DBA 8100 Module 6 Reporting Qualitative Findings Paper: Writing Up to SRQR and COREQ Standards Example

Showing the Path: Writing Up a Qualitative Capstone So Readers Can Trust It

Student Name

Doctor of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University

DBA-8100: Qualitative Research Methods and Applications

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Showing the Path: Writing Up a Qualitative Capstone So Readers Can Trust It

Introduction

A qualitative study helps no one if its report leaves readers guessing. Readers, including committee members, managers and other researchers, need to understand what was done, by whom, with whom and how findings were reached. Unlike quantitative reports, qualitative write-ups lack a single standard format, which makes clarity harder. This paper plans the write-up of the supervisor study using two reporting standards and advice from a journal editor.

Reporting Standards

O'Brien et al. (2014) developed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, known as SRQR, through a review of existing guidelines and expert input. The 21 items cover the title and abstract; the introduction, including the problem and purpose; the methods, including the approach and paradigm, researcher characteristics and reflexivity, context, sampling, ethical issues, data collection methods and instruments, units of study, data processing, analysis and techniques to enhance trustworthiness; the results, including synthesis and interpretation and links to empirical data; the discussion, including integration with prior work and limitations; and other items such as conflicts of interest and funding. The standards are meant to apply across qualitative approaches.

Tong et al. (2007) built COREQ, a checklist meant specifically for interview and focus group studies. Its 32 items sit under three headings: who the researchers are and how they reflected on their role, such as the interviewer's credentials, relationship with participants and assumptions; study design, such as the theoretical framework, sampling, setting, interview guide, recordings, field notes, duration and saturation; and analysis and findings, such as the number of coders, how themes were derived, participant checking and whether quotations are presented and identified.

Showing the Data

Pratt (2009), writing as an editor at the Academy of Management Journal, described common problems in qualitative submissions: too little data shown or so much that analysis disappears, a mismatch between the research question and the methods, quantifying qualitative data in ways that add little and failing to explain how the researcher moved from data to findings. He advised authors to show enough data for readers to judge interpretations, to use tables that link data to concepts, to describe the analytic process clearly and to strike a balance between theory and data. He emphasized that there is no single template, which is why authors must explain their choices.

The Chapter Plan

The capstone's methods chapter will report the paradigm and design, my position as an HR insider and how it was managed, the sample of supervisors who stayed and left, recruitment and nonparticipation, the interview guide and pilot changes, the stopping rule and how it was applied, the analysis process with the reflexive journal and peer debriefing, member checking and ethical safeguards. The full interview guide will appear in an appendix.

The findings chapter will be organized by theme. Each theme will open with its central concept, followed by subthemes, then quotations from several participants identified by pseudonym and group, stayed or left. Following Pratt, a table for each theme will link representative quotations to codes and the theme, as in module four. Variations within themes will be reported rather than smoothed over.

A Findings Excerpt

Belonging to Neither Side. New supervisors described losing their place among former coworkers without being accepted by managers. Darnell, who left after nine months, said, "Overnight I went from one of the guys to the guy with the clipboard, and the office still treated me like a picker." The loss showed in small routines, such as breaks taken alone, and in hard moments, such as writing up a friend. Supervisors who stayed described the same position but pointed to a turning point when their own manager stood with them in front of the crew. Maria, who stayed, recalled the morning her manager "told the whole shift at the huddle that when I talk, I'm talking for him." One supervisor promoted at a different warehouse described less loss of place, suggesting that moving sites may soften the transition.

Recommendations for Practice

As a scholar-practitioner capstone, the report will end with recommendations for the firm, such as a structured first 90 days for new supervisors, managers coached to back new supervisors visibly and an option to promote across sites. Each recommendation will be linked to the theme that supports it, and to the number of participants whose accounts informed it, so leaders can judge its weight.

Writing for Two Audiences

A scholar-practitioner capstone has two audiences. The committee needs full methodological detail, while operations leaders need clear findings and actions. The capstone will therefore include an executive summary of three pages, written in plain language with one quotation per theme and a list of recommendations, separate from the full chapters. The summary will not include any detail that could identify a participant.

Reporting the Insider Role

Both SRQR and COREQ ask authors to describe their relationship with participants. The methods chapter will state my HR role openly, explain the safeguards from module five and report examples from my reflexive journal, so readers can judge how my position may have shaped the findings. Readers can then weigh the findings knowing both the access and the limits that came with it.

Limits

Reporting checklists improve completeness but cannot guarantee quality. Some COREQ items, such as repeat interviews, will be reported as not applicable.

Conclusion

O'Brien and colleagues' SRQR and Tong and colleagues' COREQ give the write-up a checklist of what must be reported, and Pratt's advice ensures it shows data and the path to findings. A methods chapter that is transparent about an insider researcher, a findings chapter that balances interpretation with quotations and recommendations tied to themes will let readers judge and use the study.

References

O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042