Research Design for Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) Studies: A Decision-Oriented Framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajaset.v10i3.8330Keywords:
Content Analysis, Literature Review, Mixed Methods, Research Design, Sampling Strategy, Terms Reference, Thematic Analysis, Validity ReliabilityAbstract
DBA students often encounter research-design guidance as separate methodological choices, making it difficult to align the research question, design, sampling, analysis, and quality criteria. This paper addresses that integration problem by developing a narrative, decision-oriented conceptual synthesis for management research. It draws purposively on established research-methods texts and recent peer-reviewed applied studies and compares seven interdependent areas: framing the topic and terms of reference; selecting correlational, predictive, or experimental designs; choosing probability or non-probability sampling; determining when and how to integrate mixed methods; matching scoping or systematic reviews to field maturity; selecting content or thematic analysis; and establishing validity and reliability. The synthesis shows that these are not standalone decisions: the intended claim determines the design, the design constrains sampling, method and review choices must fill a stated evidentiary need, and validity and reliability provide cross-cutting tests of coherence. Its contribution is to connect existing methodological guidance into an ordered framework with explicit decision links and practical checks, rather than propose a new empirical method. DBA students can use it to plan and justify a study and identify downstream consequences before data collection. The framework is a planning aid, not a validated protocol, and is applicable to management-focused DBA studies.
Downloads
References
ADP Research Institute. (2020). The banking industry customer satisfaction survey. https://www.adp.com/-/media/adp/resourcehub/pdf/adpri/adpri0102_2018_engagement_study_technical_report_release%20ready.ashx
Aguinis, H., Hill, N. S., & Bailey, J. R. (2021). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 678–693.
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/9780935302356.pdf
Andersson, M., Boateng, K., & Abos, P. (2024). Validity and reliability: The extent to which your research findings are accurate and consistent—Review article. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384402476_Validity_and_Reliability_The_extent_to_which_your_research_findings_are_accurate_and_consistent#fullTextFileContent
Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods (1st ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Bell, E., Harley, B., & Bryman, A. (2022). Business research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2024). The craft of research (5th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Bougie, R., & Sekaran, U. (2019). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (8th ed.). Wiley.
Caruth, G. D. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the literature. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3(2), 112–122.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects (4th ed.). Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Deshpande, A., & Sharp, H. (2022). Responsible AI systems: Who are the stakeholders? In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 227–236). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534187
Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications.
Hayes, M., Chumney, F., Wright, C., & Buckingham, M. (2019). Global study of engagement: The technical report. https://www.adp.com/-/media/adp/resourcehub/pdf/adpri/adpri0102_2018_engagement_study_technical_report_release%20ready.ashx
Heikinniemi, A., Heikkilä, S., Ullberg, O. H., Hallingberg, B., & Bälter, K. (2025). The role of employee surveys to promote physical health and healthy lifestyles at the workplace: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 25(1), Article 3054.
Jackson, S. L. (2008). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach (3rd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
Kekkonen, P., Savolainen, E., Immonen, M., Kangas, P., Rissanen, E., & Linnosmaa, I. (2025). Effectiveness of work ability interventions on productivity: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Health, 67(1).
Lall, D. (2021). Mixed-methods research. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education: Why, When and How to Use, 24(1).
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. Dundalk Institute of Technology, 8(3), 1–14.
Matheson, G. J. (2019). We need to talk about reliability: Making better use of test–retest studies for study design and interpretation. PeerJ, 7, Article e6918.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of research design and social measurement (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Miller, G. J. (2022). Stakeholder roles in artificial intelligence projects. Project Leadership and Society, 1, Article 100068.
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(2), 34–35.
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense. (1995). Nonconformances of resistors, semiconductors, and connectors managed by the Defense Logistics Agency (Report No. 95-161). https://media.defense.gov/1995/Mar/31/2001715154/-1/-1/1/95-161.pdf
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article 71.
Patino, C. M., & Ferreira, J. C. (2018). Internal and external validity: Can you apply research study results to your patients? Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 44(3), 183.
PRISMA. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping
PRISMA. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71.
Roch, N., Sievers, H., Schöni, L., & Zimmermann, V. (2024). Navigating autonomy: Unveiling security experts’ perspectives on augmented intelligence in cybersecurity. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/soups2024-roch.pdf
Salehi, K., & Golafshani, N. (2010). Commentary: Using mixed methods in research studies—An opportunity with its challenges. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(3), 186–191.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2023). Research methods for business students (9th ed.). Pearson.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Sheard, J. (2018). Quantitative data analysis. In K. Williamson & G. Johanson (Eds.), Research methods: Information, systems, and contexts (2nd ed.). Chandos Publishing.
Smith, S. A., & Duncan, A. A. (2022). Systematic and scoping reviews: A comparison and overview. Seminars in Vascular Surgery, 35(4), 464–469.
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. L. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Ting, H., Memon, M. A., & Cheah, J.-H. (2025). Snowball sampling: A review and guidelines for survey research. Asian Journal of Business Research, 15(1).
Vears, D. F., & Gillam, L. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal, 23(1), 111–127.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.
Walliman, N. (2011). Research methods: The basics. Routledge.
Wedig, I. J., Petushek, E. J., Durocher, J. J., McDaniel, J., & Elmer, S. J. (2025). Development and usability testing of a preliminary web-based application for the clinical implementation of blood flow restriction: A mixed methods pilot study. Frontiers in Physiology, 15, Article 1631562.
Williams, M. S., Ebel, E. D., Bilanovic, I., Golden, N. J., Posny, D. S., Venu, A. X., & Powell, M. R. (2025). Design and methodology for monitoring the occurrence of foodborne pathogens in meat and poultry in the United States: Case study of Campylobacter on chicken. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 437, Article 111217.
