DOC690 MOD 2
Student4Sure
DBA-Handbook.pdf
Version 3.4 – July 2020 1
Glenn R. Jones College of Business
The Doctor of Business Administration (D.B.A.) Program Handbook
2020
Doctoral Studies Director: Indira R. Guzman, Ph.D.
Professor of Doctoral Studies: Christopher Linski, D.Mgt.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 THE PURPOSE OF THE DSP ............................................................................................ 4
1.2 DSP COMPARED TO DISSERTATION ............................................................................. 4
1.3 ACCEPTABLE TYPES OF RESEARCH (DBA) ................................................................. 6
1.4 WRITING A DSP USING SPECIFIC DESIGN FORMATS ................................................. 6
1.4.1 CASE STUDY FORMAT ............................................................................................ 6
1.4.2 ACTION RESEARCH FORMAT .................................................................................7
1.4.3 PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FORMAT ....................................................................... 8
1.5 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTORAL STUDY PROJECT ......................... 8
2 THE DSP PROCESS .................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 THE DBA CURRICULUM ................................................................................................. 9
2.2 THE DSP PROCESS AND MILESTONES .........................................................................10
2.2.1 DBA DOCTORAL STUDY PROJECT MILESTONES ................................................ 11
2.3 DSP CHAPTERS CONTENT ............................................................................................ 13
Chapter I: Introduction to the Doctoral Study ................................................................................ 13
Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 13
Chapter III: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 13
Chapter IV: Data Collection and Data Analysis .............................................................................. 14
Chapter V: Application to Practice and Discussion ........................................................................ 14
2.4 THE 800 COURSE – DSP MILESTONE REPOSITORY / TRACKING............................... 14
3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................... 15
3.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DSP CHAIR ....................................................................... 17
3.2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DSP COMMITTEE MEMBERS (NON-CHAIR) .................. 18
3.3 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) ....................................................................... 18
3.3.1 The Special Case of the Organizational Analysis .......................................................... 19
3.3.2 After IRB Approval of Your Research Plan .................................................................. 19
3.3.3 HOW TO OBTAIN THE IRB TRAINING CERTIFICATE .......................................... 19
4 DSP PROGRESSION .............................................................................................................. 20
4.1 THE DSP PROSPECTUS IN DOC690 .............................................................................. 20
4.1.1 PROCEDURE OF THE DSP PROSPECTUS PRESENTATION .................................. 21
4.1.2 OUTCOME OF THE DSP PROSPECTUS PRESENTATION ..................................... 22
4.2 THE DSP PROPOSAL ..................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1 PROCEDURE OF THE DSP PROPOSAL DEFENSE ................................................. 23
Version 3.4 – July 2020 3
4.2.2 OUTCOME OF THE DSP PROPOSAL DEFENSE .................................................... 24
4.3 THE FINAL DSP ............................................................................................................. 24
4.3.1 PROCEDURE OF THE DSP FINAL DEFENSE ......................................................... 25
4.3.2 OUTCOME OF THE FINAL DSP DEFENSE ............................................................ 25
4.4 ORAL DEFENSE TIPS .................................................................................................... 26
4.4.1 PROCEDURES FOR ORAL DEFENSES ................................................................... 26
5 WRITING THE DSP PROPOSAL AND REPORT .................................................................... 27
5.1 WRITING SUGGESTIONS .............................................................................................. 27
5.2 DSP REPORT FORMATTING GUIDELINES .................................................................. 28
5.2.1 GENERAL FORMATTING GUIDELINES ................................................................ 29
5.2.2 ARRANGEMENT .................................................................................................... 30
6 RUBRICS APPLIED IN THE DBA PROGRAM ........................................................................ 31
6.1 DOC690 - DSP PROSPECTUS RUBRIC............................................................................ 31
6.2 DOC700 - DSP PROPOSAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................ 33
6.3 DOC700 - DSP PROPOSAL DEFENSE RUBRIC .............................................................. 34
6.4 DOC702 - DSP FINAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................ 36
6.5 DOC702 - DSP FINAL DEFENSE RUBRIC...................................................................... 37
6.6 DSP FEEDBACK TRACKING FORM .............................................................................. 39
6.6.1 FEEDBACK TRACKING FORM INSTRUCTIONS ................................................... 40
7 ACADEMIC INTEGRITY ........................................................................................................ 41
8 DOCTORAL TITLES AND ETIQUETTE ................................................................................. 41
9 DBA LETTER OF INTENT ..................................................................................................... 42
9.1 LETTER OF INTENT TO ALLOW RESEARCH - TEMPLATE ........................................ 43
10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 44
11 DISCLAIMER ..................................................................................................................... 44
12 DSP FLOW CHART ............................................................................................................ 45
13 UPDATED DSP-RELATED TEMPLATES ........................................................................... 46
Version 3.4 – July 2020 4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE PURPOSE OF THE DSP
The Doctoral Study Project (DSP) is a formal, comprehensive document that details the purpose,
background, project approach, project implementation, and conclusions of an applied
practitioner-oriented project. Completion and defense of the DSP is a requirement for graduation
from Trident at AIU with a Doctor of Business Administration (D.B.A.). Although preliminary
work on a student’s DSP may begin while the student is still completing coursework, formal
work on the DSP is undertaken after all core academic coursework is completed.
The DSP is intended to:
• Enhance your understanding of your field of study;
• Provide experience conducting research in your field of study;
• Develop your ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate data and conclusions in your field of study;
• Make a significant contribution to your field of study;
• Include a thorough review of associated professional literature;
• Demonstrate your ability to design and carry out an individual research project;
• Demonstrate a clear understanding of basic research principles, techniques, and ethics;
• Demonstrate evidence of your ability to analyze and synthesize data, as well as draw and evaluate conclusions;
• Develop skills in project planning, time management, organization, and implementation; and
• Show evidence of a high level of professional competence.
It is important to keep in mind that the DSP is not simply another graduate school assignment.
The DSP is intended to help the student develop both personally and professionally. It must be
scholarly, succinct, and of sufficiently high quality to be published, in part, in a peer-reviewed
journal. DSP research may be cataloged and available to other researchers—seasoned
professionals and academics, as well as future students—all over the world.
1.2 DSP COMPARED TO DISSERTATION
The DSP is a culminating research project for students enrolled in the Trident at AIU D.B.A.
program. It is equivalent in research rigor to a traditional dissertation but allows students more
flexibility in designing and conducting a research project with an applied focus, which is more in
line with the practitioner-scholar philosophy of D.B.A. degree. The differences between a DSP
and a dissertation are detailed in the table below.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 5
D.B.A. (DSP) PH.D. (DISSERTATION)
Intent Demonstrates expert knowledge
of the literature in a focused area
of practice and an ability to
conduct independent research.
Demonstrates expert knowledge
of the literature in a focused area
of business research and an
ability to conduct independent
research.
Role of Theory Apply existing theories. Extend existing theories.
Research Focus Typically investigates an aspect
of applied practice.
Examines a gap in the research
literature on a topic within the
field of study.
Format Five-chapter format involving
case study analysis / applied
research: Introduction, Literature
Review, Methodology, Results,
and Application to Practice and
Discussion. Follows APA.
Traditional five-chapter format:
Introduction, Literature Review,
Methodology, Results, and
Discussion. Follows APA.
Standards Outlined in the DSP Criteria
Rubrics and Checklists of the
DBA Handbook.
Described in the Dissertation
Checklist Appendix of the PhD
Handbook.
Time required Min. 9 months. Length depends
on completion of deliverables.
Students may need to retake a
course if they did not complete
expected milestones.
Min. 12 months. Length depends
on completion of dissertation.
Students may need to take
additional dissertation courses if
dissertation was not completed.
Types of Studies Studies with an applied focus,
including Case Study, Action
Research, or Process
Improvement. (See Sec. 1.3)
Can vary from applied studies to
more basic science; typically, a
positivistic approach.
Intended Audience Applied practitioners. Academic scholars in the field.
Process Works with a project chair and
committee to develop and carry
out the project.
Works with a project chair and
committee to develop and carry
out the research.
Sample Depends of the type of study.
About a min. of 15 participants
and 3 sources of data (i.e.
Interviews, participant
observation, focus groups, etc.).
Depends on the number of
variables and GPower. About a
min. of 200 participants.
Publication Required publication in Proquest. Required publication in
Proquest.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 6
1.3 ACCEPTABLE TYPES OF RESEARCH (DBA)
The following examples are types of DBA research projects that could be carried out in
alignment with DSP standards at Trident at AIU. This list is intended to be illustrative and not
exhaustive; students are permitted to propose creative ideas for research that adheres to quality
standards:
• A single subject study that evaluates a new or innovative intervention;
• A case study that exemplifies a particular theoretical prediction, or a novel or rare phenomenon;
• An Action Research or Participatory Action Research project;
• A program evaluation;
• The development of a novel intervention, training program, instructional manual, or other programmatic guide that is grounded in solid research literature, accompanied by an
implementation and evaluation plan;
• A field study that examines theoretical predictions;
• A survey study examining opinions, attitudes, or practices within a field or discipline;
• A business process improvement; or
• A review and integrated analysis of the literature within a topic area of the profession (articles published in practitioner-based journals may be used as a guide).
As these examples indicate, all project topics require an extensive knowledge of the literature
pertaining to the particular subject areas, a synthesis and application of this knowledge, and
sophistication on how a project is developed and presented. Conducting these projects provides
students with experiences that create expertise in their focused areas and prepare them to be
effective practitioner-scholars. To achieve this goal, it is recommended for students to pursue a
topic where they already have extensive practical experience. (That is why work experience is
required.)
1.4 WRITING A DSP USING SPECIFIC DESIGN FORMATS
It is important that you understand the variations that can occur in the format of the DSP based
on the type of research design chosen. This section will highlight the three most common
research designs used in the DSP: Case Study, Action Research, and Process Improvement.
Mixed methods designs are acceptable. Due to the time required for creation and validation of
quantitative instruments, it is highly recommended that quantitative components are used as
triangulation of data through secondary data sources, such as government database records.
1.4.1 CASE STUDY FORMAT
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of a case study. This means that you take a
real case (contemporary phenomenon) to investigate in depth and within its real-world context.
For example, if you are to write a DSP on a marketing related problem, then you need to visit a
business or organization on their physical location. You will need sufficient access to data for
Version 3.4 – July 2020 7
your research – to interview people, review documents or records, or make field observations.
The topics of case study research vary widely. For example, case studies of programs, events,
persons, processes, institutions, social groups, and other contemporary phenomena have been
completed.
• The first step is to develop your focus of research and define the question you will address in your paper. You can develop this focus by creating questions regarding your
provided situation.
• The second step in your Case Study is to design the process. You need to create a roadmap for the real-life case(s) you will select and why you will choose them. You
should also be able to explain different research methods you will adopt to collect and
analyze your data.
• You need to develop a plan for collecting data because you will need real data for this paper.
• After you have a plan for the data collection, and it is approved by your committee and IRB, you can go ahead and collect your data in the field. Use the raw materials first and
do not interpret any results unless you are complete with your research.
• The last step in your study is to report your data in an easy way. You need to explain the results in such a way that it is easy for the readers to understand the data and
interpretations.
1.4.2 ACTION RESEARCH FORMAT
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of Action Research. Action Research is an
engagement of participative communities of inquiry through systematic cycles of action and
reflection. You will need sufficient access to data for your research – involving multiple cycles
(or change implementations). The topics of Action Research vary widely; it is accomplished as
people try to work together to address key problems in their community or organization.
• The first step is to develop your focus of research and define the question you will address in your paper. You can develop this focus by creating questions regarding your
provided situation.
• The second step in your Action Research study is to design the process. You need to create a roadmap for the change implementation(s) you will select and why you will
choose them. You should also be able to explain different research methods you will
adopt to collect and analyze your data.
• You need to develop a plan for collecting data because you will need real data for this paper. Reflections from each cycle may alter the action implemented or the method used
to collect and analyze your data in future cycles.
• After you have a plan for the data collection, and it is approved by your committee and IRB, you can go ahead and collect your data in the field. Use the raw materials first and
do not interpret any results unless you are complete with your research.
• The last step in your study is to report your data in an easy way. You need to explain the results in such a way that it is easy for the readers to understand the data and
interpretations.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 8
1.4.3 PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FORMAT
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of a Process Improvement study. This type
of study provides a holistic approach to understanding how each business process interacts with
the rest of the organization. Process Improvement should examine internal and/or external
factors relating to a potential area of deficiency. It may also include the creation and
implementation of business process change to increase areas of effectiveness, efficiency, or
profitability. You will need sufficient access to data for your research – allowing for process
change to be implemented and monitored. The topics of Process Improvement research vary
widely based on the needs of the site organization.
• The first step is to develop your focus of research and define the question you will address in your paper. You can develop this focus by creating questions regarding your
provided situation; this usually requires knowledge about the needs of an organization.
• The second step in your Process Improvement study is to determine the process that requires change implementation. You need to create a roadmap for the process(es) you
will select and why you will choose them. You should also be able to explain different
research methods you will adopt to collect and analyze your data.
• You need to develop a plan for collecting data ; you will need real data for this paper.
• After you have a plan for the data collection, and it is approved by your committee and IRB, you can go ahead and collect your data in the field. Use the raw materials first and
do not interpret any results unless you are complete with your research.
• The last step in your study is to report your data in an easy way. You need to explain the results in such a way that it is easy for the readers to understand the data and
interpretations.
1.5 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTORAL STUDY PROJECT
• Doctoral candidates should have access to data from one organization where the research project will be conducted. Ideally, this organization should be related to the area of
professional expertise of the doctoral student. This organization could be their current or
past employer, but that is not a requirement.
• Access to the organization must be granted in writing and following the expectations of Trident’s Institutional Review Board. No data can be collected without IRB approval.
• The methodology section of the Doctoral Study Project requires at least three different data sources with a minimum total sample size of 15 participants. The sources of
evidence could be documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations,
participant observation or physical artifacts, etc. In Action Research, this could be three
cycles of collection.
• The doctoral study should apply at least two existing theoretical frameworks in business to study the business problem. The doctoral student should be aware of the full range of
theories that might be relevant to their own study. These could be individual, group,
organizational, or societal theories.
• Completion of the DSP will result in an Executive Summary Report that may be provided to the organization(s) involved in the Doctoral Study Project.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 9
2 THE DSP PROCESS
This section includes an overview of the people and processes involved in completing your DSP.
It is important for all DBA students to be familiar with this information. This section covers the
following:
• The DBA Curriculum;
• Phases of the DSP process and Milestones;
• Required courses, forms, and documents (student completes);
• Roles and responsibilities of individuals and boards involved in the DSP process; and
• Step-by-step process to develop a DSP.
2.1 THE DBA CURRICULUM
Required Program Courses (36 to 48 Semester Credit Hours)
DOC 600 Introduction to Doctoral Studies and Research Methods in
Business
4
MGT 610* Organizations, Management and Leadership 4
MKT 610* Advanced Strategic Marketing 4
FIN 610* Advanced Strategic Corporate Finance 4
DOC 640 Case Study and Action Research 4
DOC 650 Technology and Business Process Improvement 4
DOC 660 Innovation and Creativity in Business 4
DOC 670 Applied Statistics for Research in Business and Management 4
DOC 690 Doctoral Study Proposal 4
DOC 700 Doctoral Study Supervision I 4
DOC 701 Doctoral Study Supervision II 4
DOC 702 Doctoral Study Supervision III 4
ADDITIONAL DOCTORAL COURSES (not required)
DBA 680 Independent Study 1-4
Total Degree Credit Hour Requirement
36-48 Semester Credit Hours
(*) * A completed Master’s level course in Marketing, Management/Organizational
Behavior, and Finance may allow the corresponding course(s) to be waived. These courses
may not be required for students with a conferred Masters of Business Administration. This
is subject to transfer credit rules and restrictions as outlined in the University’s Policy
Handbook.
The DBA curriculum supports the understanding of the process of building a DSP.
DOC600 is the first course in the program where students are introduced to the program
requirements, expectations and research methods.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 10
In the 610 courses (MGT, FIN and MKT), students will increase expertise on business areas and
theories.
In DOC640, students will learn the Methodologies of Case Study and Action Research and the
software for qualitative data analysis with an emphasis on applied research.
In DOC650, students should identify the business process and problem of study and write a
problem statement draft. Students should collect and upload into the DOC800 course (see Sec.
2.4) the Letter of Intent (LOI) from the organization where they plan to conduct their doctoral
study. Follow the template provided in this handbook (see Sec. 9.1). The letter should be signed
by the respective authority in the organization.
In DOC660, students will conduct literature review related to the business research problem and
the theories to be used in the DSP.
In DOC670, students will formulate an initial draft of the methodology section of their DSP.
In DOC690, students should present their first proposal draft (also known as Prospectus) to
potential DSP committee.
A Doctoral Study Project chair will be assigned following DOC690 when the prospectus
presentation is completed.
In the DOC700 courses (700, 701, and 702), students will conduct independent research under
the supervision of their DSP chair. Based on the nature of the program and courses, DOC700*
courses are not eligible for extensions.
2.2 THE DSP PROCESS AND MILESTONES
The DBA program requires the completion of an original DBA Doctoral Study Project (DSP)
consisting of five chapters. Students begin planning their DSP in DOC650. During DOC650 and
subsequent DOC6** courses, students are required to present the drafts of the DSP sections as
part of the course assignments. In the third and last year, students will focus on conducting the
Doctoral Study Project under the guidance of the DSP chair and committee. Students will upload
required documents, drafts, and approved deliverables to each DOC7** course for a grade and to
the DOC800 Course for record (see Sec. 2.4). Students should review the DSP Flow Chart for
the expected progression of DSP deliverables (see Sec. 12).
Version 3.4 – July 2020 11
2.2.1 DBA DOCTORAL STUDY PROJECT MILESTONES
Progress in the DSP process is expected based on the following milestone for each course:
Course Course Title DSP Required Milestone Submission to DOC800
DOC
600
Introduction to Doctoral
Studies and Research
Methods in Business
Read/Review DBA Handbook,
DSP Template, and DSP
Presentation Template
Tentative DSP topic
Tentative organization for LOI
None
DOC
640
Case Study and Action
Research
Tentative design approach
selected (see Sec.1.4)
None
DOC
650
Technology and Business
Process Improvement
Organization and topic area are
identified
Letter of Intent must be obtained
Contact the DBA Professor of
Doctoral Studies to confirm
feasibility for chosen topic/LOI
CASE 5 Assignment
(Introduction Draft)
Signed LOI
DOC
660
Innovation and Creativity
in Business
An extensive literature review
about the area of study and type
of organization is conducted.
Contact the DBA Professor of
Doctoral Studies for literature
review assistance
Last cumulative
assignment to be submitted
(Lit. Review Draft)
DOC
670
Applied Statistics for
Research in Business and
Management
Quantitative analysis of
secondary data related to the
industry/organization of study
Utilize analysis for background
and/or benchmarking of
industry/organization
Complete IRB training
Last cumulative
assignment to be submitted
(Methodology Draft)
DOC
690
Doctoral Study Proposal Initial Proposal draft called
PROSPECTUS
Final prospectus document
Version 3.4 – July 2020 12
DSP chair is assigned following
Prospectus presentation
Prospectus Presentation
PowerPoint (using DBA
Presentation Template)
DOC
700
Doctoral Study
Supervision I
Module 1: DSP Proposal draft
Module 2: IRB documentation
(Consent Form, Data Collection
Instruments, IRB training
certificate)
Module 3: DSP Proposal for
defense (upload after all
committee members agree to
schedule defense); include
PowerPoint presentation
Module 4: DSP Completion Plan
(must be completed after the
proposal was defended)
All approved DSP
documents
To pass this class student
should:
• Pass Proposal
• Receive IRB Approval
• Be prepared to start Data Collection
DOC
701
Doctoral Study
Supervision II
Module 1: Report progress of
data collection for chair review
Module 2: Complete data
collection; Submit the first draft
of data analysis (Chapter 4)
Module 3: Make revisions for
data analysis based on feedback
Module 4: Submit updated draft
of data analysis (Chapter 4)
All approved DSP
documents
To pass this class student
should:
• Complete Data Collection
• Submit Data Analysis Draft
DOC
702
Doctoral Study
Supervision III
Module 1: Complete the DSP
Chapter 5 Draft
Module 2: Complete the Full
DSP for defense
Module 3: Complete the Full
DSP presentation and Executive
Summary Report (ESR) draft
Module 4: Complete Final
Revisions to DSP and ESR
All approved DSP
documents
To pass this class student
should:
• Finalize DSP
• Pass DSP Defense
Version 3.4 – July 2020 13
2.3 DSP CHAPTERS CONTENT
Chapter I: Introduction to the Doctoral Study
• Formal problem statement – what?
• Background of the organization (context) – why?
• Conceptual framework (foundation) – what?
• Methodological approach (justification) – how?
A draft of Chapter I of the study is due by the end of the DOC650 Technology and Business
Process Improvement. Students should identify the organization and the type of business problem
and process (if applicable) that will serve as the focus of the study.
Chapter II: Literature Review
• Literature search strategy
• Industry and organizational analysis
• Synthesized scholarly/practitioner literature review. This should include a minimum of two theories/models utilized for the foundation of your topic. The literature review
should also examine the major concepts and sub-concepts relevant to the DSP topic.
• Review of the literature on the research method and design being utilized to provide an explanation of why this method and design is selected for the DSP.
A draft of Chapter II of the study is due by the end of DOC660 Innovation and Creativity in
Business.
Chapter III: Methodology
• Choose and explain appropriate research method and design.
• Choose and explain appropriate data collection processes (interviews, surveys, focus groups, secondary data, etc.). Data collection requires a minimum of three processes and
a minimum total sample size of 15 participants. Each process should be detailed as a step-
by-step procedure.
• Choose and explain appropriate data analysis process(es). Each process should be detailed as a step-by-step procedure.
• Discuss ethical assurances to mitigate risk to human subjects.
A draft of Chapter III of the study is due by the end of DOC670 Applied Statistics for Research in
Business and Management.
The drafts of the first three chapters and proposal defense PowerPoint should be saved in the
DOC800 course of the doctoral student.
Proposal Defense: The DSP proposal (the first three chapters) should be defended during
DOC700. Students should include DSP completion plan with timelines in accordance
with the DBA handbook. Noted revisions will be added to the completion plan following
Version 3.4 – July 2020 14
the defense. Students must defend the proposal, receive committee approval of the
proposal defense, receive IRB approval, and start data collection in DOC700.
Chapter IV: Data Collection and Data Analysis
• Focus on collection and analysis of real data from the Doctoral Study Project.
• Provide summary of results; relate results to the research question(s).
• Provide a brief evaluation of findings.
Students complete data analysis under the supervision of the DSP chair in DOC701. A draft of
Chapter IV of the study is due by the end of DOC701; students should have all data collected
and mostly analyzed.
Chapter V: Application to Practice and Discussion
• Construct the Application to Practice report for the Company/Organization that served as the focus of the study.
• Provide implications and recommendations for research or practical application.
• Following Chapter V, students will provide an Executive Summary Report.
A final version of the DSP is due by the end of DOC702.
The final DSP and DSP defense PowerPoint should be saved in the DOC800 course of the
doctoral student.
DSP Defense: The DSP (all five chapters) must be defended during DOC702. Students
must receive committee approval of the DSP defense in DOC702.
Students must pass the defense to pass DOC702 and graduate. Students are only allowed to
repeat DOC702 up to two times.
2.4 THE 800 COURSE – DSP MILESTONE REPOSITORY / TRACKING
The 800 course is a session-less course available to each doctoral student enrolled in the DBA
program. The purpose of this course is to provide a scalable platform to record students’ progress
towards the completion of a Doctoral Study Project (DSP). The course contains a series of
droboxes that match the DSP milestones defined for the program.
• Each student has an “800” course available while the student is enrolled in the program.
• In Module 1, students will submit documents for any progress made toward the DSP at the end of each session. These submissions will not be graded. They are uploaded simply
for storage purposes. Submissions requiring a grade must be uploaded in the 700 courses.
• In Module 2, students will submit any approved document completed toward the DSP process during the 700 courses. These documents are submitted for DSP tracking
purposes and will be evaluated by the DSP Chair. These submissions will be graded as a
Version 3.4 – July 2020 15
pass/fail requirement acknowledging that the student is ready to move to the next
deliverable. Submissions requiring a grade must also be uploaded in the 700 courses.
Module 1 – DSP Draft Documents
• 650 DSP drafts completed in DOC650
• 660 DSP drafts completed in DOC660
• 670 DSP drafts completed in DOC670
• 690 DSP drafts completed in DOC690
• 700 DSP drafts completed in DOC700
• 701 DSP drafts completed in DOC701
• 702 DSP drafts completed in DOC702
Module 2 – Final Documents for Approval – Graded Pass/Fail by DSP Chair
• 1001 Approved LOI
• 1002 DSP Proposal Defended
• 1003 IRB Training Certificate
• 1004 IRB Application
• 1005 Final DSP Defended
Instances of Approval
Documents for approval Who will approve
1001 Approved LOI Professor of Doctoral Studies (PDS)
1002 DSP Proposal
Defended
DSP Committee, PDS, and Program
Director
1003 IRB Training
Certificate
Trident at AIU IRB
1004 IRB Application Trident at AIU IRB
1005 Full DSP Defended DSP Committee, PDS, Program
Director, and Dean
3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
As you work on your DSP, you will interact with various people and review boards. Major
responsibilities for the following individuals/groups are described in the table below:
• You (the student)
• DSP Chair
• DSP Committee
• Site Facilitator
• Institutional Review Board (IRB) – Dr. Stephen Pollard
• Professor of Doctoral Studies – Dr. Christopher Linski
• Doctoral Studies Director – Dr. Indira Guzman
Version 3.4 – July 2020 16
Role Responsibility
You (the student)
• Follow University Policies established in the
University Catalogs and DBA Handbook.
• Submit assignments on time
• Follow IRB requirements
• Fulfill requirements to pass each class
• Communicate any delays or concerns in a timely manner
• Complete all: o Steps in the DSP process, in order; o Required DOC courses, including DSP Planning
Courses and DSP credits;
o DSP assignments in DOC courses; and o Required forms, properly signed and submitted,
either by yourself or your DSP Chair, in a timely
fashion.
• Work closely with your DSP Chair and Committee.
DSP Chair
• Guides and assists the student in:
o Defining and finalizing a research topic; o Preparing for DSP research; o Developing a timeline to complete the DSP; o Choosing committee member(s); o Developing the DSP Proposal; and o Overseeing the research and analyzing data.
• Responsible for quality and rigor.
• Reviews, provides feedback, and approves student’s: o DSP Proposal (in conjunction with the
Committee);
o IRB Application (for submission to IRB); o DSP Documents (in conjunction with the
Committee); and
o Final DSP submission.
• Oversees and evaluates the student’s: o Proposal Oral Defense o Final Oral Defense
• Will share drafts to committee members when the document is ready and ensure appropriate
completion of recommended revisions.
DSP Committee
• Oversees, evaluates, and provides feedback to the
student’s:
o Proposal Oral Defense o Final Oral Defense
• Provides feedback for: o DSP Proposal o Final DSP
Version 3.4 – July 2020 17
Site Facilitator
• Principal individual of contact for site research.
• Principal agent for Letter of Intent and Site Permission (as required by IRB).
• May attend DSP defense, when possible.
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Dr. Stephen Pollard
• Ensures ethical research practices among students and faculty. (Anyone affiliated with Trident at AIU
who is pursuing a research project must receive
approval from the IRB before data collection.)
• Reviews and approves in the 800 course: o IRB Training Certificate o IRB Application
DBA Professor of Doctoral Studies
Dr. Christopher Linski • Provides advice to DBA students regarding DSP.
• Ensures quality of DSP.
• Reviews Letter of Intent.
• Reviews and provides feedback for: o DSP Proposal o Final DSP
Doctoral Studies Director
Dr. Indira Guzman
• Reviews and approves the: o Final DSP Proposal o Final DSP Document
• Signs Request for DSP Committee Assignments/Change
3.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DSP CHAIR
The DSP Chair will:
• Assess your capability to undertake the study and defend the DSP Proposal and Report. If
necessary, the Chair may require you to address any deficiencies by taking courses,
studying independently, or reading additional material.
• Determine that the Proposal meets DSP standards. The Chair should consult with the
Committee to provide scholarly and professional guidance for the DSP. The Chair is
responsible for the initial review and approval of the Proposal; he or she will then direct
you to cycle it through the other committee member(s) for additional feedback and
approval, to move toward submitting to the D.B.A. Program Lead(s) and scheduling the
Proposal Oral Defense.
• Advise you on the selection of the other committee member(s).
• Act as a liaison between you and the other Committee member(s), as well as the Trident
at AIU administration.
• Ensure that you have done all that is necessary to develop, conduct, and write a quality
applied project.
• Be aware of and follow all Trident at AIU procedures, as well as ensure that you stay on
track. The Chair is expected to reinforce deadlines and discourage postponements.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 18
• Sign off on required forms to help you move from one step to the next in the DSP
process.
• Complete Checklists and Rubrics, as needed.
• Provide course grades in DOC7** courses and pass/fail grades in the 800 course.
• Sign the completed and approved DSP.
3.2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DSP COMMITTEE MEMBERS (NON-CHAIR)
The DSP Committee will:
• Review and provide feedback and comments on the DSP Proposal.
• Attend, participate in, and evaluate the Proposal Oral Defense.
• Review the final draft of the DSP Report and provide feedback and comments.
• Attend, participate in, and evaluate the Final Oral Defense.
• Mentor and advise the student on the DSP to ensure scholarly work.
• Advise and guide the student regarding applicable funding sources for the research.
• Advise and guide the student in the data collection and analysis process.
• Advise and provide guidance regarding suitability for publication and promotion of
collaborative writing of publication(s) based on the DSP Report.
• Committee Members may also rely on additional subject matter experts as consulting
members of the Committee for research support.
• Committee Members shall sign the completed and approved DSP.
3.3 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
Trident at AIU has a standing committee known as the Institutional Review Board (IRB). This
committee exists for the protection of human subjects and requires students and faculty
conducting research involving human subjects to submit their research to the appropriate IRB
committee. Following notification by the Doctoral Program Director, and email
acknowledgement by the DSP Chair that all preparatory IRB documents have been reviewed,
IRB will email an application form and instructions to the student. Students may also access the
IRB policy and procedures, membership and sample forms on the University website. Following
completion of the IRB application, students should submit to the DSP Chair for review. Upon
approval, the application will be uploaded by the student into the corresponding 800 course
module.
Once your committee has approved your proposed research plan, review and approval of the plan
by the IRB is a crucial final step before you may begin interventions or to collect and analyze
data. Federal law and regulations require an IRB review of all research involving human
subjects. The purpose of such reviews is to ensure that your research complies with established
ethical standards and principles. To complete this review, you must have completed IRB training
and submit the IRB application (through your 800 course) summarizing the project and the
human subjects protection issues that it poses (a copy of the research methodology and any
Version 3.4 – July 2020 19
relevant forms and/or data gathering instruments is generally attached to the application). The
IRB Chair then makes the determination as to the nature and extent of the review.
It is very important that you understand that you may not collect data before IRB approval
is received, and if you do collect data before that approval, the data may not be used in the
DSP (a certain degree of exploratory reconnaissance is allowed). Official submission of a project
to the IRB may not take place until the Director has notified IRB of proposal approval.
IRB documents that are expected for most research studies include:
• IRB Application
• IRB Training Certificate of Completion
• Signed Letter of Intent Explaining Study Details
• Informed Consent Form (for each instrument used)
• Completed and Reviewed Instruments
• Approved DSP Proposal
• Additional Documents Relevant to Human Protections Specific to Each Study
3.3.1 The Special Case of the Organizational Analysis
You may opt to complete an organizational analysis of the organization where you are doing
your research project. That analysis can take many forms and it would not ordinarily be
necessary for you to submit your plan for IRB approval, as long as collection of data does not
involve human subjects in the process. Analysis of ordinary and routine activity of business
leaders, not involving human subjects, is not considered “research.” However, because you may
use the findings of your organizational analysis in your DSP, it is important that you do submit
the plan for organizational analysis to the IRB committee.
3.3.2 After IRB Approval of Your Research Plan
Once your initial plan for your applied research has been approved by the IRB committee, you
can begin your research work under the supervision of your DSP chair. Keep in mind, however,
that if you make major changes in your research plan, it may be necessary to go back to the IRB
for approval of the changes and fill out an IRB Amendment Form. It is important to keep your
DSP committee, especially your chair, informed and up-to- date on the progress of your research
and aware of any changes you may be considering. Each session the chair will report to the
Doctoral Studies Director on your DSP progress.
3.3.3 HOW TO OBTAIN THE IRB TRAINING CERTIFICATE
You must complete the Human Subjects Research Online Training available at the Protecting
Human Research Participant (PHRP) Online Training website. This online training is intended
for anyone involved in research studies with human subjects, or who have responsibilities for
setting policies and procedures with respect to such research, including Institutional Review
Version 3.4 – July 2020 20
Boards (IRBs). To complete the training and obtain the certificate, go to
https://phrptraining.com/#!/. Please note: The fee to complete the training is payable directly to
PHRP; the student is responsible for the fees applicable to this training. Once you complete the
training, upload the proof of completion in the “1003 IRB Training Certificate” DropBox folder
in your DOC800, otherwise IRB will not review your application and supporting documents.
4 DSP PROGRESSION
4.1 THE DSP PROSPECTUS IN DOC690
Students put together a Proposal draft called PROSPECTUS in DOC690. A DSP prospectus is a
preliminary plan for conducting a study. This is not an official, technical research proposal, but,
rather, a considered analysis of the DSP proposal requirements you are likely to introduce and
follow in your study. In essence, it is a preliminary DSP proposal.
The Prospectus follows the structure of the Proposal and has three chapters. Students are
required to submit full prospectus document and a PowerPoint (using provided DSP Presentation
Template) for discussion with the committee. This presentation will follow a Colloquium
Format. (See Sec. 13 for links to the most recent DSP and DSP Presentation Templates)
In completing the prospectus, you should be sure to consider at least the following1:
Business Research Problem (in Chapter 1). What is the business research problem you are
trying to solve? What is the context? [A problem is a situation that, left untreated, produces a
negative consequence for some group, institution or individual(s). For example, “The company
employees do not seem to be doing well” isn’t necessarily a specific business problem; “the
turnover rate has increased in the last five years” is.] What makes it a problem? For whom? Who
says so?
Research Questions (in Chapter 1). Based on your problem, what are the research questions
you are trying to answer? Why and how will answering these questions contribute to solving the
research problem? Remember…a research question can be answered ONLY with evidence.
Theoretical/Conceptual Issues (in Chapters 1 and 2). What theoretical/conceptual issues arise
in your proposed study? For example, “theoretically,” how would you explain this problem and
the results you suspect you might get to another scholar? (Do you take a behavioral view? Social
systems view? System view? Policy formulation/implementation view? Developmental view?)
Are there other theoretical orientations that should be considered in the design of your study?
Literature Review (in Chapter 2). What, in general, does the literature say about your topic?
How does the understanding of the literature is related to the business environment (i.e.
Competitive Analysis, Strategic Alignment, Risk analysis)? [This need not be a complete review,
but you should cite some of the major theory, research, and writers in the field.]
1 Adapted from www.coedu.usf.edu
Version 3.4 – July 2020 21
General Research Plan (in Chapter 3). In general, how would you propose to conduct this
research study so that it answers your research questions? What kind of data will you gather
(specify type, such as surveys, observations, interviews…or some combination of these types)?
From whom will you gather it? Why them? Is this feasible?
How will you analyze the data - make sense of it? (in Chapter 3). How will you assure that
the data are of high quality?
Anticipated Difficulties and Pitfalls (in Chapter 3). What kind of difficulties and pitfalls might
you expect in doing a study of this type? What will you do to prevent them or minimize their
effects?
Anticipated Benefits (in Chapter 3). Who will benefit from the fact that this research is
undertaken? How? Why? Who might be disturbed this proposed study? How? Why?
This should be a thoughtful, reflective paper that presents a balanced view of the proposed study
- both its problems and its opportunities. It should serve as a first, solid communication with your
committee and potential DSP chair about the kind of thinking you have been doing on an
anticipated area of inquiry that might comprise at least a portion of your DSP work.
4.1.1 PROCEDURE OF THE DSP PROSPECTUS PRESENTATION
The student should assemble a MS PowerPoint describing the study, following the prescribed
format covered in the DSP Presentation Template. The DOC690 professor will determine the
dates of the presentations during Module 5 of the course. Students will be separated into groups
for each presentation session. The presentation shall be sent to the DOC690 professor at least one
week prior to scheduled date. Potential DSP Chairs will be invited to the presentation as
Prospectus reviewers and shall receive the current presentation to review in advance.
The Prospectus Presentation normally takes from 1 to 1 1/2 hours. The presentation will be by
teleconferencing in a colloquium format where two to three students will be presenting and a
committee of three faculty members will evaluate the prospectus. Each student should expect to
present for 10 minutes, with up to 5 minutes for audience questions.
The purpose of the oral presentation is:
• To have the student to communicate his or her observations and interpretations to others;
• To assure that ethical and professional standards of the profession have been followed;
• To demonstrate the candidate's readiness to pursue independent applied research under the supervision of a DSP chair; and
• To demonstrate the candidate's understanding of the relationship of this work within the fields of business administration.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 22
4.1.2 OUTCOME OF THE DSP PROSPECTUS PRESENTATION
Once the students have completed their oral presentation, he/she will be asked to exit the room
so the reviewing committee can deliberate on the outcomes. The outcomes are decided by an
open vote of the committee. The committee makes one of two recommendations:
• Pass. Ready to begin formal DSP work under DSP Chair supervision.
• No Pass. The student is not ready to begin formal DSP work. Student needs to retake DOC690.
At the oral defense, only the members of the reviewing committee have the authority to decide
whether the student passes or fails. Both the DSP itself and the candidate’s performance in the
oral presentation are grounds for the committee’s majority-rule decision to pass or fail. The
DOC690 faculty or Doctoral Program Director will notify the student of the outcome and
provide the Prospectus Rubric with recommendations from the reviewing committee.
4.2 THE DSP PROPOSAL
As noted earlier, the process of completing an applied research project will often involve
changes and adjustments in the plan for the research.
During the development of the DSP the candidate will maintain regular contact with the DSP
Chair through coursework (DOC 700, 701, and 702) and seek counsel and advice on each of the
major steps in the research project. Students should use the feedback received during the
Prospectus presentation.
As elements of the DSP research are completed and chapters written according to the formatting
requirements detailed in this Handbook, the DSP Template, and the DSP Proposal Checklist (see
Sec. 6.2), the DSP Chair shall work with the student to select committee members, from the
authorized faculty roster. The DSP Chair will request availability of the selected committee
members who, upon agreement, will provide feedback to the student. When a draft of the DSP is
judged by the committee to be ready to defend, the Committee also will complete the DSP
Proposal Checklist. When all checklist items have been confirmed by the DSP Chair and
Committee, the oral defense can be scheduled. The DSP Proposal defense shall take place in
DOC700. Students must have a final draft of the DSP Proposal completed during Week 9 of the
course in order to successfully defend during DOC700. Students who have not reached this
milestone will need to retake DOC700.
The DSP Proposal should include the first three chapters of the DSP:
• Chapter I: Introduction to the Doctoral Study
• Chapter II: Literature Review
• Chapter III: Methodology
Version 3.4 – July 2020 23
4.2.1 DOC700 PROPOSAL TIMELINE
4.2.2 PROCEDURE OF THE DSP PROPOSAL DEFENSE
The student should assemble a MS PowerPoint describing the study, following the prescribed
format covered in the DSP Presentation Template (See Sec. 13). The presentation should be sent
to the DSP Chair and Committee two weeks prior to defense. In consultation with the DSP Chair,
the student shall find a day and time at which it is possible for all members of the DSP
Committee to participate.
The DSP Proposal Defense normally takes about 60-90 minutes. The presentation will be by
teleconferencing where the student will present, and the DSP Committee will evaluate. Students
should expect to present for 20-30 minutes.
The purpose of the oral DSP Proposal Defense is:
• To describe and add context to the proposed research problem as it relates to the selected site / organization within the context of an applied contextual research problem;
WEEK TASKS AND ASSIGNMENTS DUE
1 Initiate communication with assigned DSP Chair
2 Module 1 Due
Required draft of the DSP to Chair following handbook and DSP template
3 Receive Chair feedback and conduct necessary revisions
4 Maintain communication with Chair regarding feedback and next required
steps
Submit revised proposal draft for revised grade in Module 1
5 Module 2 Due
Prepare IRB documentation, complete IRB training (if not completed
previously), data collection instruments drafted, and informed consent
template completed.
6 Receive Chair feedback and conduct necessary revisions
7 Maintain communication with Chair regarding feedback and next required
steps
8 Module 3 Due
Revised proposal draft must be submitted to DSP Chair for review and
submission to the DSP Committee.
9 DSP Chair/Committee review of proposal; final week to schedule defense
10 Final week for defending proposal
11 Final Proposal edits must be approved by DSP Chair/Committee and
submitted to Director; Submission to IRB required.
FINAL Module 4 Due
DSP Chair must finalize all grades in DOC700 and the 800 Course
Version 3.4 – July 2020 24
• To demonstrate understanding of the current literature within the field of study and how one identifies and articulates a need to address the problem statement through the
proposed study;
• To articulate that the ethical and professional standards of the profession will be followed; and
• To demonstrate the candidate's understanding of applied research methodology and the use of research tools in professional practice as it relates to the proposed DSP and
alignment between the research problem and proposed methods.
4.2.3 OUTCOME OF THE DSP PROPOSAL DEFENSE
Once the students have completed their oral defense, he/she will be asked to exit the room so the
committee can deliberate on the outcomes. The outcomes are decided by an open vote of the
committee. The committee makes one of three recommendations:
1. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair only. 2. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair and Committee members. 3. No Pass. The student needs to retake DOC700.
At the oral defense, only the members of the committee have the authority to decide whether the
candidate passes or fails. Both the DSP itself and the candidate’s performance in the oral
presentation are grounds for the committee’s majority-rule decision to pass or fail. The DSP
Chair will immediately notify the student of the committee’s decision, provide the Proposal
Rubric with recommendations from the committee, and initiate the DSP Completion Plan
according to committee recommendations. Students must complete any revisions necessary to
the DSP Proposal utilizing the Feedback Tracking Form prior to the last day of DOC700 in order
to submit to IRB and enroll in DOC701.
4.3 THE FINAL DSP
As elements of the final DSP are completed and chapters written according to the formatting
requirements detailed in this Handbook, the DSP Template, and the Final DSP Checklist (see
Sec. 6.4), the DSP Chair will provide feedback to the student. When a draft of the Final DSP is
judged by the DSP Chair to be ready to defend, the DSP Chair will forward the Final DSP and
the Final DSP Checklist to the DSP Committee members for review. When all checklist items
have also been confirmed by the DSP Committee, the final oral defense can be scheduled.
The final DSP defense shall take place in DOC702. Students must have a final draft of the DSP
completed by the end of the first week of Module 4 of the course in order to successfully defend
during DOC702. Students who have not reached this milestone will need to retake DOC702. The
Final DSP document should include all five chapters of the DSP:
• Chapter I: Introduction to the Doctoral Study
• Chapter II: Literature review
• Chapter III: Methodology
• Chapter IV: Data Collection and Data Analysis
• Chapter V: Application to Practice and Discussion; Executive Summary Report
Version 3.4 – July 2020 25
4.3.1 PROCEDURE OF THE DSP FINAL DEFENSE
The student should assemble a MS PowerPoint describing the study, following the prescribed
format covered in the DSP Presentation Template. The presentation should be sent to the DSP
Chair, Committee, and the Doctoral Program Director one week prior to defense. The emphasis
should be on research settings, the problem of practice addressed, development of the applied
research plan, results and implications. In consultation with the DSP Chair, the student shall find
a day and time at which it is possible for all members of the DSP Committee to participate.
The oral defense of the DSP normally takes from 60-90 minutes. The defense will be by
teleconferencing where the student will present, and the DSP committee will evaluate. Students
should expect to present for 20-30 minutes.
The purpose of the oral defense is:
• To celebrate the successful completion of a major component of the doctoral program;
• To provide the student an opportunity to communicate his or her findings and interpretations to others;
• To assure that the ethical and professional standards of the profession have been followed;
• To demonstrate the candidate's mastery of applied research methodology and the use of research tools in professional practice; and
• To demonstrate the candidate's understanding of the relationship of this work to the fields of business administration.
4.3.2 OUTCOME OF THE FINAL DSP DEFENSE
Once the student has completed the oral defense, he/she will be asked to exit the room
temporarily so the committee can deliberate on the outcome. The outcome of the oral defense is
decided by an open vote of the DSP Committee. The committee makes one of three
recommendations:
1. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair only. 2. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair and Committee members. 3. No Pass. The student needs to retake DOC702.
At the oral defense, only the members of the committee have the authority to decide whether the
candidate passes or fails. Both the DSP itself and the candidate’s performance in the oral
presentation are grounds for the committee’s majority-rule decision to pass or fail. The DSP
Chair will notify the student the decision of the committee and provide the Final DSP Rubric
with recommendations from the committee. Students must complete any revisions necessary to
the final DSP utilizing the Feedback Tracking Form prior to the last day of DOC702 in order to
submit for final Director/Dean’s review and approval in DOC702.
Doctoral candidates may pass the oral defense but still be required to revise their DSP.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 26
4.4 ORAL DEFENSE TIPS
Preparation
• Schedule the date of your Defense at least one week in advance.
• Submit a copy of your PowerPoint presentation to the Doctoral Studies Director at least
two days prior to the Defense; the Director will provide the presentation URL to all
committee members.
• Consider inviting others to your Defense, with your DSP Chair’s permission.
• Know your Proposal or Final DSP thoroughly.
• Rehearse the presentation multiple times, possibly with an audience to get feedback.
• Make sure your presentation rehearsal fits within the time available (20-30 minutes).
• Consider which questions the Committee might ask and prepare responses for them.
• Use the DSP Presentations Template to keep the Defense organized and to stay on task.
Be sure to:
• Not read directly from your slides. Keep your presentation conversational, but still
scholarly.
• Avoid putting entire sentences or too much material on the slides. These should contain
an outline of what you are covering.
• Check for glaring errors on the slides (e.g., writing, spelling, and formatting).
• Consider using graphs or other visual displays to communicate your project plan or
findings.
4.4.1 PROCEDURES FOR ORAL DEFENSES
Who Can Attend the Oral Defense?
The DSP defense is conducted via a teleconferencing and open the student, the DSP Committee,
the Site Facilitator, the Doctoral Studies Director, the Dean, and friends or colleagues who are
invited by the student.
Who Must Attend the Oral Defense?
All members of the DSP Committee must be present for the defense unless exceptions are
approved by the Doctoral Studies Director or by his/her designee. Absent members of the DSP
Committee must still participate in the defense through, for example, the submission of written
comments and questions. Under no circumstances can more than one member of the DSP
Committee be absent from the defense.
Who Can Actively Participate in the Oral Defense?
If there are others in addition to the student and the DSP Committee at the defense, it is the
responsibility of the DSP Chair to ensure that time is provided for their comments; however, the
Version 3.4 – July 2020 27
initial portion of the defense is restricted only to participation by the student and members of the
DSP Committee.
Process for Defense Approval
Following the student’s oral presentation of the DSP Proposal or Final DSP, the student will be
asked to exit the room so the committee can deliberate on the outcome. The outcome of the oral
defense is decided by an open vote of the DSP Committee. The committee shall make
recommendations as provided in Sec. 4.2.2 (Proposal) or Sec. 4.3.2 (Final DSP). At the oral
defense, only the members of the committee have the authority to decide whether the candidate
passes or fails. Both the DSP itself and the student’s performance in the oral presentation are
grounds for the committee’s majority-rule decision to pass or fail. Students may pass the oral
defense but still be required to revise their Proposal or Final DSP. After the proposal defense,
students will be notified of the outcome by the DSP Chair.
5 WRITING THE DSP PROPOSAL AND REPORT
5.1 WRITING SUGGESTIONS
As you write, keep in mind that your work will be judged not only by the quality and rigor of
your project but also according to your writing style. Regardless of the merit of the project and
conclusions, readers tend to have a favorable impression of a professional, well-written report
and an unfavorable impression of a sloppy or casually written report.
Here are a few ideas to keep in mind throughout the writing process:
• Use Microsoft Word tools to organize and format the DSP Proposal and FinalDSP.
• Save the documents in at least two places (e.g., thumb/flash drive, hard drive, or paper
copy). This will prevent data loss in the event of technical difficulties. Consider saving
the documents in the Cloud, an internet-accessible site, as well.
• Stay organized; have all materials and references in an easily accessible location. Keep
track of your work through a user-friendly filing system, such as separating reference
materials by subtopic or the chapter in which they are used.
• Choose a logical file naming and folder system. Create a system that allows you to keep
old versions of files but minimizes version control problems.
• Adhere to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
• Prepare an outline; it is easier to construct sentences and paragraphs when following a
detailed outline.
• Aim for a concise and continuous flow of ideas. Use headings to organize and clarify the
structure of the document.
• Update the References list as you write instead of completing the entire list at one time.
• Read everything you write and revise more than once before sending it to anyone to
review. Your reviewers should be making constructive comments, not commenting on
careless mistakes.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 28
• Expect to write several drafts. Most students revise the DSP Proposal and Final DSP
several times before it is approved by the DSP Chair and ready to submit to the
Committee members for review.
• Ask a qualified outside person to read the document and make editing suggestions
regarding grammar, spelling, and syntax. It is acceptable to use a professional editing
service for this purpose, but you are responsible for all related fees.
• Give the DSP Chair a draft of each chapter as it is completed. This helps the Chair review
the work efficiently and allows you to receive faster feedback.
• You should have the final draft of the DSP reviewed and edited at a professional level.
Students are responsible for all related fees, when applicable.
5.2 DSP REPORT FORMATTING GUIDELINES
The DSP Report is a scholarly document, creating a permanent record of original research. The
number of chapters or sections in the Final DSP and their content will follow the standard five-
chapter DSP format. The student and the DSP Chair and Committee should collaborate on the
best format for the main body of the Final DSP.
Both the content and the style of the document reflect on the student, the DSP Committee, and
Trident at AIU. In order for your document to have some uniformity with other doctoral-level
documents from the University, please follow the formatting specifications presented here.
Trident at AIU uses the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.)
as the basic style guide for all papers, as well as reports and dissertations, and it should be used
as a guide for all style and formatting issues not addressed in the following table. While the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association provides a style guide for
submitting manuscripts, Trident at AIU has its own modified style guide for publication, as
described below.
Recommendation: Begin using the required specifications on drafts of your DSP as early as
possible in order to become familiar with proper formatting and style.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 29
5.2.1 GENERAL FORMATTING GUIDELINES
ELEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
Font – main
text
Times New Roman, 12-point
Font –
footnotes
Times New Roman, 10-point
Margins (all
pages,
including those
with tables and
figures)
• Left: 1 ¼ inches (to allow for binding)
• Top, right, bottom: 1 inch
Justification
• Left: justified
• Right: ragged (not justified)
• No hyphenation at the right margin
Spacing (lines)
Double-space all pages, including the Abstract, except for the following
(which should be single-spaced):
• Headings, subheadings, and table or figure captions exceeding one line in length;
• Table of contents entries exceeding one line in length (double-space between entries);
• Footnotes (although individual footnotes are single-spaced, double- space between each separate footnote if more than one appears on a
page);
• Long, block-indented quotes or narratives;
• List entries (double-space between numbers);
• Individual entries of more than one line in the References section (although individual reference entries are single-spaced, double-
space between each separate reference);
• Table titles, table column and row headings, table text (double-space between rows), and table notes; and
• Lengthy material in tables and appendices.
Spacing
(sentences)
Single-space after all punctuation except internal periods in abbreviations
(e.g., i.e., U.S.). However, insert two spaces between sentences. See section
4.01 in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association
(6th ed.) for more detail.
Paragraphs
• Each paragraph should be indented one-half inch.
• Leave no extra spaces between paragraphs.
Footnotes • List consecutively at the bottom of the page where they first appear; or
Version 3.4 – July 2020 30
• Place footnotes in consecutive order on a separate page titled, End Notes, following the References section.
Pagination
All pages (except the title/cover pages) bear a page number. The preliminary
pages are arranged and numbered as follows:
• If any of the preliminary pages exceed one page, advance the page numbers consecutively;
• Preliminary page numbers are shown in Roman numerals at the bottom center of each page;
• Chapter 1 begins on page 1; and
• Number pages sequentially from Chapter 1 through the end of the manuscript, in Arabic numerals centered in the footer at the bottom
center of each page, in Times New Roman, 12-point font.
Headers and
Footers
• No text or page numbers in the header.
• Page number at the center of the footer.
5.2.2 ARRANGEMENT
In its final form, the DSP should be arranged in the following order: preliminary pages (title
page, abstract, copyright page, acknowledgements/dedication, table of contents, list of tables and
figures, list of appendices), text (introduction, main body of text, summary or conclusion), and
references and supplemental sections (footnotes and appendices). Required appendices include,
at a minimum, any LOIs or site authorizations, informed consent forms, and protocols or other
instruments utilized in the study. The DSP should follow the standard five-chapter format (see
DSP template in Sec. 13).
Title Page
Each copy of the DSP Report must include a title page prepared in accordance with the example
shown in the DSP Template. The title page does not bear a page number (although it is
understood to be page i). Include the student's full legal name as it appears in Trident at AIU
records. The title age will also include the names of the Dean, Director, DSP Chair, and DSP
Committee members, along with their credentials (e.g. John Smith, Ph.D.).
Version 3.4 – July 2020 31
6 RUBRICS APPLIED IN THE DBA PROGRAM
6.1 DOC690 - DSP PROSPECTUS RUBRIC
To be used to assess DSP Prospectus draft and presentation by evaluating committee. Evaluation
is to determine minimum understanding of concepts to move into proposal phase of DSP.
Student Name: (insert name) Date: (Month DD, YYYY)
Evaluators: (insert names)
Doctoral Studies Director: (insert name, if present)
Assessment
Condensed Version of Components Required Satisfactory Needs
Improvements Chapter I: Introduction to the Study
1 Background of Topic and Organization (context)
2 Statement of the Problem
3 Purpose of the Study
4 Conceptual Framework
5 Research Questions (alignment to problem)
6 Significance of the Study Chapter II: Literature Review
7 Industry and Organizational Analysis
8 Organizational Benchmarking
9 Scholarly/Practitioner Literature Review
(must include two theories/models)
10 Method and Design Literature Review Chapter III: Methodology
11 Rationale for Methodology (Qual/Mixed Method)
12 Rationale for Design (Case Study, etc.)
13 Population Traits, Sample Size, and Process
14 Data Collection Instruments and Process
15 Data Analysis Approach
16 Alignment of Problem Statement, Method, Design
17 Feasibility of the Proposed Study
18 Overall Level of Doctoral Writing Totals 0 0
Evaluating committee will vote on whether student has been successful in the Prospectus
Presentation. A “Pass” means the committee believes student can move to Chair supervision.
Faculty Comments and Recommendations:
1. Insert list of comments/recommendations from faculty here.
2. Etc.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 32
In addition to the recommendations above, all students should conduct a final review of spelling,
grammar, and APA format throughout the document. Upon completion of all edits, students
should conduct a final update of the Table of Contents using the MS Word capabilities.
Overall Recommendation:
[ ] Pass. Ready to begin formal DSP work under DSP Chair supervision.
[ ] No Pass. Student is not ready to begin formal DSP work. Student needs to retake DOC690.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 33
6.2 DOC700 - DSP PROPOSAL CHECKLIST
To be completed by Student and DSP Chair first; when approved by DSP Chair, provide to each
Committee member. Provide an “X” when each criterion is approved.
Item Deliverable Task Completed
Student Chair
Committee
Members
1 Preface Title page and Table of Contents updated. /
3 Chapter 1 Overview of topic provided. /
4 Problem and Purpose Statements are aligned. /
5 Conceptual framework is properly outlined. /
6 Research Questions are open ended; align to the Problem. /
7 Overview of Method and Design provided. /
8 Significance of study is appropriate. /
9 At least 5-10 key words are defined (and cited). /
10 Chapter 2 Introduction to chapter is provided. /
11 Analysis of industry and organization provided. /
12 Internal and/or external benchmarks are explained. /
13 Scholarly/Practitioner literature shows proper knowledge base. /
14 Minimum of two theories/models serve as foundation. /
Method and Design literature examines prior empirical work. /
15 Total page length is at least 30 pages. /
16 Chapter 3 Methodology (Qual/Mixed Methods) rationale is explained. /
17 Design (case study, etc.) rationale is explained well. /
18 General population, target population traits, sample size, and
sampling process are appropriate for study design.
/
/
19 A minimum of three sources of data and 15 total participants. /
20 Validity/reliability process (expert review, pilot study,
member checking, etc.) is explained.
/
/
21 Step-by-step data collection process explained for each source
of data in the sequence of collection.
/
/
22 Data analysis process cited from the literature; explained in
step-by-step process (per instrument or combined analysis).
/
/
23 Triangulation of data sources is explained. /
24 Ethical concerns addressed – Authorizations, participant
protection, data storage, and data protection explained.
/
/
25 References References are academic/practitioner-related and APA format;
all references have corresponding in-text citation.
/
/
26 Appendix LOIs, instruments/protocols, recruitment material,
Trident Informed Consent forms (and cited in the text).
/
/
27 IRB training completed and certificate received. /
28 ALL DSP is in appropriate template; All template guidance (blue
text) has been removed.
/
/
29 Final spelling/grammar/APA formatting review conducted. /
Version 3.4 – July 2020 34
6.3 DOC700 - DSP PROPOSAL DEFENSE RUBRIC
To be used to assess DSP Proposal draft and defense by DSP committee. Evaluation is to
determine feasibility of proposed study and readiness to submit to IRB.
Student Name: (insert name) Date: (Month DD, YYYY)
DSP Chair: (insert name) Verification: (Yes)
DSP Committee Members: (insert names)
Doctoral Studies Director: (insert name, if present)
Assessment
Excellent Proficient Developing Emerging
Complete Version of these Components 4 3 2 1
Chapter I: Introduction to the Study
1 Background of Topic and Organization
(context)
2 Statement of the Problem
3 Purpose of the Study
4 Conceptual Framework
5 Research Questions (alignment to problem)
6 Significance of the Study Chapter II: Literature Review
7 Industry and Organizational Analysis
8 Organizational Benchmarking
9 Scholarly/Practitioner Literature Review
10 Method and Design Literature Review
Chapter III: Methodology
11 Rationale for Methodology (Qual/Mixed
Method)
12 Rationale for Design (Case Study, etc.)
13 Population Traits, Sample Size, and Process
14 Data Collection Instruments and Process
15 Data Analysis Approach
16 Alignment of Problem Statement, Method,
Design
17 Feasibility of the Proposed Study
18 Overall Level of Doctoral Writing
Total points 0 0 0 0
DSP committee will vote on whether student has been successful in the Proposal Defense. A
“Pass” means committee believes student can submit to IRB by the end of DOC700.
Summary of committee suggestions to the student’s post-defense revision:
1. Insert list of comments/recommendations from committee here.
2. Etc.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 35
In addition to the recommendations above, all students should conduct a final review of spelling,
grammar, and APA format throughout the document. Upon completion of all edits, students
should conduct a final update of the Table of Contents using the MS Word capabilities.
Overall Recommendation:
[ ] 1. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair only.
[ ] 2. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair and Committee members.
[ ] 3. No Pass. The student needs to retake DOC700.
Procedure after the proposal if approved by the committee:
Any recommended revisions will be addressed using the Feedback Tracking Form. This Form
and the revised Proposal will be submitted to the DSP Chair. If required, the DSP Chair will
provide revisions to the committee for approval. Then, the DSP Chair will submit these
documents to the Doctoral Studies Director with a recommendation of approval of student’s
advancement to candidacy. Additional revisions may be requested by the Director if any
problems/issues have been found. Once those revisions are addressed through the Feedback
Tracking Form, an email with final Proposal approval will be sent to the student with a copy to
the DSP Committee, Dean, and IRB. IRB will notify the student of the required instructions on
how to apply for IRB approval. No data collection can be conducted prior to IRB approval.
All required revisions must be completed and approved prior to the final day of DOC700 or the
student will repeat DOC700.
Proposal review by the Doctoral Studies Director will be completed within one week from the
Chair recommendation.
The final approved proposal must be uploaded into the “1002 DSP Proposal defended” dropbox
in the 800 course of the student.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 36
6.4 DOC702 - DSP FINAL CHECKLIST
To be completed by Student and DSP Chair first; when approved by DSP Chair, provide to each
Committee member. Provide an “X” when each criterion is approved.
Item Deliverable Task Completed
Student Chair
Committee
Members
1 Preface All preface material (abstract, acknowledgement,
dedication, TOC, etc.) updated.
/
/
2 List of Tables and Figures completed (if applicable) /
3 Chapters
1-3
All conditional proposal approval edits completed;
DSP Completion Plan followed.
/
/
4 Proposal chapters updated to past tense following
research study completion.
/
/
5 Chapter 4 Data collection process successfully completed
according to approved proposal (Chapter 3).
/
/
6 Data analysis process successfully completed
according to approved proposal (Chapter 3).
/
/
7 Results are explained; includes necessary descriptive
data; applicable Figures/Tables recommended.
/
/
8 Findings are adequately explained, related to
conceptual framework and theoretical foundation.
/
/
9 Triangulation of data sources is explained. /
10 Research questions are directly answered by the
findings/themes extracted from the data.
/
/
11 Chapter 5 Implications of study explained. /
12 Recommendations for practice and future research
explained.
/
/
13 Executive
Summary
Report
Practitioner report provided following Chapter 5 to
summarize the study related to the organization(s)
involved in the study. Focus on organizational
impact. Use practitioner language.
/
/
/
/
14 Appendix Any updates to instruments are provided following
expert review/pilot study. Additional appendices may
include site authorizations, informed consent, or
other necessary documents (and cited in text).
/
/
/
/
15 ALL DSP is in appropriate template; All template
guidance (blue font) has been removed.
/
/
16 Final spelling/grammar/APA formatting review
conducted; no errors remaining.
/
/
Version 3.4 – July 2020 37
6.5 DOC702 - DSP FINAL DEFENSE RUBRIC
To be used to assess Final DSP and defense by DSP committee. Evaluation is to determine
completion of all DSP requirements and readiness to submit to Director/Dean.
Student Name: (insert name) Date: (Month DD, YYYY)
DSP Chair: (insert name) Verification: (Yes)
DSP Committee Members: (insert names)
Doctoral Studies Director: (insert name, if present)
Assessment
Excellent Proficient Developing Emerging
Complete Version DSP (Five Chapters) 4 3 2 1
1 Title Page, Abstract, TOC Updated
2 Chapter I: Introduction to the DSP
3 Chapter II: Literature Review
4 Chapter III: Methodology
5 Chapter IV: Data Collection and Data Analysis
6 Chapter V: Application to Practice and
Discussion
7 Executive Summary Report
8 Organized Presentation of Results and Findings
9 Follows DSP Template and APA Style
10 Overall Level of Doctoral Writing
Total points 0 0 0 0
DSP committee will vote on whether student has been successful in the Final DSP Defense. A
“Pass” means committee believes student can submit to Director/Dean by the end of DOC702.
Summary of committee suggestions to the student’s post-defense revision:
1. Insert list of comments/recommendations from committee here.
2. Etc.
In addition to the recommendations above, all students should conduct a final review of spelling,
grammar, and APA format throughout the document. Upon completion of all edits, students
should conduct a final update of the Table of Contents using the MS Word capabilities.
Overall Recommendation:
[ ] 1. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair only.
[ ] 2. Pass with revisions that need to be approved by the DSP Chair and Committee members.
[ ] 3. No Pass. The student needs to retake DOC702.
Procedure after the DSP if approved by the committee:
Any recommended revisions will be addressed using the Feedback Tracking Form. This Form
and the revised DSP will be submitted to the DSP Chair. If required, the DSP Chair will provide
Version 3.4 – July 2020 38
revisions to the committee for approval. Then, the DSP Chair will submit these documents to the
Doctoral Studies Director with a recommendation of approval of student’s advancement to
graduate. Additional revisions may be requested by the Director and/or Dean if any
problems/issues have been found. Once those revisions are addressed through the Feedback
Tracking Form, an email with final DSP approval will be sent to the student with a copy to the
DSP Committee, Provost, and Registrar. By way of this email, the Registrar will be notified and
start the degree audit (check) to make sure that all of the academic and other requirements have
been met for this degree. If satisfied, the Registrar will confer the degree.
All required revisions must be completed and approved prior to the final day of DOC702 or the
student will repeat DOC702.
Final DSP review by the Doctoral Studies Director or Dean will be completed within one week
from the Chair recommendation. Students do not need to re-enroll in DOC702 after submission
to the Director/Dean for review. The final approved Final DSP must be uploaded into the “1005
Final DSP defended” dropbox in the 800 course of the student. Defense must be scheduled no
later than June 14th to participate in our graduation ceremony.
Following the final approval of the DSP, students are required to submit their approved DSP to
ProQuest for publication. There are two options for publication:
• Students must submit immediately upon final DSP approval by the Director/Dean, or
• Students must agree to submit within a future timeline, based on a request from the site
organization.
Exceptions for publication may be requested by the student to the Doctoral Studies Director if
provided as a condition by the site organization. The condition must be part of the Letter of
Intent and be physically signed by the Site Representative. This condition must be approved by
the Doctoral Studies Director prior to the DSP Proposal approval.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 39
6.6 DSP FEEDBACK TRACKING FORM
DSP Chair Confirmation
By providing an electronic signature (typed name) below, I attest that the student’s submission
meets all milestone document requirements provided in the Proposal/DSP Checklist and that all
reviewer feedback have been satisfactorily addressed.
DSP Chair: _______________________ Date: __________
Please upload this document together with the revised document into DOC700 or DOC702, as
appropriate. Final revisions should be uploaded to the 800 dropbox, when approved.
DSP Title:
Student Name:
Date Completed:
Feedback Tracking For (Select One): Proposal Final DSP
State Each Reviewer
Recommendation
(per Completed Defense Rubric)
Briefly Describe How
Recommendation was Addressed
(or Why it was not Addressed)
Provide Page
Number(s)
Where Addressed
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Add additional rows, if necessary
Version 3.4 – July 2020 40
6.6.1 FEEDBACK TRACKING FORM INSTRUCTIONS
The Feedback Tracking Form should be completed at the end of the following milestones:
• DSP Proposal Defense in DOC700
• DSP Final Defense in DOC702
A detailed tracking form simplifies the review process and indicates to the reviewer (i.e. chair,
committee members, director or dean) who provided feedback that the author has demonstrated a
clear and thorough response to comments.
Reviewer comments are not intended as an exhaustive list. It is the student’s responsibility to
correct any additional errors that are not specifically noted by the reviewers and to address the
requirements of the DBA Handbook throughout the manuscript.
If, after discussion with the DSP Chair, the author chooses not to make a requested change, the
author must provide a brief rationale, and describe how they addressed concerns.
At the bottom of this form, the DSP Chair must signify that the student has carefully reviewed
the manuscript and can confirm that all requirements have been met prior to resubmission.
Submissions will not be accepted without a completed and signed feedback tracking form.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 41
7 ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Trident regards academic integrity as vital to the success of its students and to the reputation of
the University as an institution of higher learning. Students attain their educational goals and
enjoy an enriched academic experience only when there is effective learning. Effective learning
occurs when students conduct their own research and are the sole authors of their work. The
assessment of that learning is undermined when originality of students’ work is questionable.
Trident utilizes TurnItIn to examine the originality of student work. While there is no cutoff
score, the general rule is that the Similarity Score provided by TurnItIn should remain less than
15%. A higher percentage may be seen as a red flag that the student relied too heavily on
information from other sources and may encourage additional review. This may not be true of
assignments that require multiple drafted submissions, such as chapters of the DSP, which will
show higher percentages based on prior work.
As a student in this program, you hereby acknowledge the academic integrity policy and agree to
adhere to the requirements of originality for all submitted assignments.
8 DOCTORAL TITLES AND ETIQUETTE
Throughout the D.B.A. program, students are authorized the use of varying doctoral titles based
on their progress in the Doctoral Study Project. These titles include doctoral student,
doctoral/D.B.A. candidate, D.B.A. (ABD), and Doctor/D.B.A. The appropriate use of
doctoral titles and etiquette is important when addressing both the academic and practitioner
community. It also ensures that students do not inadvertently misrepresent their credentials.
Doctoral Student – Authorized title for students who have been admitted to, and currently
enrolled in, the D.B.A. Program. Students can refer to themselves as doctoral students, but they
are not authorized post-nominals when providing their name in writing.
Doctoral Candidate, D.B.A. Candidate – Authorized titles for students who have
successfully completed all D.B.A. coursework leading to, and including, the passing of the
Doctoral Study Project Prospectus Presentation (all required courses from DOC600 through
DOC690). Students can refer to themselves as any of the provided titles, and they are authorized
the post-nominals of D.B.A.(c). Examples: John Smith, D.B.A. (c).
Doctoral Candidate, D.B.A. (ABD) – Authorized titles for students who have successfully
completed all D.B.A. coursework leading to, and including, the Director approval of the Doctoral
Study Project Proposal (all required courses from DOC600 through DOC700). Students can
refer to themselves as any of the provided titles, and they are authorized the post-nominals of
D.B.A. (ABD). Example: John Smith, D.B.A. (ABD)
Students lose the authorized title of Doctoral/D.B.A. candidate if they disenroll in the
D.B.A. program, unless provided an approved Leave of Absence.
Doctor, D.B.A. – Authorized titles for students who have successfully completed all D.B.A.
coursework leading to, and including, the Director/Dean approval of the Final Doctoral Study
Project (all required courses from DOC600 through DOC702). Students can refer to themselves
as any of the provided titles, and they are authorized the title of Doctor [name] or Dr.
[name] and the post-nominals of D.B.A. when providing their name in writing.
Examples: Doctor John Smith, Dr. Smith, or John Smith, D.B.A.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 42
Students may be recognized informally as Dr. [name] by the DSP Chair and Committee
following the successful completion of the Final Doctoral Study Project Defense, including any
approval with modifications. Formal designation occurs following the approval by the
Director/Dean and official recording of all program requirements by the University Registrar.
Students who complete the Final Doctoral Study Project Defense but do not complete all
required modifications, or they fall below the satisfactory G.P.A. required for degree conferral,
are not authorized the provided titles.
9 DBA LETTER OF INTENT
The Letter of Intent (LOI) is designed to communicate with your selected research site /
organization, the intention of your intended research of the site / organization and the topic that
you will be investigating. The LOI will allow for identification and establishment of the
professional relationship between you as the researcher and the various principle stakeholders
involved.
The following elements required within the LOI template should include the following items:
- Title of proposed research - Organization identified - Principal stakeholder acknowledging the intended research and site selection - Principal stakeholder offering permission to conduct said research on site / organization - Any additional information or stipulations to the proposed research and site selection
NOTE: The Letter of Intent (LOI) does not substitute or replace the standard Site Permission
Letter required within the IRB Application process.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 43
9.1 LETTER OF INTENT TO ALLOW RESEARCH - TEMPLATE
Date
Name of Student/Principal Researcher
Address
RE: Intent to Allow Research - (Title of Research)
Dear Student/Principal Researcher:
In response to your request to conduct applied research at (Organization Name), as
(Position/Title), I hereby confirm the intention to allow your research on (area of research/topic)
to be conducted subject to final approval of your proposal and formal approval from the
institutional IRB, if applicable.
The following list of conditions must be adhered to in order to conduct research at our
organization: (delete if no conditional approval requirements)
1.____________________________________________________
2.____________________________________________________
3.____________________________________________________
Once your proposal is finalized and approved, you will be provided a formal approval to conduct
your research at (Organization Name). This research may involve interviews and/or surveys
with our personnel, observation of activities, secondary analysis of available data, and/or other
data collection methods. All data collection will be reviewed and approved by us prior to
implementation. The formal approval to conduct research will set forth any restrictions or
limitations to your access or activities.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. (Name) will serve as a point of contact
and can be reached at (000) 000-0000 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Physical Signature Required (delete this text)
Name of Authorizing Administrator
Position in the Organization
Version 3.4 – July 2020 44
10 REFERENCES
AACSB International. (2013). The promise of business doctoral education: Setting the pace for
innovation, sustainability, relevance and quality. Report of the AACSB International
Doctoral Education Task Force. Available at http://www.aacsb.edu
Brown, R. B. (2006). Doing your dissertation in business and management: The reality of
researching and writing (SAGE Study Skills Series). United Kingdom: Oxford Brookes
University.
Davis, G. B., Parker, C. & Straub, D. W. (2012). Writing the doctoral dissertation: A systematic
approach (3rd ed.) (Barrons Education Series). New York, NY: Woodbury.
Hancock, D. R. & Algozzine, B. (2017). Doing case study research: A practical guide for
beginning researchers (3rd ed.). Columbia University, NY: Teachers College Press.
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2011). The SAGE handbook of Action Research: Participative
inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
11 DISCLAIMER
The DBA / DSP Handbook has been designed as a guide and overview of process and
procedures in order to assist you in navigating through the DBA program and the development
of a DSP as a DBA Doctoral Student. This handbook is not mutually exclusive or restricted to
the policies and procedures displayed within the body of this handbook and the Trident at AIU
Policy Catalog available at https://www.trident.edu/catalog/. Requests for approved
modifications and adjustments should be submitted to the Doctoral Program Director, Professor
of Doctoral Studies, or other authorized members of Trident at AIU. Changes or adjustments
regarding the procedures outlined within this handbook will be properly communicated to all
doctoral students and accommodations or adjustments will be considered when changes are
necessitated.
Version 3.4 – July 2020 45
12 DSP FLOW CHART
Version 3.4 – July 2020 46
13 UPDATED DSP-RELATED TEMPLATES
The following templates should be used in conjunction with the DBA Handbook. Use the
following link to download required DSP-related templates:
http://dbatrident.pbworks.com/w/page/134701296/DBA%20Forms%20and%20Templates
Doctoral Study Project Template – Updated July 2020
Doctoral Study Project Presentations Template – Updated July 2020
Informed Consent Template – Institutional Review Board – Updated June 2020
Example Protocols/Instruments
- Interview and Focus Group Protocol Example - Questionnaire Example - Observation Protocol Example
