| Course | GB815 Applied Research Topics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Evidence mapping exercise |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB815 Unit 3
Where the Evidence Is Thick and Where It Is Missing: A Unit 3 Evidence Map of Franchise and Independent Startup Outcomes
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB815: Applied Research Topics
Unit 3 Evidence Mapping Exercise
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The search counts, the charted studies' tallies and the grid shading are composite and illustrative of the method; the frameworks and named studies cited are real.
Why a Map, Not a Review
A systematic review answers a narrow question by appraising and combining studies. A scoping review, which produces an evidence map, asks a broader question: what has been studied, how and where are the gaps? Arksey and O'Malley (2005) divided such a review into five stages, running from framing the question and searching, through choosing studies and extracting their features, to summarizing what was found. Levac et al. (2010) recommended clarifying the question and the purpose of the review at the outset, using an iterative team approach to selection and charting, and stating plainly that scoping reviews map evidence without appraising its quality. This exercise follows those recommendations, and the absence of quality appraisal is deliberate; Unit 4 appraises a subset.
The Question
What published evidence compares outcomes for franchise units, independent startups and new franchisors, which outcomes have been studied, with what designs, and where?
Search and Screening
Four databases were searched, along with two sources of gray literature: working paper series and government reports. The search strings combined terms for franchising with terms for survival, failure, closure, default, performance and growth, and with terms for small or new business. The full strings are listed in the appendix. The search returned 892 records. After removing 214 duplicates, 678 titles and abstracts were screened, and 96 full texts were read. Forty-one met the inclusion criteria: an empirical comparison or analysis of outcomes for franchise units, franchisees, franchisors or matched independent firms, published in English since 1980.
Charting
Each included study was charted for its population, the business type studied, the outcome, the design, the country and the period. The charting table, kept in a spreadsheet, allows the studies to be sorted along any of these dimensions.
The Grid
The central product is a grid with four business types down the side: franchise units, independent startups compared with franchise units, new franchisors and acquired existing franchises. Five outcomes run across the top: survival or closure, loan default, profitability, growth and owner income. Each cell shows the number of studies and a shade: settled where several studies with sound designs agree, contested where studies disagree, and empty where none exist.
Three cells stand out. Survival of franchise units compared with independent startups is contested. Bates (1995) found that franchise startups in Census data from the 1980s survived less often than independent startups, despite being larger and better capitalized, while figures circulated in franchise marketing claim far higher survival, usually without a disclosed method. Part of the gap may reflect definitions: counts drawn from franchise systems can treat a unit as surviving when it is transferred to a new owner, even if the original franchisee lost the business.
Survival of new franchisors is relatively settled. Shane (1996), following firms that began franchising in one year, found that many failed within a decade, and later studies broadly agree that young franchise systems are fragile.
Loan default for franchise units compared with independents is nearly empty. Glennon and Nigro (2005) modeled default timing for SBA-guaranteed small business loans, and DeYoung et al. (2008) studied how distance between borrower and lender affected default among such loans, but neither compared franchise with independent borrowers as its main question.
The cell a lender most needs, loan outcomes for franchise against independent startups, is the one the literature has left almost empty.
Commentary
The map suggests three things about where new research could contribute. First, the contested survival cell needs studies that use data not supplied by franchisors, so that transfers are not counted as survival. Second, the empty loan-default cell is reachable with public SBA loan records, which flag franchise borrowers. Third, the profitability and owner-income cells are thin, mostly because those outcomes require private data.
The map also shows a geographic concentration: most studies use United States data, and many use data from one state or one industry. Kalnins and Lafontaine (2013), for example, used Texas sales-tax records to show that business establishments farther from their owners' headquarters closed sooner, evidence about monitoring that bears on franchising but comes from one state.
How the Map Changes the Candidate's Directions
The map bears directly on the four directions from Unit 2. Direction A, loan outcomes from public records, targets the nearly empty default cell, which strengthens its case on the existing-evidence criterion. Direction B, unit closures from disclosure documents, would add to the contested survival cell, which is valuable but crowded with disagreement about definitions. Directions C and D concern lenders' and franchisees' experience, which the map shows is studied mainly through small surveys. The map therefore raises A's evidence rating and leaves the others where they were.
Limits
This map did not appraise study quality, so shading reflects agreement among studies, not their strength. Screening was done by one person, which increases the risk of inconsistent decisions; a second screener would check a sample of exclusions in a full review. And gray literature searches were limited to two sources, so industry reports may be underrepresented.
References
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Bates, T. (1995). A comparison of franchise and independent small business survival rates. Small Business Economics, 7(5), 377-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01302738
DeYoung, R., Glennon, D., & Nigro, P. (2008). Borrower-lender distance, credit scoring, and loan performance: Evidence from informational-opaque small business borrowers. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17(1), 113-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2007.07.002
Glennon, D., & Nigro, P. (2005). Measuring the default risk of small business loans: A survival analysis approach. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 37(5), 923-947. https://doi.org/10.1353/mcb.2005.0051
Kalnins, A., & Lafontaine, F. (2013). Too far away? The effect of distance to headquarters on business establishment performance. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 5(3), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.5.3.157
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Shane, S. A. (1996). Hybrid organizational arrangements and their implications for firm growth and survival: A study of new franchisors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 216-234. https://doi.org/10.2307/256637
Reading the GB 815 Unit 3 instructions
The third GB815 assignment asks you to map the published evidence on your topic. Explain why a scoping review suits your purpose rather than a systematic review, citing the methodological framework you follow. State the review question. Report your search and screening, with counts at each stage, and the inclusion criteria. Describe how you charted each study. Build a grid with categories on one axis and outcomes on the other, and mark each cell by the number of studies and whether the evidence is settled, contested or empty. Comment on the cells that matter most, naming key studies. Explain how the map changes the directions you are weighing. State the limits of the map, including the absence of quality appraisal. Nine pages plus a charting spreadsheet is a common scope for this exercise in the course.
Inside the GB815 Unit 3 example
The exercise opens by distinguishing a map from a review and summarizing Arksey and O'Malley's stages and Levac and colleagues' recommendations. The question follows, then the search: 892 records, 214 duplicates removed, 678 screened, 96 read in full and 41 included. Charting fields are listed. The grid sets four business types against five outcomes. Commentary covers the contested survival cell, where Bates's Census result meets undisclosed marketing figures and transfers may be counted as survival; the settled new franchisor cell after Shane; and the nearly empty default cell despite Glennon and Nigro and DeYoung and colleagues, with the highlighted sentence on what lenders lack. Kalnins and Lafontaine illustrate geographic concentration, and limits close the map.
GB815 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
GB815 instructors grade the evidence map on transparency and usefulness. A clear justification for a scoping approach, citing the framework, earns credit at the start. Search and screening should be reported with counts at every stage, so a reader can follow the funnel. Inclusion criteria must be explicit. The grid is the center of the grade: categories and outcomes should fit the review question, and each cell's shading should be explained. Commentary is weighted when it names studies and explains why cells are contested or empty. Linking the map back to the candidate's directions shows the exercise has a purpose. Stating that quality was not appraised, and other limits such as single screening, demonstrates methodological honesty.
Common GB815 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB815 evidence maps are literature reviews in disguise, summarizing studies one by one without building a grid. Others report a final count of studies without the screening steps that produced it. Students often shade cells without explaining what settled or contested means. Contested cells are rarely examined for why studies disagree, such as differences in data source. The map is frequently left unconnected to the candidate's own directions. Limits are skipped. Justify the method, report the search with counts, state inclusion criteria, chart consistently, build the grid, explain the shading, comment on key cells, connect the map to your directions and state its limits. Share your topic and early search results, and we can help you build the grid.
Get a GB815 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Share the direction you are mapping, any search already run and the Unit 3 instructions with their rubric. Stage by stage, the exercise returned follows a named scoping framework, reports to the checklist your section expects and charts studies into a grid of settled, contested and empty ground. First sample free; 24-48h is typical. 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 GB815 papers and MBA samples
- GB815 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB815 Unit 2: Direction Feasibility Memo
- GB815 Unit 4: Study Quality Appraisal
- GB815 Unit 5: Data Source Audit
- GB815 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB815 Unit 7: Scope Narrowing Exercise
- GB815 Unit 8: Practitioner Relevance Brief
- GB815 Unit 9: Comparison Matrix
- GB815 Unit 10: Research Prospectus
- GB794 Unit 3: Experiment Design Memo
- GB793 Unit 3: Construct Critique
- GB792 Unit 3: Event Study Appraisal
- GB791 Unit 3: Standard Setting Analysis
GB815 Unit 3 questions, answered
Is an evidence map the same as a systematic review?
No. A systematic review answers a focused question and usually appraises study quality before synthesizing. A scoping review or evidence map describes the extent and nature of research on a broader topic, and appraisal is typically optional. Arksey and O'Malley's framework was written for scoping work, and PRISMA-ScR is its reporting checklist, distinct from the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews.
How many databases should the search cover?
Three or four subject databases plus some gray literature is common for applied business topics, but the instructions and the direction decide. ABI/INFORM, Business Source Complete and EconLit cover most management and economics work, while working paper repositories catch recent studies. What matters most is reporting every source and string so the map can be reproduced.
What should the map do with industry reports?
Chart them as gray literature, in a field of their own, so their influence on each cell is visible. Industry and advocacy reports often dominate practitioner topics like succession, and treating them identically to peer-reviewed studies would distort the grid. Separating them lets the Unit 4 appraisal consider what kind of evidence each cell actually holds.
Where can I find a free GB815 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page holds a full GB815 Unit 3 evidence mapping exercise on franchise and independent startup outcomes, with search counts, a grid of settled, contested and empty cells and commentary.
What is a scoping review?
It maps what has been studied on a broad question, how and where, to identify gaps. Unlike a systematic review, it usually does not appraise study quality or combine results.