| Course | RES 6521 Research Methodology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Population, sample and recruitment plan |
| Length | 1,270 words, about 5 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 2
Finding 160 Staff Accountants: Population, Sampling Strategy, Sample Size and Recruitment for a DBA Survey on Remote Work and Turnover Intention
Student Name
American College of Education
RES6521: Research Methodology
Module 2 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 19, 2026
Introduction
Module 1 chose a single-wave correlational survey to test a link between remote hours and plans to leave, along with a moderating role for perceived support. A survey can be no better than its respondents. This paper defines who the study is about, explains how participants will be selected, sets out the eligibility rules, calculates the number needed to test the moderation hypothesis and describes recruitment. It is written as the population and sample section of Chapter 3.
Target and Accessible Populations
The target population is staff and senior accountants working in audit, tax or advisory roles at mid-sized public accounting firms in the United States, where mid-sized means 20 to 299 professional staff, and whose firms allow at least some work away from the office. These are the accountants whose departure firms most often describe as a pipeline problem, and they sit at the career stage where remote arrangements are newest and most varied, and where the amount of remote work, not merely its presence, may matter most (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).
The accessible population is narrower: accountants in that group who can be reached through the young professional networks of three Midwestern state CPA societies and through two national LinkedIn groups for public accounting staff. The difference between the two populations matters. Results will describe the accessible population directly and the target population only to the extent that the accessible one resembles it, a limit Chapter 5 will need to state plainly.
Why a Nonprobability Sample
Probability sampling would require a list of every staff and senior accountant in mid-sized firms, from which participants could be drawn at random. No such list exists. State boards license CPAs, but many staff accountants are not yet licensed, and licensure records do not show firm size or work arrangements. Firms do not share staff rosters with outside researchers. The study therefore uses purposive sampling, selecting participants who meet defined criteria, combined with a limited referral step in which participants may forward the invitation to eligible colleagues at other firms. Referral will be capped by asking each participant to share it with no more than two people, which reduces the risk that a few firms dominate the sample. Firm names will not be collected, but a question about state and firm size will allow the spread of participants to be checked.
Eligibility Criteria
To take part, a respondent must currently hold a staff, senior or equivalent title in audit, tax or advisory at a U.S. public accounting firm with 20 to 299 professionals; have worked at that firm for at least six months, long enough to form a view of its support; and be permitted to work remotely for at least some hours. Managers, directors and partners are excluded, because their decisions to stay involve ownership and compensation structures that differ from those of staff. Employees of my own firm are excluded to avoid any pressure arising from my supervisory role and to keep my firm's particular culture from shaping results. The survey's first page will ask screening questions and end the survey politely for anyone who does not qualify.
Sample Size
The sample was sized for the most demanding test in the analysis, the increase in explained variance when the interaction term is added. Interaction effects in field surveys tend to be small, so I planned for an effect of f-squared = .05, between conventional small and medium values. With seven predictors in the final model (four controls, remote work intensity, perceived support and their product), one predictor tested, a .05 significance threshold and .80 power, G*Power returned a required sample of 159 (Faul et al., 2009). Detecting a truly small interaction of .02 would need 395 participants, which recruitment through professional networks could not realistically supply; that trade-off will be reported as a limitation. To allow for incomplete and failed-attention responses, which online surveys of professionals commonly produce at rates of 15% to 20%, the recruitment target is 195 started surveys to reach at least 160 usable ones.
Recruitment Procedures
After institutional review board approval, each of the three CPA societies will be asked to post a short invitation in its young professionals newsletter and online community, and the moderators of the two LinkedIn groups will be asked for permission to post the same text. The invitation will describe the study's purpose in neutral terms, state that the survey takes about twelve minutes, explain that responses are anonymous and that firm names are not collected, and offer entry into a drawing for one of four $50 gift cards, administered through a separate form so that survey answers cannot be linked to names. Reminders will be posted after one and three weeks. Recruitment will close after six weeks or when 195 surveys have been started, whichever comes later, so that a fast start does not leave the sample weighted toward one network.
Response Quality
Online samples of busy professionals bring two quality risks: careless responding and duplicate or fraudulent entries prompted by incentives. Two instructed-response items, such as an item asking respondents to select a particular option, will be placed in the middle and near the end of the survey, and responses failing both will be removed. Completion times under one third of the median will be flagged for review. The survey platform's duplicate prevention will be enabled, and the gift card form will reject repeated email addresses. Each removal rule is set before data collection and will be reported with the number of cases it removed.
Protecting Participants During Recruitment
Recruiting through professional networks raises a specific concern: accountants may worry that answers about wanting to leave could reach their employer. Several steps address it. The invitation will come from me as a doctoral student, not from any firm, and it will not be sent through firm email systems. The survey will not ask for names, firm names or city, only state and firm size band, so that no combination of answers points to a single firm. Respondents may skip any item other than the screening questions and may close the survey at any time; partial responses will be kept only if the respondent reaches the final page and confirms submission. The gift card drawing form opens in a separate window after submission and stores only an email address. These steps will be described in the consent page in plain language. Assured anonymity also lowers the pull toward answers respondents think an employer would want, a known source of bias in self-reports (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Representativeness
A purposive sample recruited through Midwestern societies and national online groups will probably overrepresent accountants who are professionally engaged and who live in the Midwest. To make that bias visible, the survey will collect state, firm size band, service line, title, tenure and age, and the sample's makeup will be compared with available profession-level descriptions of public accounting staff. Where the sample departs from those descriptions, the departure will be reported, and results will be framed for the accessible population.
Conclusion
The study targets staff and senior accountants in mid-sized U.S. CPA firms with remote options, reaches them through three state societies and two online groups and selects them purposively with capped referral, because no sampling frame exists. Eligibility rules exclude managers and my own firm's staff. The sample is sized at 160 usable responses for the interaction test, with the cost of not detecting a smaller interaction stated openly, and response-quality rules are fixed in advance. Module 3 describes the instruments.
References
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41*(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
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
What the RES 6521 Module 2 instructions ask for
This part of Chapter 3 answers who, how and how many. Typical instructions for the second module ask you to describe your target population and the portion of it you can reach, name and justify your sampling strategy, state inclusion and exclusion criteria, calculate or justify your sample size and explain how participants will be recruited. Quantitative studies are usually expected to report a power analysis with its inputs. Qualitative studies justify sample size by the design and the point at which new data stop adding insight. Whatever the design, describe recruitment steps in enough detail for an IRB reviewer, and explain any exclusions that protect participants from pressure.
How this RES 6521 Module 2 example is built
The section opens by separating a national target population from an accessible one reached through three state societies and two online groups, and says which one results will describe. It then explains why probability sampling is impossible without a list and how capped referral keeps a few firms from dominating. Eligibility rules follow, including two exclusions with reasons. A power analysis sized for the interaction term gives 159, and the cost of planning for a larger effect than .02 is stated. Recruitment steps, an anonymous incentive, attention checks and a plan to report the sample's makeup against the profession complete the section before a short conclusion.
Reading the RES 6521 Module 2 rubric
Population and sample sections are evaluated on clarity, justification and alignment with the design. Graders look for a population defined precisely, a sampling strategy that matches the method and is defended when it is not random, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria and a sample size supported by a power analysis or a recognized qualitative rationale. Recruitment procedures should be specific and ethical. Faculty give extra credit for honest discussion of what the sample can represent and for quality controls planned in advance. Inconsistencies between this section and the research questions or analysis plan are a common reason for lost points, along with APA 7 errors. A table of eligibility rules is a simple way to make them easy to check.
RES 6521 Module 2 help from the desk
Sample size questions stop many proposals at the committee stage, especially when moderation or several predictors are involved. If your power analysis does not match your model, or your chair has asked how you will reach participants without a sampling frame, our writers can help. Send your research questions, your planned analysis and what you know about access to your population, along with the prompt. Our writers then build this section around a power analysis whose inputs are explained and a recruitment plan an IRB can approve. DBA, Ed.D. and health research populations each raise their own access problems. Getting this section right keeps data collection on schedule and spares you a second IRB amendment.
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 1: Research Design and Rationale
- RES 6521 Module 3: Instrumentation Section
- RES 6521 Module 4: Data Collection and Analysis Plan
- RES 6521 Module 5: Complete Chapter 3
- LEAD 6133 Module 2: Coaching Models Compared
- RES 6023 Module 2: Validity Threats Paper
- RES 6003 Module 1: Descriptive Statistics Report
- LEAD 6001 Module 2: Doctoral Self-Assessment
RES 6521 Module 2 questions, answered
What does RES6521 Module 2 usually ask for?
The second RES6521 module often asks for the population, sampling strategy, sample size and recruitment plan for your Chapter 3, with eligibility criteria and a justification for each choice.
What is the difference between a target and an accessible population?
The target population is the whole group you want to understand; the accessible population is the part of it you can actually reach. Your results describe the accessible group most directly.
Is a convenience or purposive sample acceptable for a doctoral survey?
It can be, if no sampling frame exists and you explain why, apply clear eligibility rules and treat the limits on generalization honestly in your findings.
Where can I find a free RES 6521 Module 2 sample paper?
This one is complete: a DBA candidate sizes a survey of staff accountants at 160 usable responses for an interaction test and plans recruitment through CPA societies and LinkedIn.
How do I choose the effect size for a power analysis?
Base it on prior studies of similar relationships where possible; for interaction terms, which are usually small, explain the trade-off between a realistic effect and an achievable sample.