| Course | GB730 Applied Business Research Design and Methodology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Qualitative rigor plan |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB730 Unit 8
When the Interviewer Built the System: A Unit 8 Qualitative Rigor Plan for a Revenue Management Override Study
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB730: Applied Business Research Design and Methodology
Unit 8 Qualitative Rigor Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hotel company, its managers and the study are composite and illustrative; the methods sources cited are real.
The Threat This Plan Is Built Around
Two features of the study shape every procedure below. The candidate helped configure the revenue management system in 2022, including some of the rules that set recommended rates. And the candidate works alongside many of the managers to be interviewed. A manager asked by a colleague why she overrides a system that colleague built may soften her criticism of it, or may overstate her confidence in her own judgment to avoid seeming dependent on it. Either response would distort the accounts that the third research question uses to explain the quantitative results. A rigor plan that treated the candidate as a neutral interviewer would miss the main risk.
Credibility
Credibility asks whether the findings represent what participants actually think and do. Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed several techniques, and four are used here.
Triangulation against each manager's own records. Because every interviewee's overrides appear in the extracted data, the candidate can compare what a manager says about her overriding with what the records show. If a manager says she rarely overrides on weekdays but her records show frequent weekday overrides, that discrepancy is itself a finding to explore, not an error to correct. This comparison is unusually strong here because the behavior being described is recorded in detail.
Peer debriefing. A doctoral colleague who has no connection to the hotel industry will review coded transcripts and the emerging themes at three points: after the first four interviews, after ten and after all are complete. Her role is to ask questions the candidate, as an insider, might not think to ask, and to challenge interpretations that seem to favor the system or the managers.
Negative case analysis. For each theme, the candidate will search for interviews that contradict it and either revise the theme or explain the exception in writing.
Member checks. Each participant will receive a two-page summary of the themes from their own interview, not a full transcript, and will be asked whether it fairly represents what they said. Birt et al. (2016) note that participants given full transcripts often focus on how they spoke rather than on meaning, and that summaries invite more useful responses. Managers will be told they may correct, add to or decline to comment on the summary.
Transferability
Transferability asks whether readers can judge if the findings apply to their own settings. The plan does not claim the findings will transfer; it provides enough description for others to decide. That description includes the revenue management system's general approach, though not its vendor, the bonus plan's structure, the mix of hotel types, the markets served and the period studied. A reader at a company with a different bonus plan, for example one that rewards managers for occupancy rather than revenue, could see that difference and weigh it.
Dependability and Confirmability
Dependability concerns whether another researcher could follow how the study was carried out from start to finish. Confirmability asks whether the findings follow from the data rather than from the researcher's preferences. Both are served by an audit trail with four parts: the dated versions of the codebook, with each change explained; analytic memos written after each interview and coding session; a decision log recording every choice about the analysis, such as merging two themes; and the raw interview recordings, held securely. Nowell et al. (2017) describe how an audit trail of this kind lets another researcher follow the path from data to themes. The trail will be reviewed by the dissertation chair before the findings chapter is drafted.
An audit trail does not make the candidate neutral; it makes the candidate's choices visible enough for someone else to question them.
The Reflexive Journal
A reflexive journal runs across all four criteria. Before the first interview, the candidate will write a statement of what they expect to find and why, including their own view that some overrides are justified and others reflect habit. After each interview, the journal records the candidate's reactions, any moment when the manager seemed to be performing for them, and any point where the candidate felt defensive about the system. Reviewing the journal during analysis is a way of checking whether the themes are tracking the managers' accounts or the candidate's prior views.
The Timeline
The procedures happen at set points. The reflexive statement is written before the first interview. Analytic memos and journal entries are written within 24 hours of each interview. Peer debriefing occurs after the fourth, tenth and final interviews. Member check summaries go to participants within two weeks of their interviews, so that the conversation is still fresh. Negative case analysis happens during the final round of coding. The audit trail is reviewed once coding is complete, before any findings are written.
What the Plan Cannot Do
These procedures reduce the effect of the candidate's position but cannot remove it. Some managers may never say to a colleague what they would say to a stranger, and no amount of triangulation will reveal what they withhold. The study will report the candidate's position and these procedures in its methodology chapter, so that readers can weigh the findings with that position in view.
References
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
GB730 Unit 8 instructions, in plain terms
The eighth GB730 assignment asks you to plan how your qualitative strand will meet accepted standards of trustworthiness. Start with the specific threat your study faces, such as your position in the organization, rather than with general definitions. Choose a framework, most often Lincoln and Guba's four criteria, and for each criterion describe the techniques you will use, when they will happen and what record they will leave. Explain why you chose each technique over alternatives, for example summaries rather than transcripts for member checks. Describe a reflexive practice that runs across the whole study. Put the procedures on a timeline tied to your interviews and coding. Close by stating what your plan cannot do. Six pages and a matrix or equivalent organization are common, with the framework and supporting sources cited.
Inside the GB730 Unit 8 example
The plan opens with the candidate's role in configuring the pricing system and working beside the managers. Credibility gets four procedures: triangulation against records, which this study can do unusually well, peer debriefing at three points, negative case analysis and member checks by summary, justified with Birt and colleagues. Transferability rests on describing the bonus plan, hotel mix and markets without claiming the findings will transfer. Dependability and confirmability share a four-part audit trail, with Nowell and colleagues cited and the dissertation chair reviewing it; the highlighted sentence makes clear the trail exposes choices rather than removing bias. A reflexive journal begins with written expectations. A timeline places every procedure, and a final section admits that some managers may withhold what no technique can recover.
Reading the GB730 Unit 8 grading rubric
The rigor plan in GB730 receives most of its marks for fit between the procedures and the study's real threats. A plan that opens with the student's own risk and then answers it scores better than one that defines four criteria in the abstract. Each criterion should have at least one procedure, a timing and a record, and the rubric checks all three. Reasons for choosing a technique, supported by a source, carry weight. Triangulation that uses data the study already holds is valued over triangulation in name only. A reflexive practice with a starting point, such as a written expectation statement, shows the student understands researcher influence. A timeline proves the plan can be carried out. Honest limits are expected, and Lincoln and Guba should be cited from the original work.
GB730 Unit 8 help from the desk
GB730 rigor plans often list techniques under each criterion without saying when they happen or what they produce, so the plan cannot be audited. Many ignore the student's insider position, which is the threat a committee will raise first. Member checks are frequently planned with full transcripts, which tend to produce corrections of wording rather than meaning. Transferability is sometimes claimed rather than supported with description. Reflexive journals are mentioned without a starting entry to compare against. Start from your own threat, give each criterion a procedure, a time and a record, explain your choices, begin the journal before the first interview and say what remains uncovered. If you describe your role and setting, we can help you build the rigor matrix around them.
Get a GB730 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Share your qualitative design, your role in the setting and the Unit 8 rigor plan brief along with how it is graded. A custom plan maps each trustworthiness criterion to a procedure, a timing and a record, and it treats your own position directly. It lands in 24-48h, and the first plan is not charged for. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB730 papers and MBA samples
- GB730 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB730 Unit 2: Problem and Purpose Memo
- GB730 Unit 3: Question Alignment Exercise
- GB730 Unit 4: Design Justification
- GB730 Unit 5: Site Access Plan
- GB730 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB730 Unit 7: Instrument Development Memo
- GB730 Unit 9: Data Analysis Plan
- GB730 Unit 10: Methodology Chapter Draft
- GB720 Unit 8: Regulatory Impact Assessment
- GB710 Unit 8: Integrative Literature Review
- GB701 Unit 8: Regression Model Report
- GB700 Unit 8: Research Integrity Analysis
GB730 Unit 8 questions, answered
Must a GB730 rigor plan use Lincoln and Guba?
Their 1985 criteria are the most common framework, and many instructors expect them. Alternatives exist, including the later authenticity criteria from Guba and Lincoln and approaches tied to specific methods. Whatever framework is chosen, cite it accurately and show how each criterion becomes a procedure with a record. Check whether your section names a required framework.
How many interviews establish saturation?
No fixed number does. Guest, Bunce and Johnson found most themes emerged within about twelve interviews in a fairly homogeneous sample, and that finding is widely cited. Saturation should be argued from the study's sample and aims, and ideally monitored during analysis with a stated stopping rule, rather than claimed from a number alone.
Is a second coder required?
Not always, and some qualitative traditions question whether agreement between coders is the right standard at all. Many applied doctoral sections still expect some form of check, such as a colleague coding a subset. The plan should explain what the check is for and how disagreements are handled, whether through discussion, codebook revision or both.
Where can I find a free GB730 Unit 8 sample paper?
A complete GB730 Unit 8 qualitative rigor plan is on this page, applying Lincoln and Guba's four criteria to a hotel override study in which the interviewer helped build the pricing system.
Why send participants a summary instead of a transcript?
Participants reading full transcripts often focus on how they spoke. A short summary of themes invites them to say whether the meaning is right, which is what a member check is meant to test.