| Course | GM505 Action Research and Consulting Skills |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Data gathering plan |
| Length | About 980 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM505 Unit 8
Records First, Interviews Second: A Unit 8 Data Gathering Plan for a Financial Aid Pilot
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM505: Action Research and Consulting Skills
Unit 8 Data Gathering Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The college, its staff, its students and every figure are composite and illustrative; the methods and sources cited are real.
The Three Pilot Questions
The four-week pilot on the north campus introduced a rewritten document request letter, status notes in each file and a daily ten-minute huddle. The data gathering plan serves three questions. First, did repeat calls about verification documents fall? Second, did more files arrive complete on first submission? Third, did the processor's review time stay steady, so the notes did not cost more than they saved?
Sources
Call system exports. The phone system's records for both campuses, with calls coded by reason using the same five categories as the diagnosis. This source serves the first question. The sample is every call during the four pilot weeks and the four weeks before, on both campuses, with the south campus as comparison. The exports are pulled by the office's systems coordinator on the Monday after the pilot ends. The likeliest distortion is that north campus advisors, knowing the pilot is under way, code calls more carefully than south campus advisors; to check this, raw call counts are compared with coded counts on each campus.
File tracking dates. The verification tracking system records when each request letter is sent, each upload arrives and each review is completed. This source serves the second and third questions. The sample is every verification file opened during the pilot weeks on both campuses. The systems coordinator pulls it with the call exports. Distortion is unlikely, since the dates are system-generated, but files opened late in the pilot will not have time to complete, so completeness is measured only for files opened in the first three weeks.
Status note audit. A review of whether the processor added notes as designed. This source shows whether the intervention was actually carried out. The sample is every north campus file reviewed during the pilot. I conduct the audit. The likely distortion is my own interest in finding the notes present; to reduce it, I record only presence or absence, not quality.
Interviews. Six advisors, the senior processor and the director, each asked the same five questions about how the changes worked in practice. This source serves all three questions and explains the numbers. Interviews happen only after the records are pulled. I interview the advisors and the director. A colleague from institutional research interviews the processor, because she designed the notes and knows I hope they worked, which would make her less likely to tell me about problems. The likeliest distortion across all interviews is that colleagues soften problems out of loyalty to me.
Student card. A four-question card handed to students at the north campus counter during the last two pilot weeks, asking whether the letter was clear, how many times they contacted the office about their documents, what was hardest to find and whether they had anything else to say. This source serves the first two questions from the students' side. Advisors at the counter hand out the cards, and students drop them in a box. The likeliest distortion is that students who come to the counter differ from those who do not.
Every question is answered by at least one source the consultant does not control and one she does not collect herself, so the answer does not rest on her judgment alone.
Triangulation
Todd Jick described triangulation as using several methods to study the same question, so that the weaknesses of each are offset by the strengths of others and convergence across methods increases confidence in the findings (Jick, 1979). The plan maps each pilot question to at least two sources. Repeat calls are measured by call exports and checked against interviews and the student card. Completeness on first submission is measured by file tracking and checked against the student card's question about what was hardest to find. Review time is measured by file tracking and checked against the processor's interview and the status note audit.
Consent and Data Handling
Staff interviews begin with this statement: "This interview is voluntary. I will report themes, not names, and nothing you say will be used in anyone's performance review. You may stop at any time." The student card states that it is anonymous and optional. Including students' own account, even briefly, follows the participative principle that the people a change affects should have a voice in judging it (Reason & Bradbury, 2008).
Student records are used only in de-identified form. Call exports and file tracking data are stored in a folder accessible only to me and the systems coordinator. Interview notes are kept separately, under codes rather than names. All raw data will be deleted one year after the final report, following the college's records schedule.
What Would Count as Failure
Before any data arrive, the plan defines failure. The pilot will be judged not to have worked if north campus repeat document calls per hundred students fall by less than 10 percent relative to the south campus, if first-time complete files gain fewer than 10 percentage points on the south campus's figure, or if the processor needs over a fifth more time per review than before. Writing these thresholds down now prevents the definition of success from shifting once results are known.
Why the Sequence Matters
Records come first because they do not change depending on who asks. If interviews came first, what colleagues told me could shape which records I looked at and how I read them. Insider researchers must design their inquiry to make their preunderstanding visible and checkable rather than hidden (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014), and the sequence in this plan is one way to do that.
References
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.). Sage.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Sage.
Reading the GM 505 Unit 8 instructions
In GM505's eighth unit you plan how to gather data on a change you helped design. Restate the questions the pilot must answer. For each data source, record which question it serves, the sample, the timing, who collects it and the distortion most likely to affect it, with a step to check that distortion. Include records the consultant does not control, interviews and the perspective of the people the change is meant to help. Sequence collection so that records come before interviews, and assign sensitive interviews to someone else where your role could bias answers. Map each question to at least two sources. State consent wording, data handling rules and retention. Write the failing result down before collecting anything. Explain why the sequence matters. Expect about five pages, mostly tables or structured sections, citing triangulation and action research sources in APA 7.
Inside the GM505 Unit 8 example
The plan restates three pilot questions: fewer repeat document calls, more complete first submissions and steady review time. Five sources follow, each with question, sample, timing, collector and distortion: call exports checked against raw counts, file tracking limited to files opened in the first three weeks, a status note audit recorded only as present or absent, interviews held after records with a colleague interviewing the processor and a student card at the north counter. The highlighted sentence states the principle behind the sources. Jick's account of triangulation maps every question to two or more sources. Consent statements, de-identified records, coded interview notes and one-year deletion follow, with Reason and Bradbury cited for including students. Failure thresholds are fixed before data arrive, and a closing section, citing Coghlan and Brannick, explains why records come first.
GM505 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points
Instructors grading this GM505 plan look for safeguards matched to the consultant's specific risks. Each source should state its question, sample, timing, collector and likely distortion, and the strongest plans add a check for each distortion. Sequencing records before interviews and assigning sensitive interviews to someone else earn credit because they address the insider problem directly. Triangulation should be shown, not only named, by mapping each question to multiple sources. Consent and data handling should be specific. Defining failure in advance carries significant weight, since it prevents success from being redefined after results arrive. Including the voice of the people the change serves shows participatory intent. Jick's Administrative Science Quarterly article, Coghlan and Brannick's text and Reason and Bradbury's handbook support the plan in APA 7.
GM505 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
GM505 Unit 8 plans often list data sources without saying what could distort each one or who will collect it. Others plan interviews before records, letting conversations shape how numbers are read. A common gap is the absence of failure criteria, which leaves room to declare success afterward. Some plans include only staff, missing the people the change was meant to help. Consent and storage are frequently vague. Restate the questions, list each source with its sample, timing, collector and likely distortion, add a check for each distortion, collect records before interviews, hand the most sensitive interviews to a colleague, map every question to at least two sources, write consent language and storage rules and set the thresholds for failure before the first number arrives.
Get a GM505 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Outline the change you are evaluating and who you would need to ask about it, then add the Unit 8 assignment instructions and rubric. The data gathering plan comes back within 24-48h, free as a first sample, with its sources, sequence and failure threshold set to your setting rather than a community college's. 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 GM505 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM505 Unit 1: Rejected Advice Discussion Post
- GM505 Unit 2: Action Research Methodology Comparison
- GM505 Unit 3: Internal Consultant Contract
- GM505 Unit 4: Financial Aid Phone Diagnostic Report
- GM505 Unit 5: Financial Aid Intervention Design
- GM505 Unit 6: Consultant Contract Failure Reflection
- GM505 Unit 7: Insider Consultant Reflexivity Analysis
- GM505 Unit 9: Client Feedback Report
- GM505 Unit 10: Action Research Cycle Report
- GM504 Unit 8: Scanning Cost and Benefit Analysis
- GM503 Unit 8: Open-Source Patch Leadership Paper
- GM502 Unit 8: Titanium Order Situational Analysis
- GM501 Unit 8: Predictive Maintenance Plant Analysis
GM505 Unit 8 questions, answered
How can colleagues be interviewed without them telling me what I want to hear?
Partly through who asks, partly through what is asked. Having someone else conduct the most sensitive interviews helps, and so does opening with questions about what went wrong. Grounding each interview in specific counts, such as a week when calls rose, makes general praise harder to give. No design removes the effect entirely; the plan should say which interviews remain most exposed.
Do I need approval to include students or customers in the data?
Possibly, and the plan should address it. Many organizations distinguish internal quality improvement from research, and some course projects require review before people outside the team are asked anything. Follow your instructor's guidance and your organization's policy. Using counts from existing records, with no identifiers leaving the system, usually raises fewer concerns than new questions put to people.
Is a comparison group necessary?
Not always, but it strengthens the plan considerably. A second site, a previous term or a unit that did not receive the change gives the results something to be measured against. Without one, a drop in calls could reflect the season. Where no comparison is possible, the plan should name that limit and describe what else could explain a change.
Where can I find a free GM505 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM505 Unit 8 data gathering plan for a financial aid pilot, with five sources, distortions and checks, triangulation, consent and handling rules, failure criteria and APA 7 references.
What counts as failure in the GM505 Unit 8 plan?
The pilot fails if north campus repeat document calls fall by less than 10 percent relative to the south, if complete first submissions gain fewer than 10 points relative to the south, or if review time per file rises by more than a fifth.