DBA Research Concept Paper
Problem statement. Research questions. Methodology. Research framework. And the final concept paper that ties them all together. Four tasks that build on each other — and each one has exact language requirements your committee will check word by word. Here’s how to approach each task correctly without losing approval cycles to easily avoidable errors.
Four tasks. Sequential. No skipping ahead. Each one has to be approved before you touch the next. That’s not bureaucracy — it’s by design. The problem statement controls the research questions. The research questions determine the methodology. The methodology shapes the framework. If any one of those links breaks, the whole concept paper falls apart. That’s why getting Task 1 exactly right matters more than it might seem at first.
What This Guide Covers
What This Course Is Actually Testing
You’ve passed all your core classes. That’s the prerequisite. Now the program is testing something different — whether you can function as a researcher, not a student. The distinction matters because nobody is going to hand you the answers here. Your instructor will evaluate your work and point out gaps. The work of figuring out how to fix those gaps is entirely yours.
You’re No Longer Being Taught — You’re Being Evaluated
The course guide is explicit about this: the instructor is not here to teach you how to accomplish each task. They’re here to approve or push back on what you submit. That means you need to read every piece of guidance material carefully before you write a single sentence. The concept paper template, the methodology guide, Dr. Moore’s problem statement guide — all of it. Read it all before you start Task 1. Students who skim the guidance and start writing end up in multiple revision cycles that slow them down significantly.
The sequential submission rule is strict: Do not start Task 2 until Task 1 is approved (grade of ‘1’ in Canvas). Each task builds directly on the approved version of the previous one — not on a draft you think is close enough. If you revise a previously approved task, coordinate with your instructor before proceeding. Working ahead is one of the most common ways doctoral candidates create unnecessary rework.Concept Alignment — The Straight Line Your Committee Will Check
This is the single most important structural principle in the entire concept paper. Read it carefully. The program calls it “concept alignment” — but the practical test is simpler: can you draw a straight line from your general problem all the way to your nature of study? Every element has to follow logically from the one before it.
If your specific problem is a subset of a different topic than your general problem, alignment breaks. If your research questions ask things not addressed in your specific problem, alignment breaks. If your purpose statement uses quantitative language (“measure” or “relate”) while your methodology is qualitative, alignment breaks. Check alignment after every task — not just at the end. A mismatch that shows up at Task 3 often traces back to something imprecise in Task 1.
Task 1: Problem Statement & Purpose Statement
Task 1 is the foundation. Everything else in the concept paper is built on top of what you establish here. A weak problem statement doesn’t just cause problems in Task 1 — it causes problems in every subsequent task. Take the most time here.
Beginning, Middle, End — In That Exact Order
The problem statement has three distinct parts and a specific sentence structure for each. Understanding that structure before you write is what separates clean first submissions from repeated revision cycles.
Part 1 — General Problem Sentence (first sentence): Must begin: “The general problem to be addressed is [problem] resulting in [consequences].” The problem must be an overarching organizational leadership or cognate-related business issue. The “resulting in” clause must identify at least one specific negative consequence. It cannot be phrased as a question. It cannot be a simple declarative without consequences.Part 2 — Supporting Reference Sentences (middle): Three current sources — published within five years of your anticipated graduation date — that prove the general problem exists. These are active voice declarative statements, not block quotes. Each sentence reports what one author found or argued as it relates to your general problem assertion. A bridge sentence connecting the general problem to the specific context is optional but strengthens flow.
Part 3 — Specific Problem Sentence (last sentence): Must begin: “The specific problem to be addressed is the possible/potential [narrowly focused problem] within the selected single case study organization possibly/potentially resulting in [consequences].” Note the hedging language — “possible” and “potentially” are required because the specific problem may not yet have been demonstrated in that narrow context.
What the General Problem Sentence Must Include
- An overarching problem — connected to organizational leadership (DSL) or your business cognate (DBA)
- Clear consequences — “resulting in” + at least one specific negative outcome
- Descriptive, not declarative — describes a situation happening at a problematic level, not simply states that a problem exists
- Not a question — problem statements are declarative, never interrogative
- Provable by literature — three supporting citations must be available from the last five years
What the Purpose Statement Must Include
- Required opener: “The purpose of this qualitative single case study is to…”
- Exploratory verb: “explore” or “understand” — not “measure” or “evaluate”
- Design named explicitly: qualitative single case study
- Connection to the specific problem — the purpose addresses what was stated in the specific problem sentence
- Under 250 words — single paragraph, concise
General Problem: “The general problem to be addressed is [problem description] resulting in [consequences].”
Specific Problem: “The specific problem to be addressed is the possible [narrowly focused problem] within the selected single case study organization possibly resulting in [potential consequences].”
Purpose Statement: “The purpose of this qualitative single case study is to [explore/understand] [specific problem context].”
Deviation from these exact structures — even small wording changes — is a common reason for Task 1 rejection. Use them verbatim, then fill in your content.
Task 1 also requires Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography for each reference used in the problem statement. Each annotation is 200 words and covers three things: why the source is credible, what the article argues, and how it supports the existence of the general problem and its consequences. This is not a summary alone — the “how it supports the problem” component is where most annotations fall short.
Task 2: Research Questions & Methodology
Task 2 has two parts that are closely linked. Your research questions have to be derived from your approved problem statement. Your methodology choice has to follow from those research questions. If you write the questions first and then justify the methodology as an afterthought, it shows — and it gets sent back.
One Main Question. Up to Three Sub-questions. Two Allowed Formats. No Exceptions.
The central research question must follow one of two exact formats. Either: “How can the problem of [identify the problem] be solved?” or “How can [practice or issue] be improved?” Those are the only two options. Any research question that doesn’t fit one of these formats will be rejected — even if it’s a well-constructed qualitative question by other standards.
A research question is not an interview question. This distinction trips up a lot of doctoral students. Research questions guide the entire study. Interview questions are what you’ll eventually ask individual participants to collect data. “How do leaders communicate change initiatives?” is an interview question. “How can the problem of insufficient leader communication during change initiatives be solved?” is a research question in the required format. The distinction is level of abstraction — research questions operate at the study level, not the participant level.Sub-questions must be derived from the specific problem — not from general interest in the topic. Ask what elements of the specific problem still need to be unpacked after the main question is asked. Those become your sub-questions. Sub-questions that address things outside the specific problem will be flagged for removal.
| Question Type | What It Asks | Used For | Fits This Program? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualitative RQ (required) | How, why, what — seeks to understand or explain | Single case study; exploratory inquiry | Yes — required format |
| Quantitative RQ | What is the relationship between X and Y — seeks to measure or relate | Statistical analysis; hypothesis testing | No — not permitted in ADRP |
| Interview Question | Participant-level prompts for data collection | Field study; data gathering phase | Not a research question |
| Survey Question | Scaled or quantified participant responses | Quantitative data collection | Not a research question |
Every Methodology Section Begins With This Exact Sentence
The methodology section must open with: “This study will be conducted with a flexible design using qualitative methods; specifically, a single case study design will be used.” That sentence is non-negotiable. The DBA and DSL programs allow only this methodology. The section then justifies why a flexible design is appropriate for your specific research problem, why qualitative methods fit your research questions, and why a single case study is the correct method — citing multiple scholarly sources for each assertion.
Do not use textbooks as scholarly sources for methodology discussion. The course guide explicitly excludes textbooks from the scholarly source category for this section. Use peer-reviewed journal articles that discuss qualitative research design and single case study methodology. Yin (2018), Creswell and Poth (2018), and similar methodology authors are typically cited in journal articles — cite those articles, not the textbooks themselves. Your institution’s library databases will have peer-reviewed articles discussing these methods in empirical contexts.Connect the methodology to your problem statement explicitly. Don’t write a generic defense of qualitative research. Explain why flexible design and single case study specifically fit your problem — reference the specific problem sentence directly in your methodology discussion.
Task 3: Research Framework
Most students find Task 3 the hardest to understand conceptually. The research framework is not a literature review — it’s a focused “word picture” of your specific problem. It shows the reader what the problem looks like, who is involved, what conditions surround it, and how those elements interact. The framework diagram makes that visible. The written components explain it.
Concepts, Actors, and Constructs — Each With a Specific Role
These are not interchangeable terms. Each has a distinct definition and a distinct role in your framework. Confusing them is a common error that leads to revision requests.
Concepts — Commonly held views found in the literature that are central to your research problem. Think of them as the “ideas” that explain why the problem exists or how it manifests. Each concept needs a short descriptor (2–5 words naming the concept), followed by three to four sentences explaining how it relates to the specific problem with scholarly citations. An example descriptor: “Employee Disengagement During Change.” Flexible designs like case studies rely more on concepts than on formal theories.Actors — The key people groups or organizations central to your problem. These will be your eventual participants. Each actor needs a descriptor and a scholarly discussion of how they’re connected to the specific problem. Example descriptors: “Mid-Level Managers,” “Frontline Employees,” “Selected Retail Organization.” You’re identifying who is involved in the problem — not interviewing them yet.
Constructs — The broad variables or topics in the study. Think of constructs as the measurable or observable dimensions of the problem. Example descriptors: “Leadership Communication Style,” “Change Adoption Rate,” “Organizational Resilience.” Each construct needs a descriptor and a scholarly discussion tying it to the specific problem.
What the Framework Diagram Must Show
- Inputs (constructs) — how they relate to the actors; shown as entry points
- Flow of action/information/influence — how information or influence moves between actors; shown as arrows or directional lines
- Concepts influencing actors — how the conceptual framework conditions shape what the actors do
- Outputs (constructs) — what the end states or outcomes look like; shown as exit points
- All elements visible — the diagram is self-contained; a reader should understand the problem landscape without reading the text
How to Build the Diagram
Use a flowchart or systems diagram structure. Place actors in the center. Place input constructs on the left feeding into the actors. Place output constructs on the right coming out of the actors. Show concepts as environmental boxes or labels influencing the actors from above or below. Use directional arrows to show flow. Microsoft Word’s SmartArt or a simple drawing tool works fine — complexity of software is not what’s being evaluated. Clarity of logic is.
After presenting your concepts, actors, and constructs individually, Task 3 requires a “Discussion of the Relationship Between Concepts, Actors, and Constructs.” This is not a summary — it’s an analysis of how these elements interact. How does Concept A shape what Actor B does? How does that behavior produce or affect Construct C? This section is where you show that the framework is an integrated system, not a list of separate items. Students who skip the interaction analysis — or write it as a paragraph restating each element — miss the point of this section entirely.
Task 4: Final Research Concept Paper
Task 4 is not a new document. It’s the assembly of everything approved in Tasks 1–3 into a single, coherent concept paper — with three new sections added: Potential Research Location, Biblical Perspective on Research, and a Conclusion. Use only your approved task content. If something needs to change from a previously approved task, coordinate with your instructor first.
Assemble Approved Content — Do Not Revise Without Coordination
Start with your approved Task 1, 2, and 3 content. Copy it into the concept paper template. Do not rewrite, “improve,” or expand sections that have already been approved. The grade of ‘1’ on previous tasks means that content is locked. Changes require instructor coordination and a Change Matrix — a document that lists each comment received and the specific revision made in response.
Potential Research Location — One Organization, Minimum 12 Participants
The ADRP uses a single case study design, which means a single organization. Your research location section must explain why a specific industry, market, region, or organization is a viable site for the study. The organization must be large enough to provide at least 12 interview participants. Explain how and why each potential location is a good fit — with supporting citations. Don’t just list organizations. Justify each one using literature that supports the choice.
Biblical Perspective on Research — Two Separate Sections, 300 Words Each Minimum
This section has two distinct subsections, each with its own 300-word minimum. The first — “Conducting Business Research from a Biblical Perspective” — connects Biblical principles to your study’s concepts with specific scripture references. The second — “Personal Perspective” — explains how your specific research fulfills the requirement of integrating a Christian worldview. Both require scholarly citations from within five years to support assertions, including assertions about scripture. This is not a general reflection; it’s a scholarly discussion with citations and specific verse references integrated into the argument.
Conclusion — 300 to 500 Words Summarizing the Entire Concept
The conclusion summarizes the research concept, the potential research location, and the biblical perspective. It does not introduce new information. It highlights the key points of the concept paper and makes the case that the research is viable, properly located, and grounded in both scholarly literature and a Christian worldview. Think of it as the executive summary written last — not a restatement of each section, but a synthesis of the most important elements.
Update the Table of Contents, References, and Appendix A
Every citation from every section needs to appear in the APA-formatted reference list. Every reference in the list needs at least one in-text citation. DOIs or active journal URLs must be hyperlinked. Appendix A — the annotated bibliography — should include an annotation for each reference used in the problem statement (from Task 1), formatted with a hanging indent and the annotation indented 0.5 inches. Update the Table of Contents to reflect accurate page numbers before final submission.
The Annotated Bibliography — What Most Students Under-Write
Appendix A is required from Task 1 onward. Each annotation is 200 words. Three specific things need to be covered — and many students cover only one or two of them.
Description of Credibility + Summary + Problem Support — All Three, Every Time
First: explain why the source is credible. Who are the authors? What are their credentials? Where was it published? When? A sentence like “This article was published in a peer-reviewed journal by authors with doctorates in organizational leadership” satisfies the credibility component. Second: summarize the article’s main argument, methodology, and findings in your own words. Third — and this is the one most annotations skip — explain specifically how this source supports the existence of the general problem and its consequences. Not how it relates to the topic generally. How it proves the problem exists and shows that the consequences are real.
Format: APA reference citation (hanging indent, first line flush left, subsequent lines indented 0.5 inches). Then the annotation, indented 0.5 inches from the left margin — same as a block quote. References in alphabetical order. 200 words per annotation. Active DOI hyperlinks.Mistakes That Cost Approval Cycles
Writing the General Problem as a Question or Simple Declarative
“The general problem is why leaders fail to communicate change” is a question. “The general problem is that leaders fail to communicate change” is a simple declarative. Neither fits the required format. Both get rejected.
Use the Exact Format and Fill In Your Content
Start with “The general problem to be addressed is [descriptive problem] resulting in [consequences].” Fill in your specific content — don’t try to rephrase the structure. The structure is fixed; only the content is yours.
Using Sources Older Than Five Years
Any source outside the five-year window from your anticipated graduation date is inadmissible in the problem statement and most other sections. A 2019 article submitted in a 2025 course is borderline and often flagged. Go current.
Calculate Your Window Before You Search
Know your anticipated graduation date. Count back five years. Only search for sources within that window. When you find an older source that seems perfect, look for a more recent article that cites it — that newer article is likely more current and cites the same foundational ideas.
Writing a Research Question That Doesn’t Match Either Required Format
“What challenges do leaders face when communicating organizational change?” is a well-formed qualitative question — but it doesn’t follow either of the two required ADRP formats. It will be rejected and sent back for revision regardless of its quality.
Use One of the Two Required Formats — Then Make It Specific
“How can the problem of insufficient leader communication during change initiatives be solved?” fits Format 1. “How can leader communication during change initiatives be improved?” fits Format 2. Take your specific problem, fit it into one of those two templates, and write your question from there.
Confusing Concepts, Actors, and Constructs in Task 3
Writing “Employee Motivation” as a concept when it’s actually a construct, or listing “Mid-Level Managers” as a construct when they’re an actor — these category errors produce a framework that doesn’t hold together logically and almost always require a full revision of Task 3.
Apply the Definitions Before You Categorize
Ask: is this an idea that explains the problem (concept), a person or organization involved in the problem (actor), or a broad variable that can be observed or tracked (construct)? Apply that test to every element before assigning it to a category.
Moving to the Next Task Without Waiting for Approval
Working ahead feels productive. It isn’t. If Task 2 is submitted before Task 1 is approved and your Task 1 gets significant revisions, your Task 2 may be built on a problem statement that no longer matches — requiring complete revision of Task 2 as well.
Wait for the Grade of ‘1’ Before Starting the Next Task
A ‘1’ in Canvas is the only signal to proceed. Not a positive comment. Not silence. The numerical grade. When you receive it, email your instructor acknowledging the approval and submit the next task using the required filename format. Follow the process exactly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help With Your DBA Research Concept Paper?
Problem statements, research questions, methodology justification, research frameworks, and full concept paper development — our doctoral writing team works with DBA and DSL candidates at every stage.
Dissertation Writing Service Get StartedBefore You Submit Task 1
The most expensive mistake in this course is treating Task 1 as a rough draft that will get cleaned up through feedback. Every revision cycle takes days. Multiple cycles take weeks. Students who submit Task 1 with the required sentence structure correct, three current supporting sources properly cited, and concept alignment already in place move through the course fast. Students who submit something close and plan to iterate through feedback move through slowly.
Read Dr. Moore’s problem statement guide completely. Read the concept paper template instructions completely. Then write the general problem sentence. Then find your three sources. Then write the specific problem. Then — before you submit — read it again against the alignment checklist. Can you draw the straight line from general problem to specific problem to purpose to research question to methodology? If yes, submit. If not, revise it yourself first.
The framework in Task 3 trips students up because it feels abstract. The simplest way to approach it: draw the diagram first. Put your actors in the middle. What flows into them (constructs)? What flows out (constructs)? What ideas from the literature explain why they’re behaving the way they are (concepts)? When you can draw that picture clearly, the written components become straightforward descriptions of what the diagram shows.