| Course | DDBA 8300 Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology for Applied Business Research |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Design memo |
| Length | About 580 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDBA 8300 Week 5
Memorandum
To: Doctoral study chair
From: DBA candidate
Date: October 6, 2026
Re: Design choice for the trade-show outreach study
The Question and the Choice
My research question is: "What is the relationship between the amount and type of pre-show outreach that small and mid-sized industrial equipment manufacturers conduct and the number of qualified leads they record at regional trade shows?" I have chosen a correlational survey design. This memo explains why and gives the qualitative case design I considered and refused a full account, so that you and the committee can judge the choice.
The Chosen Design
I will survey marketing or sales managers at manufacturers that exhibited at one or more of four regional industrial trade shows in the Midwest last year. The shows' exhibitor lists include about 640 manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees. The survey will ask how many contacts each firm made before the show by email, phone, mailed invitation and scheduled meeting; how many staff worked the booth; booth size; and how many leads the firm recorded as qualified, using the firm's own definition, which the survey will also ask them to state. Gopalakrishna and Lilien (1995) modeled trade-show performance in stages, from attracting visitors to the booth to converting them into leads, and found that pre-show promotion affected the first stage; my study tests whether that relationship holds for the lead outcome among smaller manufacturers today.
Using the conventions Cohen (1992) set out for power analysis, a multiple regression with five predictors needs about 91 responses to detect a medium effect with 80 percent power at the .05 level. With 640 firms on the lists, a response rate of about 15 percent would suffice.
The Refused Design
The alternative was a multiple-case study of four or five manufacturers, following each through preparation for a show, the show itself and the weeks after, with interviews, observation at the booth and review of each firm's lead records. Yin (2018) recommends case studies when a researcher asks how or why something happens in a present-day setting outside the researcher's control, and this design would have shown how firms actually plan outreach, how booth staff decide which visitors count as qualified and how leads are followed up. It would have revealed things a survey cannot: for example, that a firm's "qualified lead" might mean anyone who took a brochure, or that outreach matters less than which salesperson works the booth. Those are real advantages, and if my question were how manufacturers plan and use trade-show outreach, the case design would win.
Why the Survey Won
My question asks about a relationship between two quantities across many firms, and the business problem is that manufacturers spend heavily on outreach without knowing whether it pays. Edmondson and McManus (2007) argue that questions about relationships among established constructs fit quantitative designs. Pre-show promotion and lead counts are established constructs in the trade-show literature. A case design could suggest a relationship in five firms but could not estimate it across hundreds.
What the Survey Gives Up
Firms define "qualified lead" differently. The survey will record each firm's definition and test whether the relationship holds when only firms with stricter definitions are included. Self-reported counts may also be inaccurate; I will ask respondents whether their figures come from a customer relationship system or from memory. These steps shrink, without eliminating, the problem the case design would have solved by watching firms directly.
References
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586086
Gopalakrishna, S., & Lilien, G. L. (1995). A three-stage model of industrial trade show performance. Marketing Science, 14(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.14.1.22
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
The Walden DDBA 8300 Week 5 instructions
In Week 5 you write a memo to your chair explaining your design choice. State your research question and the chosen design together at the start. Describe the chosen design: population, sampling frame, measures and analysis, including a power analysis or sample size reasoning. Then describe the strongest alternative design at full strength, including what it would reveal that yours cannot. Explain why your design wins for your question, using sources on methodological fit and on your topic. State what your choice gives up and what you will do to reduce that loss. Keep the memo focused on the decision. Expect two or three pages in memo form.
How the DDBA 8300 Week 5 example is put together
The memo states the question about outreach and qualified leads and announces the survey. The chosen design section describes exhibitor lists, the outreach measures, booth staffing and size, and each firm's own definition of a qualified lead, then ties the study to Gopalakrishna and Lilien's finding that pre-show promotion affected booth traffic. Cohen's conventions set a sample of about 91, within reach at a 15 percent response rate. The refused design section describes following four or five firms through planning, the show and follow-up, citing Yin, and admits it could reveal loose lead definitions and the role of individual salespeople. The survey wins on a relationship question across many firms, per Edmondson and McManus. A final section addresses varied lead definitions and memory-based counts.
DDBA 8300 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks
The memo earns credit for treating the refused design fairly. A paragraph that names the alternative only to dismiss it shows little; one that states what the alternative would reveal, and when it would be the right choice, shows the writer weighed real options. The chosen design should be specified enough to evaluate, with a sampling frame and a justified sample size. The link between the question's form and the design is checked closely, supported by a source on fit. Acknowledging what the choice gives up, with concrete steps to reduce the loss, demonstrates judgment. Topic literature should place the study. The memo format, with question and choice up front, is expected.
DDBA 8300 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Design sections often explain only the chosen method. Before writing, describe the best alternative as if you were going to defend it, including what it would show that yours will not. Then write why your question favors your design. Compute a sample size using a recognized method. Name your design's main weakness and what you will do about it, such as recording definitions or asking where figures come from. Keep background short; the chair knows the topic. If you are unsure how to estimate sample size, a tutor can work through the calculation with you. Show your chair that you know what the case design would have found; a chair who sees that will trust the choice more.
Get a DDBA 8300 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 5 design prompt and rubric, your research question as it stands, and the tradition you expect to choose. A design memo that states the choice, argues down the refused option and names its own costs is back inside 24-48h; the first costs nothing. The memo's study concerns a parallel industry, which keeps the design section of your proposal yours to write.
More DDBA 8300 papers and DBA samples
- DDBA 8300 Week 1: Problem Framing Paper
- DDBA 8300 Week 2: Tradition Preference Discussion
- DDBA 8300 Week 3: Tradition Comparison Paper
- DDBA 8300 Week 4: Research Question Audit
- DDBA 8300 Week 6: Sampling Logic Note
- DDBA 8300 Week 7: Instrument Choice Memo
- DDBA 8300 Week 8: Design Feasibility Brief
- DDBA 8300 Week 9: Design Fit Peer Replies
- DDBA 8300 Week 10: Design Alternatives Appendix
- DDBA 8300 Week 11: Design Defense Paper
- DDBA 8161 Week 5: Innovation Critique
- DDBA 8151 Week 5: Diagnosis Defense Discussion
- DDBA 8006 Week 5: TOWS Options Matrix
- DDBA 4990 Week 5: Segmentation Brief
DDBA 8300 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDBA 8300 Week 5 sample paper?
The full research design memo, with the chosen and refused designs, is printed further down this page, free to read.
What study does the DDBA 8300 Week 5 memo design?
A correlational survey of how pre-show outreach relates to qualified trade-show leads among industrial equipment makers.
How large a sample does the survey need?
About 91 responses for a regression with five predictors and a medium effect, from about 640 firms on exhibitor lists.
What design was refused?
A multiple-case study following four or five manufacturers through planning, the show and follow-up.
What does the survey give up?
Direct observation of how firms define and record qualified leads, which it addresses by asking each firm for its definition.