| Course | GB815 Applied Research Topics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Scope narrowing 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 7
Six Rungs Down to a Finishable Question: A Unit 7 Scope Narrowing Exercise on Franchise Loan Outcomes
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB815: Applied Research Topics
Unit 7 Scope Narrowing Exercise
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hour estimates and loan counts are composite and illustrative; the studies cited are real.
The Ladder
Rung one. The opening question from Unit 1, about why so many new small businesses fail. This was the starting question from Unit 1. It has no defined population, outcome or time frame, and its "why" cannot be answered from any data a single researcher can reach.
Rung two. Do franchise startups fail less often than independent startups? The population is now defined by type, but "fail" is still undefined, and the scope is every startup in the country.
Rung three. Do loans to franchise startups default less often than loans to independent startups? The outcome is now defined as loan default, an event recorded in lenders' and guarantors' records. This rung gives up something important: a business can repay its loan and then close, or default and survive under new ownership, so loan default is a lender's outcome, not the business's.
Rung four. Among SBA 7(a) loans to new businesses, did loans to franchise units charge off more or less often than loans to independent businesses? The population is now SBA-guaranteed loans, because those records are public and flag franchise borrowers. This rung gives up conventional bank loans, which may perform differently, since the SBA guarantee exists for borrowers that ordinary bank terms would turn away.
Rung five. The same question, limited to approvals in the federal fiscal years 2010 to 2014. Fixing the period allows each loan to be followed for about ten years. This rung gives up recent loans, whose outcomes are not yet known, and the effects of recent changes in lending.
Rung six. The same question, for borrowers in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska, comparing franchise and independent loans of similar industry, size and year. Limiting the states makes the linkage to state business records feasible for one person, and matching on industry, size and year prevents the comparison from simply reflecting that franchises cluster in certain industries.
The Cut Ledger
The ledger records, for each cut, what was removed, why, what the narrower question can no longer claim and where the removed part could go.
Causal language. Removed at rung three. Owners who choose franchising may differ from those who start independent businesses in ways no record captures, such as experience or risk tolerance. The study can therefore describe whether franchise loans charged off more or less often, not whether franchising caused the difference. The causal question could go to a future study using a natural experiment, such as a change in franchise rules.
Business closure. Removed at rung three, then partly restored as a secondary outcome using state entity records. The study can no longer claim to measure business survival directly.
Non-SBA lending. Removed at rung four. The study cannot claim its results apply to conventional small business loans. A bank's own portfolio data could test that in a later project.
Other states. Removed at rung six. The Unit 5 audit found that state business records differ in format and access, and four contiguous states with accessible records keep the linkage manageable. The study cannot claim national results.
The franchise system's own health. Removed as a main question at rung four. Shane (1996) found that young franchise systems often fail, so a franchisee's fate may depend on the system it joined. The study will record each system's age from disclosure documents and report results separately for young and established systems, but it cannot test the system effect with the sample sizes available.
Owner interviews. Removed after the Unit 6 seminar from the core design, retained as optional interpretation.
Each rung narrowed what the study can claim, and the ledger is where those losses are written down so that no one claims them back later.
Feasibility at the Bottom Rung
The trial download in Unit 5 found about 2,610 new-business loans in the four states and five years, of which 540 carried a franchise code. The hours required are estimated as follows: about 80 hours to download, clean and document the loan data; 160 hours to correct franchise classifications using system names; 180 hours to link loans to state business records, including manual review of uncertain matches; 120 hours to match franchise and independent loans and run the analysis; and 80 hours to write. That is about 620 hours, or fourteen months at roughly ten hours a week alongside full-time work.
The Final Question
Among SBA 7(a) loans made between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2014 to new businesses in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska, did loans to franchise units charge off within ten years more or less often than loans to independent businesses of similar industry, loan size and approval year?
Why This Question Is Worth Finishing
The Unit 3 map found the loan-default cell nearly empty, and the Unit 4 appraisal found that the strongest existing evidence on franchise survival, from Bates (1995), is decades old and points against the assumption lenders commonly make. A careful answer to the narrowed question, built on records others can check, would fill a gap that matters to lenders. Glennon and Nigro (2005) showed that SBA loan records support this kind of analysis.
References
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
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
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
The Purdue Global GB815 Unit 7 instructions
The seventh GB815 assignment asks you to narrow your research question step by step until one person could finish it. Draw a ladder of versions, from your broad interest at the top to a finishable question at the bottom, and label each rung with its population, outcome and time frame. For each step, state what the narrower question gives up. Then keep a cut ledger recording, for each removal, what was removed, why, what the narrower question can no longer claim and where the removed part could go. Tie each cut to evidence from earlier units where possible. Estimate the hours required at the bottom rung, step by step, and convert them to months given your available time. State the final question in one sentence. Close with why the question is worth finishing. Five pages built around a ladder and a ledger is a common format.
How this GB815 Unit 7 example is built
The exercise climbs down six rungs: the Unit 1 question, franchise against independent survival, loan default instead of failure, SBA-guaranteed loans, fiscal 2010 to 2014 approvals and four states with matching on industry, size and year. Each rung names what it gives up, such as the business outcome when loan default replaces failure. The ledger records six removals, with the highlighted sentence explaining its purpose: causal language, business closure restored as a secondary outcome, conventional loans, other states, franchise system health with reference to Shane and interviews moved to optional status. Hours are estimated step by step to about 620, or fourteen months at ten hours a week. The final question follows, justified by Bates and Glennon and Nigro.
GB815 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
GB815 instructors grade the narrowing exercise on transparency about trade-offs. Each rung should change something specific, such as the population or outcome, and say what the change gives up. The cut ledger matters most, since it proves the student knows what the finished question has stopped claiming. Tying cuts to evidence from earlier units, such as a data audit, shows the narrowing is principled. Giving removed parts a possible home demonstrates that narrowing is a choice, not a loss of interest. The hour estimate should be built step by step and converted honestly into months. The final question must be stated in one sentence. A brief argument that the question is worth finishing completes the work.
GB815 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GB815 narrowing exercises leap straight from the opening interest to the final question, hiding the choices made along the way. Others narrow wording without changing the population, outcome or period. Students frequently drop causal language without saying why. The ledger is often missing, so later chapters quietly reclaim what was cut. Hour estimates are rare or given as a single round number. Draw each rung with its population, outcome and time frame, say what each gives up, record every cut with its reason and new home, tie cuts to earlier evidence, estimate hours task by task and state the final question in one sentence. Share your starting interest and the hours you really have, and a writer can draft the ladder and ledger with you.
Get a GB815 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the direction being narrowed, what your data audit found and any limits on your time, with the Unit 7 prompt and rubric. Every version of the question appears in the exercise drafted for you, each cut is priced in claims surrendered, and scope becomes an hour estimate. First sample at no charge, generally within 24-48h. 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 3: Evidence Mapping Exercise
- GB815 Unit 4: Study Quality Appraisal
- GB815 Unit 5: Data Source Audit
- GB815 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB815 Unit 8: Practitioner Relevance Brief
- GB815 Unit 9: Comparison Matrix
- GB815 Unit 10: Research Prospectus
- GB794 Unit 7: External Validity Memo
- GB793 Unit 7: Boundary Condition Analysis
- GB792 Unit 7: Replication Review
- GB791 Unit 7: Empirical Study Appraisal
GB815 Unit 7 questions, answered
How narrow is narrow enough?
Narrow enough that one person, with the time actually available, could collect and analyze the data and defend the answer, and broad enough that someone would act on it. A practical test is whether the question fits one sentence naming a population, a comparison, an outcome and a period. If any element is missing or vague, further narrowing usually helps.
Does dropping causal language weaken a doctoral project?
Not when the design cannot support causation. Careful description of a comparison, with selection acknowledged, contributes more than a causal claim the data cannot bear. Many applied doctoral studies are descriptive or associational, and committees generally respect an honest question more than an ambitious one that collapses at the defense.
Should the removed parts of the question be discarded?
Record them instead. The ledger's last column gives each removed piece a possible home, such as a later study, a limitations section or a recommendation for future research. Keeping that record shows the narrowing was deliberate and supplies material for the prospectus's discussion of what the study will not address.
Where can I find a free GB815 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB815 Unit 7 scope narrowing exercise, moving a question about startup failure down six rungs to a finishable comparison of franchise and independent SBA loans.
What is a cut ledger?
It is a record of each part removed while narrowing a research question, with the reason, what the narrower question can no longer claim and where the removed part could be studied instead.