Who, how many and why: DDBA 8300's sixth-week note sets a random survey sample against a purposeful interview sample for one procurement question and argues for the second. Searches like "ddba 8300 week 6 assignment example", "ddba8300 week 6 sample" and "ddba 8300 week 6 example" land here.
What a finished DDBA 8300 Week 6 sampling logic note looks like
A two-column sampling table fills most of two to three pages. The quantitative column describes a probability sample drawn from a national association's membership list of public purchasing officers, sized by a power analysis in the manner Cohen made standard, and able to estimate how often cities weigh security certification, price or references. The qualitative column describes criterion sampling: twelve to fifteen procurement leads in mid-sized cities who ran a cloud software purchase in the past two years. Each column records who is reached, who is missed, and what the sample lets the finding claim. Prose after the table argues for the second, since the question asks how evaluation teams reached a decision, which only people who recently made one can describe. A final paragraph names the roles excluded, such as IT directors who advised but did not lead.
How a DDBA 8300 Week 6 example is structured
Research question and chosen tradition come first, since no sample is good or bad in the abstract, only for a given question. Next comes the table, and each column is filled as its tradition would fill it, with its own vocabulary: sampling frame, margin of error and power on one side, criteria, information richness and sufficiency on the other. The argument section then asks one question of both columns: whose experience does the research question require? The answer rules the directory sample out, not because random sampling is inferior but because many officers on that list have never led a cloud purchase. Numbers come next. The qualitative count is justified by the narrowness of the population and the planned depth of each interview, not by a borrowed rule. Exclusions close the note, each with its reason.
Whose experience the question needs
How evaluation teams weighed vendors can only be described by people who sat on one. The note states that requirement first, and every later choice about the sample descends from it, not from a general preference for depth or breadth.
The random sample, fairly described
A probability draw from the association list would support estimates about purchasing officers nationally, with a stated margin of error. The note grants that value and shows it answers how common each criterion is, a question nobody on the city side is asking.
Criteria that define the group
Led a cloud software procurement, completed within two years, in a mid-sized city. Each criterion carries its reason: leadership because advisors saw only part of the process, recency because memory of scoring meetings fades.
A number argued, not borrowed
Twelve to fifteen participants is defended by how narrow the population is and how long each interview will run. The note declines to cite a generic saturation count, since the reason must come from this group.
Who is left out
IT directors who advised, vendors, and council members who approved contracts are excluded. Each exclusion names what the study loses by it, letting a reader decide if the boundary around the sample was drawn on purpose.
Where marks go in DDBA 8300 Week 6
Graders read the sampling note for logic that descends from the question. A note that picks a purposeful sample because qualitative studies use small samples has given a reason about the tradition, not about the study. The fair description of the random alternative earns a real share, a sign the author knows what probability sampling buys and has declined it for a stated reason. Criteria are checked one by one for a justification tied to the research question. Numbers draw the closest reading: a count defended by a citation alone, or by the familiar phrase until saturation, leaves the committee without an argument, while a count defended by population narrowness and interview depth gives it one. Exclusions are marked for honesty about cost. Confusing purposeful selection with convenience, such as quiet recruiting through one's own network, costs marks.
Get a DDBA 8300 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Include the Week 6 prompt and rubric, the research question and tradition you have settled on, and the population you can realistically reach. The sampling note, with both columns, argued criteria, a defended number and its exclusions, arrives within 24-48h; a first request is free. Recruitment itself is never done on your behalf, and the note names roles rather than people.
DDBA 8300 Week 6 questions, answered
Does a qualitative sample need a number at all?
Most committees expect one, stated as a range with its reasoning. The figure matters less than the reasoning behind it: how specific the population is, how long each conversation will run, and how much variation the question needs to hear. A range such as twelve to fifteen, defended that way, is easier to accept than a single number borrowed from a methods text, and it leaves room to stop when interviews stop adding anything.
Can a published sample-size table justify a survey sample?
Only if it matches the analysis. Krejcie and Morgan's widely used table sizes a sample for estimating a population proportion within a margin of error, a different job from having enough cases to detect a relationship in a regression. For a study testing predictors, a power analysis based on the expected effect size and the number of predictors is the stronger justification, and the note should show its inputs.
Is recruiting through my own professional network acceptable?
Often, if the note says so and explains the safeguards. A network reaches people quickly, and it also tilts the sample toward those who know and trust you, which can shape what they say. Stating the route, adding a second route such as an association mailing, and screening every volunteer against the same criteria keeps a convenience channel from turning into a convenience sample.