| Course | RES 6521 Research Methodology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Research design and rationale |
| Length | 1,200 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Ed.D. and DBA doctoral core |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for RES 6521 Module 1
Why a Correlational Survey: Research Design and Rationale for a DBA Study of Remote Work, Organizational Support and Turnover Intention Among Staff Accountants
Student Name
American College of Education
RES6521: Research Methodology
Module 1 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 12, 2026
Introduction
I manage audit engagements at a regional public accounting firm in Minneapolis, and over the past four years I have watched capable staff accountants leave within two or three years of joining. Exit conversations often mention workload and busy season, but since our firm moved to a hybrid model they also mention something harder to name: feeling disconnected from the firm while working mostly from home. My DBA study asks whether the share of time staff accountants work remotely is related to their intention to leave, and whether that relationship depends on how much support they believe the firm gives them. This paper drafts the opening section of Chapter 3, the research design and its rationale.
Research Questions the Design Must Serve
Two questions frame the study. The first asks whether remote work intensity, measured as the percentage of paid hours worked away from the office, is related to turnover intention among staff and senior accountants in mid-sized CPA firms, after accounting for tenure, age and busy-season hours. The second asks whether perceived organizational support moderates that relationship, that is, whether the link between remote work and intention to leave is weaker for accountants who feel the firm appreciates their work and looks out for them. Both questions concern relationships among measured variables in an existing population, and neither involves a variable I can assign. Those two facts shape the design more than any other consideration.
Method: Quantitative
A quantitative method fits because the questions are about the size and direction of relationships among variables that established instruments can measure. Perceived organizational support has a long-standing scale whose shortened forms are widely used (Eisenberger et al., 1986), turnover intention has a validated six-item measure (Bothma & Roodt, 2013) and remote work intensity can be recorded as a percentage. The study also tests a moderation hypothesis, which requires estimating an interaction term and its confidence interval. Those tasks call for numerical data from enough participants to estimate effects with reasonable precision, not for the depth of a small sample.
Design: Cross-Sectional Correlational Survey
Within that method, the study uses a nonexperimental, cross-sectional correlational design. Participants will complete a single online survey that measures all variables at one time, and the analysis will use hierarchical multiple regression, entering control variables first, then remote work intensity and perceived support, then their product term. A correlational design is the honest choice when the predictor cannot be assigned: firms, not researchers, decide who works remotely, and accountants often choose their own arrangement. The design can show whether remote work and turnover intention move together, how strongly and whether support changes that pattern. It cannot show that remote work causes intentions to change.
Variables and Their Roles
The design assigns each variable a role. Remote work intensity is the predictor, recorded as the percentage of paid hours in a typical non-busy-season month spent working away from any firm office. Perceived organizational support is the moderator, measured on a seven-point agreement scale. Turnover intention is the criterion. Tenure at the firm, age and average weekly hours during the most recent busy season are controls, chosen because each is associated in practice with both work arrangements and plans to leave: newer staff are often required to work on site, and long busy-season hours are the reason accountants most often give for leaving. Firm size, grouped by number of professional staff, is a fourth control. Defining these roles before data are collected keeps the analysis confirmatory rather than a search for whatever correlations happen to appear.
Alternatives Considered
Three alternatives were weighed. An experimental or quasi-experimental design, in which some accountants would be assigned to more remote work, was rejected because I have no authority over other firms' policies and because assigning work arrangements for research would raise ethical and practical problems. A longitudinal design, surveying the same accountants at several points and tracking who actually leaves, would offer stronger evidence on timing and on real turnover rather than intention, but the eighteen months it would need exceed the time and access available to a DBA student, and attrition from repeated surveys of busy accountants would be high. A qualitative design, such as interviews with accountants who left hybrid firms, would reveal how disconnection feels and what support means to them. That is valuable, but it would not answer questions about the strength of a relationship or test whether support moderates it. I note it as a follow-up study.
Why Turnover Intention Rather Than Turnover
The dependent variable is intention to leave rather than actual departure. Intention is the closest measurable antecedent of turnover, and in a single-wave survey it is the only one available. Bothma and Roodt (2013) reported that scores on the six-item scale distinguished employees who later left their organization from those who stayed, which supports using it as a proxy. The choice still limits the conclusions: some accountants who intend to leave will stay, and some will leave for reasons the survey cannot see, such as a spouse's relocation. The findings will therefore be framed as relationships with intention to leave, not with turnover itself.
Prior Research Supporting the Design
The design follows the approach used in much of the research on both main variables. Pooling dozens of telework studies, Gajendran and Harrison (2007) reported that telecommuting was associated with modestly lower turnover intention on average, but that high-intensity telecommuting was associated with poorer relationships with coworkers, a pattern that suggests the effect depends on conditions. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) reviewed research on perceived organizational support and found it associated with greater commitment and lower withdrawal, including intention to leave. Most of the studies in both reviews were correlational surveys, so the present design allows results to be compared with a large existing body of work. Neither review focused on public accounting, where long busy seasons and apprenticeship-style training may change how remote work is experienced.
Threats the Design Must Manage
Three threats follow from the design. Because all variables come from one survey completed by the same person at one time, shared method variance could inflate correlations. Procedural remedies, such as separating the measures with neutral items, guaranteeing anonymity and varying response formats, will reduce that risk, and statistical checks will estimate it (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Because the sample will be recruited through professional networks, it will not be a probability sample, which limits generalization. And because remote work intensity may reflect other differences, such as commuting distance or caregiving duties, the regression will include control variables, though omitted variables will remain possible.
Conclusion
A quantitative, cross-sectional correlational survey answers the study's two questions directly: it measures how remote work intensity relates to turnover intention and whether perceived organizational support changes that relationship. Experimental, longitudinal and qualitative designs were each weighed and declined, with the reasons given. The design's limits on causal claims, its reliance on intention and its exposure to common method bias are acknowledged and partly addressed. Each variable now has a defined role, and the controls are chosen for stated reasons. Module 2 defines the population and the sampling plan.
References
Bothma, C. F. C., & Roodt, G. (2013). The validation of the turnover intention scale. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), Article 507. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v11i1.507
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
RES 6521 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
RES 6521 opens Chapter 3 with the decision every later section depends on. Prompts in the first module generally ask you to identify your research method and specific design, explain how they answer your research questions and justify the choice against alternatives. Expect to state what kind of conclusions the design allows, for example relationships rather than causes, and to cite methods literature or prior studies that used similar designs. Keep the section focused on reasons rather than definitions. If your study has a dependent variable that is a proxy, such as intention instead of behavior, say so here and explain why the proxy is acceptable. A sentence on how the design shapes your sampling and analysis makes a useful bridge to the next section.
How the RES 6521 Module 1 example is put together
The paper begins from a practice concern at a hybrid accounting firm and restates the two questions the design must answer. It then justifies a quantitative method by the measurable variables and the moderation test, and a cross-sectional correlational survey by the fact that remote work cannot be assigned. Three alternatives are weighed and set aside with specific reasons, one of them marked for future work. A section defends intention to leave as the outcome and states the cost of that choice. Prior telecommuting and support research shows the design's lineage, and a final section names three threats with the remedies planned for each.
Reading the RES 6521 Module 1 rubric
The design and rationale section is assessed on fit and justification. Faculty look for a method and design named correctly, a clear explanation of how they answer each research question and a comparison with alternatives that shows the choice was deliberate. Accurate statements about what the design can conclude matter a great deal; claiming causation from a correlational survey is a common reason for lost points. Credit also goes to sections that anticipate threats to validity and connect the design to prior research in the field. As always in Chapter 3, precise language, logical organization and correct APA 7 citations complete the expectations. Short, direct justification reads better than a long survey of every design.
RES 6521 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost points
Design sections often go back to students because the rationale restates textbook definitions instead of explaining a choice. If your chair has asked why you did not use an experiment, or flagged a causal claim your design cannot support, our writers can help you rework the section. Tell us your research questions, your planned design and any constraints on access or time, include the prompt, and we will draft a rationale that compares alternatives and states the design's limits clearly. DBA studies in accounting, management and health care administration all raise these questions. A sound rationale now protects every later section of Chapter 3.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More RES 6521 and Ed.D. and DBA doctoral core sample papers
- RES 6521 Module 2: Population, Sample and Recruitment
- RES 6521 Module 3: Instrumentation Section
- RES 6521 Module 4: Data Collection and Analysis Plan
- RES 6521 Module 5: Complete Chapter 3
- LEAD 6001 Module 4: Models of Inquiry Comparison
- LEAD 6021 Module 4: Leadership Identity Analysis
- LEAD 6523 Module 2: Program Logic Model
- LEAD 6163 Module 1: Workforce Analysis
RES 6521 Module 1 questions, answered
What does RES6521 Module 1 usually ask for?
The first RES6521 module usually asks you to write the research design and rationale section of Chapter 3, naming your method and design, linking them to your research questions and explaining why alternatives were not chosen.
What is the difference between a research method and a research design?
The method is the broad approach, such as quantitative, qualitative or mixed. The design is the specific plan within it, such as a correlational survey, a quasi-experiment or a case study.
Can a correlational study test moderation?
Yes. Moderation is tested by adding an interaction term to a regression model, which shows whether the relationship between two variables changes at different levels of a third.
Where can I find a free RES 6521 Module 1 sample paper?
It is right here: a CPA firm audit manager defends a cross-sectional survey with a moderation test for a DBA turnover study and explains why three other designs lost out.
Should Chapter 3 explain why I did not use other designs?
Yes. Committees expect a short comparison with plausible alternatives, showing the chosen design answers your questions best within your constraints.