Process Checklist

8/11/2019 Process Checklist

1/22

1

JANUARY 2012

Doctoral Study Process ChecklistStudents are encouraged to follow this checklist closely and work with their assigned faculty to

ensure all steps are followed to expedite completion.

Most documents for the Doctoral Study process can be found on the Research Centers website:

http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/ primarily in theFormsandIRBsections. Ensure the currentversion is used by looking at the date in the footer

Roles and Stakeholders:

StudentOwner of the process checklist and candidate for the DBA degree.

ChairAssigned to the student at the beginning of DDBA-8100. Part of the studentscommittee.

Second Committee Memberassigned to the committee at the beginning of DDBA-8100.Part of the students committee.

URRUniversity Research Reviewerassigned to the committee at the beginning ofDDBA-8100. Dual roleserves as committee member and as representative of WaldenUniversity to ensure scholarly standards are achieved.

[email protected] group mailbox forcore faculty DBA Methodologist.Validates academic quality standards, including mapping to the rubric, content alignment,

design, methodology, formatting, grammar, and APA are in compliance and meet theacademic standards of the DBA program and Walden University. validate

[email protected] mailbox for the School of Management DBAacademic advisors.

[email protected] mailbox for the assignment of studentcommittees.

[email protected] mailbox for the DBA Program Director.

[email protected] - group mailbox of the College of Management and Technologyadministration.

[email protected] mailbox of the Research Center at the university levelthat is used to monitor movement of doctoral study proposals and studies between the DBAprogram and university level reviewers. Only use this address when requesting a URR,

Form and Style, or CAO review.

[email protected] Program Director

[email protected] - DBA Doctoral Study Administrator
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/22

2

JANUARY 2012

Ground Rules

All e-mails in this process should follow the e-mail subject line naming convention asoutlined on page 4.

All E-mails must start with the following identification:

Student:

Chair:

Second Committee Member:

URR:

All requests for reviews must be clearly spelled out, indicating who is requesting, who isrequested to review, date of the request, and deadline for the review, and request for

acknowledgement. Example:

E-Mail Subject line: Armstrong_N_2.1_03092023_Chair_to_Second

Student: Neil Armstrong

Chair: Buffalo Bill

Second Committee Member: Jane Austin

URR: Ralph Nadar

Dear Dr. Austin,

As Chair, I am requesting your review as second committee member of [students name]proposal.

Attached, please find:

A clean copy of the proposal

Copy of the Turnitin Report

Copy of the Chair completed rubric

You have 14 calendar days to complete your review (although less time is always appreciated

by the student), which would make the deadline March 22, 20XX. Please reply to all me

acknowledging that you have received the documents and will complete the review on or

before the deadline date.

Note that the day you e-mail the request counts as the first day.


3/22


4/22

4

JANUARY 2012

Proposal & Doctoral Study

File Name and E-Mail Naming Convention

Process

(Proposal)

1

Process

(Proposal)

2

Process

(Proposal)

3

Process

(Proposal)

4

Process

(Doctoral

Study)

5

Process

(Doctoral

Study)

6

Process

(Doctoral

Study)

7

Process

(Doctoral

Study)

8

Student

Chair

Chair

Second

Chair

Methodologist

Chair

URR

Student

Chair

Chair

Second

Chair

Methodologist

Chair

URR

Student to

Chair

1.1

Chair to

Student

1.2

Chair to

Second

2.1

Second to

Chair

2.2

Chair to

Methodologist

3.1

Methodologist

to Chair

3.2

Chair to URR

4.1

URR to Chair

4.2

Student to

Chair

5.1

Chair to

Student

5.2

Chair to

Second

6.1

Second to

Chair

6.2

Chair to

Methodologist

7.1

Methodologist

to Chair

7.2

Chair to URR

8.1

URR to Chair

8.2

File Name Format:

Last Name_ First Initial_ Document_ Date

File Name Examples:

Armstrong_N_Proposal_03092012

Armstrong_N_Doctoral_Study_03092012

E-Mail Subject Line Format:

Last Name_First Initial_Document_Process_Step_Date_Direction

E-Mail Subject Line Examples:

Armstrong_N_Proposal_2.1_03092012_Chair_to_Second

Armstrong_N_Doctoral_Study_7.2_03092012_Methodologist_to_C

hair

I

Step 2: DDBA-8100


5/22

5

JANUARY 2012

2a - Student- work with assigned Chair in DDBA-8100 while working in parallel to completeDDBA-8437 /DDBA-8438 and required specialization courses. Students should ensure the

problem/purpose statement and research question map to the rubric. Please follow the DDBA-

8100 course syllabus and Chair expectations to determine and meet satisfactory progressrequirements to receive a grade of Satisfactory.

Students should be following the elements of the Rubric located at

http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/DBA-Doctoral-Study-Process-and-Documents.htm andsubmitting work to Walden Writing Center tutors and Grammarly at Writing Center located at

http://writingcenter.waldenu.edu/

As a benchmark, the Literature Review in section 1 should have a minimum of 60 scholarly,

peer-reviewed, and recent (defined as within 5-years of the expected date of graduation)

references.

The overall number of references throughout the Proposal should be a minimum of 100with at

least 85% of them being recent, scholarly, and peer-reviewed.

2b - Studentshould attend Residency 2 during enrollment no later than the 2nd or 3rd session

of DDBA-8100. Exceptions to residency attendance during this time must be approved in

advance by the Program Director at [email protected]


6/22

6

JANUARY 2012

Step 3: DDBA-8100 or 9000(60 credit hours needed to graduate) Proposal Approval Process

3a - Chair- Once the student and Chair feel Sections 1 and 2 of the Proposal meet all

requirements in the most current version of the DBA Rubric located in the Research Center and

has been checked by Grammarlyat the Writing Center, the Chair will e-mail the doctoral studyproposal package to the second committee member, with copies to:

[email protected]

[email protected]

The package should contain the following:

A clean copy of Sections 1 and 2 (no markups, no revisions, no comments)

Copy of the Turnitin (TII) report

Copy of the Chair completed rubric for sections 1 and 2 (ensure you use the latest

version)

Please follow the file name and e-mail subject line naming convention.

The second committee member has 14-calendar days to review and return the Proposal to the

Chair. Establish the return date in the e-mail to the Second Committee Member and request

acknowledgment. Please note that the day sent for review counts as day 1.

3b - Second Committee Memberwill acknowledge receipt of documents.

Second Committee Member will review and return the Proposal with any comments, approved or

disapproved recommendation, and a completed Doctoral Study rubric to:

[email protected]



7/22

7

JANUARY 2012

3c - ChairThe Chair will work with the student to ensure all rubric requirements have been

met and all recommended edits have been made. The Proposal must be complete, grammatically

correct, and in full APA compliance prior to e-mailing to the URR. This document is the highestform of scholarship and will not be approved with APA or grammar errors. The Chair will then

ask the student to provide a clean copy of Sections 1 and 2 and the Turnitin Report. The Chairsubmits a clean copy of the Proposal to:

[email protected]


3d - DBA MethodologistValidates academic quality standards, including mapping to the

rubric, content alignment, design, methodology, formatting, grammar, and APA are incompliance and meet the academic standards of the DBA program and Walden University.

The review should be completed within 5 calendar days.

If not approved by the DBA Methodologist, please go to process step 3a.

If approved by the DBA Methodologist, please go to process step 3e.

3e - Chair- after DBA Methodologist approval, Chair e-mails the following documents (a) a

cleancopy of the committee-approved proposal (Sections 1 and 2), (b) Turnitin report, (c) DBARubric completed by the Chair and, (d) DBA rubric completed by the Second Committee

Member to the URR member for review, with copies to:

[email protected]@waldenu.edu

[email protected]

student


The URR has 14-calendar days to review and return the Proposal to the Chair. Establish the

return date in the e-mail to the URR and request acknowledgment. Please note that the day sent

for review counts as day 1.


8/22

8

JANUARY 2012

3f - URR (not approved) - If any revisions are requested, by definition, the Proposal is not

approved. The URR will e-mail the Proposal with suggested changes and feedback within the

document and a completed rubric to the Chair with a copy to:


[email protected]


3g - Chairreview each comment by the URR and contact the student to share the results and

discuss any strategies for addressing the feedback.

3h - Student- will work with the Chair to address eachcomment provided in the study.Student will create and provide a change matrix (see page 21) of this document for a samplealong with the revised Proposal. The change matrix will have three columns: column 1identifies

the issue noted by the URR, column 2will identify the change made by the student, and column 3

will identify the page in the doc study where the update is located.

Note: If the student and Chair agree that a URR comment will not be incorporated, that decision

is acceptable; however, a brief academic justification must be provided in the change matrix. It

is acceptable and recommended that the Chair and URR discuss any areas of disagreement andwork to resolve such issues before e-mailing to the student. It is not acceptable to decline to

address a URR comment without justification.

3i - Chair - when the Chair approves the revised Proposal, Chair will e-mail to the Second

Committee Member for review. Please follow the file name and e-mail subject line naming

convention. The Second Committee Member has 14-calendar days to review and return theProposal to the Chair. Establish the return date in the e-mail to the URR and request


3j - Second Committee Member

If not approved, the Second Committee Member will return the Proposal with suggested changesand feedback within the document and a completed rubric to the Chair. Please go to process step

3g.

If approved, the Second Committee Member will e-mail the completed rubric to Chair indicatingapproval. Go to process step 3k.


9/22

9

JANUARY 2012

3k - Chairwhen Chair and Second Committee Member both approve, resubmit the Proposal

and electronically signed change matrix to the URR, copying:

[email protected]


Please follow the file name and e-mail subject line naming convention. The URR has 14-

calendar days to review and return the Proposal to the Chair. Establish the return date in the e-

mail to the URR and request acknowledgment. Please note that the day sent for review counts asday 1.

Each comment from the URR must be addressed on the change matrix. This process continues

until approval is received from the URR. The URR cannot approve the Proposal until all errorshave been corrected as metrics of errors found in advanced review levels are maintained.

Turnaround time for each review is 14 calendar days, so accuracy is critical. The function of theURR is to provide a fresh set of eyes to review the document prior to upper level of reviewsoutside of the College of Management and Technology.

If URR does not approve, go to process step 3h.

If URR approves, go to process step 3l.

3lURRURR will e-mail the following documents (a) a completed URR rubric, (b) approved

Doctoral Study Proposal (clean, no review comments or recommended changes allowed), (c)

comment that the Turnitin report has been reviewed and there are no violations of academicintegrity or material that has not been cited to:

[email protected]


Full committee (student, Chair, Second Committee Member)

3m - Studentstudent will coordinate with Chair and Second Committee member to determine

three different dates/times that the Chair and Second Committee Member can support an oral

defense conference call. Student then provides these dates/times to the Chair.


10/22

10

JANUARY 2012

3n - Chair- completes and e-mails the Oral Defense Conference Call RequestForm, which canbe found on the Research Center website at http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Oral-Defense.htm

at least 7 business days before the defense date to:

[email protected]


3o - DBA Doc Studye-mails confirmation that the oral defense conference call has been

scheduled to:

Chair

Second committee member

Student

3p - Student- 3-days prior to oral defense, prepare no more than 20 slides using section 1 majorheadings of the Proposal as the guide for the oral defense PowerPoint presentation.

Graphics/photographs that compliment the message/content of the study should be included in

the PowerPoint to add interest/creativity. Provide Oral Defense PowerPoint slides to:

Chair

3q - Chairreviews Oral Defense PowerPoint slides, works with student on any requested

revisions, and when approved, e-mails the slides to:

Second Committee [email protected]

[email protected]

3r - Student- 1-day prior to oral defense remind the Chair and Second Committee Member.

The URR is not required to attend the oral defense. The oral defense call is recorded andarchived for 30-days.


11/22

11

JANUARY 2012

3s - Chair, Second Committee Member, and Student- participates in the oral defenseconference call. Three outcomes are possible (a) pass; (b) pass with modifications to the

Proposal; or (c) student failed.

3t

If pass, go to process step 3u.

If pass with modifications, student will revise proposal in accordance with suggested revisions

from Chair and Second Committee Member. Go to process step 3u.

If fail, student will revise proposal in accordance with suggestions revisions from Chair and

Second Committee Member. Go to process step 3m.

3u - Chairafter approval of the oral defense, notify:

[email protected]

Chair submits a clean copy of the approved Sections 1 and 2 of the Proposal, the ProposalApproval Form, and a copy of the consensus rubric (one rubric with agreed ratings of both Chair

and Second committee member) located at http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu to:

[email protected]

[email protected]

Notea consensus rubric is one rubric with an agreed upon rating from two or more committeemembers. Each committee member name must be annotated as completing the review on page 2

of the rubric.


12/22

12

JANUARY 2012

4. IRB Approval Process

The IRB application, sample consent form, and sample letters of cooperation documents arelocated at http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Application-and-General-Materials.htm

4a - Student- Submit completed IRB application and all associated IRB required documents to

the Chair for accuracy and feedback. Ensure the application is spell checked, grammar checked,

and complies with all APA requirements. Errors result in increased turnaround time when

returned by IRB for corrections. If you do not have the NIH certificate from DDBA-8427, youmay retrieve it from the link section located at http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Links.htm

4b - Chair- submits IRB application and all supplemental materials to [email protected] .Allow 4-6 weeks for IRB review; however, it typically takes about 14-days.

4c - Student/Chair- complete any revisions requested by the IRB until approved -- allowing 14-

days for review.

4d - Student/ChairChair and student receive IRB e-mail notification of approval to start data

collection and move forward with the Doctoral Study. The IRB approval is good for 1 calendaryear from the approval date.

4e - Chair - notifies the following of IRB approval:

[email protected]

[email protected]


13/22

13

JANUARY 2012

5. Doctoral Study Approval Process

5a - Student - converts sections 1 and 2 into past tense. Start work on section 3. Collect thedata, perform data analysis, and complete writing of Section 3 of the Doctoral Study. Student

should check document to ensure mapping to the rubric. When complete, student e-mails the

following documents: (a) completed and clean Doctoral Study, (b) Grammarly report, (c)Turnitin originality report, and (d) completed rubric self-assessment to:

Chair


5b - ChairOnce the student and Chair feel Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Doctoral Study meet allrequirements in the most current version of the DBA Rubric located in the Research Center and

has been checked by Grammarlyat the Writing Center, the Chair will e-mail the Doctoral Study

package to the Second Committee Member, with copies to:

[email protected]

[email protected]

The package should contain the following:

A clean copy of the Doctoral Study (all three sections) -- (no markups, no revisions, no

comments)

Copy of the Turnitin (TII) report

Copy of the Chair completed rubric for the entire Doctoral Study (ensure you have thelatest version)


The second committee member has 14-calendar days to review and return the Doctoral Study to

the Chair. Establish the return date in the e-mail to the second committee member and request



14/22

14

JANUARY 2012

5c - Second Committee Memberwill acknowledge receipt of documents. Second CommitteeMember will review and e-mail the Doctoral Study with any comments, approved or disapproved

recommendation, and a completed Doctoral Study rubric to:

Chair

[email protected]


5d - ChairThe Chair will work with the student to ensure all rubric requirements have beenmet and all recommended edits have been completed. The Doctoral Study must be complete,

grammatically correct, and in full APA compliance prior to e-mailing to the URR. This

document is the highest form of scholarship and will not be approved with APA or grammar

errors in the document. The Chair will then ask the student to provide a clean copy of theDoctoral Study and the Turnitin Report. The Chair e-mails a clean copy of the Doctoral Study

to:

[email protected]


5e - DBA MethodologistValidates academic quality standards, including mapping to the

rubric, content alignment, design, methodology, formatting, grammar, and APA are incompliance and meet the academic standards of the DBA program and Walden University. The

review should be completed within 5 calendar days.

If not approved by the DBA Methodologist, please go to process step 5b.

If approved by the DBA Methodologist, please go to process step 5f.

5f - Chair- after DBA Methodologist approval, Chair e-mails the following documents (a)

cleancopy of the committee-approved Doctoral Study, (b) Turnitin report, (c) DBA Rubriccompleted by the Chair and, (d) DBA rubric completed by the Second Committee Member to the

URR member for review, with copies to:


[email protected]

student

The URR has 14-calendar days to review and return the Doctoral Study to the Chair. Establish

the return date in the e-mail to the URR and request acknowledgment. Please note that the day

sent for review counts as day 1.


15/22

15

JANUARY 2012

5g - URR (not approved) - If any revisions are requested, by definition, the Doctoral Study isnot approved. The URR will return the Doctoral Study with suggested changes and feedback

within the document and a completed rubric to the Chair with a copy to:

[email protected]



5h - Chair- review each comment by the URR and contact the student to share the results and

discuss any strategies for addressing the feedback.

5i - Student- will work with the Chair to address eachcomment provided in the study.

Student will create and provide a change matrix (see page 21) of this document for a sample)along with the revised Doctoral Study. The change matrix will have three columns: Column 1identifies the issue noted by the URR, column 2will identify the change made by the student,

and column 3will identify the page in the doc study where the update is located.

Note: If the student and Chair agree that a URR comment will not be incorporated, that decisionis acceptable; however, a brief academic justification must be provided in the change matrix. It

is acceptable and recommended that the Chair and URR discuss any areas of disagreement and

work to resolve such issues before e-mailing to the student. It is not acceptable to decline toaddress a URR comment without justification.

5j - Chair - when the Chair approves the revised Doctoral Study, Chair will e-mail to the SecondCommittee Member for review. Please follow the file name and e-mail subject line naming

convention. The Second Committee Member has 14-calendar days to review and return the

Doctoral Study to the Chair. Establish the return date in the e-mail to the URR and requestacknowledgment. Please note that the day sent for review counts as day 1.

5k - Second Committee Member

If not approved, the Second Committee Member will e-mail the Doctoral Study with suggested

changes and feedback within the document and a completed rubric to the Chair. Please go toprocess step 5h.

If approved, the Second Committee Member will e-mail the completed rubric to Chair indicating

approval. Go to process step 5l.


16/22

16

JANUARY 2012

5l - Chairwhen Chair and Second Committee Member both approve, e-mail the DoctoralStudy and electronically signed change matrix to the URR, copying:


[email protected]

Please follow the file name and e-mail subject line naming convention. The URR has 14-calendar days to review and return the Doctoral Study to the Chair. Establish the return date in

the e-mail to the URR and request acknowledgment. Please note that the day sent for review

counts as day 1.

Each comment from the URR must be addressed on the change matrix. This process continues

until approval is received from the URR. The URR cannot approve the Doctoral Study until all

errors have been corrected as metrics of errors found in advanced review levels are maintained.Turnaround time for each review is 14 calendar days, so accuracy is critical. The Chair should

be professional in all exchanges with the URR as this is a team project. The function of the URRis to provide a fresh set of eyes to review the document prior to upper level of reviews outside ofthe College of Management and Technology.

If URR does not approve, go to process step 5i.

If URR approves, go to process step 5m.

5m - URRupon URR approval, the URR must submit (a) a statement that the Turnitin (TII)

has been reviewed and no academic integrity issues have been violated, (b) a clean approved

copy of the Doctoral Study, and (c) a URR completed Rubric. The URR provides these threeitems to the following requesting a Form and Stylereview:

[email protected]


student

5n - DBA Doc Studysubmits the documentation to Form and Style. After Form and Style

review, the edited document is returned to dba.docstudy and the Committee.

5oChairforwards the Form and Style edited document to:



17/22

17

JANUARY 2012

5p - Student- makes all changes required by the Form and Style review and returns (a) thecompleted (clean) Doctoral Study, and (b) a completed change matrix form to:

Chair

5q - Chairupon review and approval of student revisions from Form and Style, e-mail a clean

copy of the Doctoral Study to:

[email protected]

[email protected] Committee Member

URR

5r - Studentstudent will coordinate with Chair and Second Committee member to determine

three different dates/times that the Chair and Second Committee Member can support an oraldefense conference call. Student then provides these dates/times to the Chair.

5s - Chair- completes and submits the Oral Defense Conference Call RequestForm, which can

be found on the Research Center website at least 7 business days before the defense date to:

[email protected]


5t - DBA Doc Studye-mails confirmation that the oral defense conference call has beenscheduled to:

ChairSecond committee member

Student

5u - Student- 3-days prior to oral defense, prepare no more than 25 slides including section 3

that tells the story of the research project including findings and recommendations. Provide Oral

Defense PowerPoint slides to:

Chair


18/22

18

JANUARY 2012

5v - Chairreviews Oral Defense PowerPoint slides, works with student on any requestedrevisions, and when approved, e-mails the slides to:

Second committee [email protected]

[email protected]

5w - Student- 1-day prior to oral defense reminds the Chair and Second Committee Member.

The URR is not required to attend the oral defense. The oral defense call is recorded.

5x - Chair, Second Committee Member, and Student- participate in the oral defense

conference call. Three outcomes are possible (a) pass; (b) pass with modifications to the

Doctoral Study; or (c) student failed.

5yIf pass, Go to process step 5z.

If pass with modifications, student will revise Doctoral Study in accordance with

suggestions revisions from Chair and Second Committee Member. Go to process step 5z.

If fail, student will revise Doctoral Study in accordance with suggestions revisions from

Chair and Second Committee Member. Go to process step 5r.

5z - Chairafter approval of the oral defense, notify:

Student

Second Committee Member

[email protected]

Chair submits a clean copy of the approved doctoral study and a copy of the consensus rubric(one rubric with agreed ratings of both Chair and Second committee member) located at

http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu to:


Notea consensus rubric is one rubric with an agreed upon rating from two or more committeemembers. Each committee member name must be annotated as completing the review on page 2

of the rubric.


19/22

19

JANUARY 2012

5aaURRreviews and approves the final Doctoral Study.

If not approvedreturn Doctoral Study to Chair with recommended revisions.

If approved, then go to process step 5ab.

5ab - DBA Doc StudyUpon URR approval, e-mails the final Doctoral Study for Abstractreview by the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) to [email protected] . All abstract

information, forms, examples, and tutorials may be found at

http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Abstract-Assistance-for-all-programs-with-research-capstones.htm
http://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Abstract-Assistance-for-all-programs-with-research-capstones.htmhttp://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Abstract-Assistance-for-all-programs-with-research-capstones.htmhttp://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Abstract-Assistance-for-all-programs-with-research-capstones.htmhttp://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Abstract-Assistance-for-all-programs-with-research-capstones.htmhttp://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Abstract-Assistance-for-all-programs-with-research-capstones.htm


20/22


21/22

21

JANUARY 2012

SAMPLE CHANGE MATRIX FORM

Submissions will not be accepted without a completed and signed change matrix

Note, the entries below are sample entries to show elements of a good change matrix entry

Title of Dissertation: (Insert study title here)Learner: Student Name Here

Date: April 30, 2011

Chair Confirmation of Review Items Addressed

By providing an electronic signature (typed name), within the space below, the Chair is attesting that

the submission meets all Walden University Proposal/Doctoral Study requirements and thepreviously noted issues have been satisfactorily addressed and are ready for review.

I have verified that the Students original/revised submission meets all review criteria (and for

revised editions) has adequately addressed the previous reviews feedback.

Chair: (insert name here) Date:

Please note that papers submitted without the Chairsconfirmation will be returned without

further review.

Reviewers comment

number andrecommendation

How addressed Page

numberswhere

change

appears

A1Removeanthropomorphism (see

APA page 69).

Action Taken and Why: Agreed - anthropomorphismshould be removed.

OriginalThe study discussed the role of the politics

in the jungle.

RevisedJohnson (2009) discussed the role of politicsin the jungle.

8


22/22

22

JANUARY 2012

A22See APA Section

6.30, 1st bullet for

information on how toformat the volume number

properly.

Action Taken and WhyAgreedthe volume

number should be italicized.

Original- Sullivan, S.E., & Mainiero, L.A. (2007).

Kaleidoscope careers: Benchmarking ideas for

fostering family-friendly workplaces.Organizational Dynamics, 36(1), 45-62.

Revised- Sullivan, S.E., & Mainiero, L.A. (2007).

Kaleidoscope careers: Benchmarking ideas for

fostering family-friendly workplaces.Organizational Dynamics, 36(1), 45-62.

76