versions

Case labels as in the findings chapter. Ch. 4 locations refer to the final draft.

Working Through the First Row

The first draft conclusion read: "Small breweries win grocery placement by building distributor relationships before approaching retailers." That sentence makes three claims the evidence cannot support. It speaks of small breweries in general, when the study examined four. It says "win," implying that the sequence causes placement, when the study observed sequences and outcomes together. And it says nothing about the market, though the period studied was unusual: two of the state's larger beer distributors were consolidating, and distributor representatives in all four cases said they were looking for new brands to fill their portfolios. Case D got grocery placement by going straight to a regional grocer, which shows the sequence is not the only route even within the study.

The sized version keeps the finding but places it: three of four breweries, distributor relationships before placement, in a market undergoing consolidation. Toulmin (2003) described the qualifier as the element of an argument that states how strongly a claim is made, words such as "probably" or "in most cases." Here the qualifiers are counts and conditions rather than adverbs, which makes them easier for a reader to check.

Why No Conclusion Says "Shows"

An early draft used "the study shows" eleven times. The verb implies that the evidence settles a question, and for a four-case study it rarely does. Yin (2018) argues that case studies generalize to theoretical propositions rather than to populations; a conclusion phrased as a proposition, "distributor relationships may precede retail placement for small producers entering grocery," can be tested by later studies, while "the study shows" claims the test is already done. The sized conclusions now use "in the breweries studied," "reported" and "came before," which say what was found without claiming more.

Conclusions That Became Something Else

Two draft conclusions did not survive as conclusions. The claim about taproom sales rests on one case where a competitor opened nearby in the same year, so it is now reported as an observation with its confound named. The claim that breweries should hire a distribution manager was never a finding: the study did not compare outcomes between breweries that did and did not hire one. It moved to the recommendations section, framed as a practice two breweries used.

The Strongest Conclusion

The packaging conclusion is the only one supported by all four cases. Even so, the sized version drops "necessary." All four breweries bought canning capacity before entering grocery, but 2022 was also a year when small canning lines became cheaper and easier to lease, so the timing may reflect the equipment market rather than a requirement of grocery buyers. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) note that the strength of theory built from cases depends on replication across cases and on ruling out alternative explanations; four-of-four replication is strong, but the alternative explanation remains.

Does Sizing Make the Study Look Weak?

Smaller conclusions can feel like a retreat. But a committee member reading "small breweries win grocery placement by..." would ask how many breweries, where and when, and the answers would shrink the claim in front of the committee instead of on the page. A sized conclusion is one the author has already defended.

References

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.