OVERVIEW
Analyzing case study evidence requires the researcher to: review the data again to ensure you haven’t overlooked or minimized some piece, think way ‘outside the box’, re-focus the research questions and propositions, study current research trends and philosophies, and do more qualitative literary research. This is the essence of the iterative process of analysis. Explanatory Case Study, we see some circumstances remove the Explanatory from a candidate case due to being ineffective. You will draft an Explanatory Case Study (avoiding historiographical tendencies) that is used to explain causal relationships that replicates a previous experiment.
INSTRUCTIONS
Address the following paper in current APA format:
1. Distinguish rival explanations and interpretations within your case study
2. Explain the circumstances where an Explanatory Case Study would be most effective
3. Explain the difference between an Explanatory Case Study and Historiography
4. Draft an Explanatory Case Study that replicates a previous experiment suitable for disseminating for future use. You will fold in elements of Lean Six Sigma as role modeled in the Furterer article. (Also see Boxes 1 & 4, and Applications #8 &# 9 (Yin, 2018))
Required Format
This 1650 minimum word paper needs to be written with these main sections:
Cover page
Abstract (Abstract clearly states the purpose and main conclusion)
Introduction (Introduction provides a complete overview of the discussion)
Case Study Analysis – Rival Explanations and Interpretations (Section provides a complete discussion that distinguishes rival interpretations and explanations. Flow is logical and fully cited)
Effective Explanatory Case Studies (Section provides a comprehensive discussion of candidate cases where an Explanatory Case Study would be the most effective. Flow is logical and fully cited)
Explanatory Case Study vs Historiography (Section provides a complete and thorough discussion of the differences between Explanatory Case Studies and Historiography. Flow is logical and fully cited)
Explanatory Case Study with Lean Six Sigma (Demonstrates critical thinking to include analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the course material to draft an Explanatory Case Study with Lean Six Sigma elements)
Conclusion (Conclusion provides a complete summary of the discussion and highlights key points)
References
Other Requirements
• In addition to the course textbook(s) and the Bible, this paper must include at least 5 references from scholarly articles (that’s provided) that have publication dates no older than 5 years. Do not use any books other than the Bible, Articles and the textbooks provided. Do not conduct interviews. robust biblical integration is present.
• There should be at least three instance of biblical integration (at least three scriipture reference).
• In-text citations are required with the page or paragraph to support your statements, points, assertions, issues, arguments, concerns, paragraph topic sentences, and statements of fact and opinion.
• The APA required abstract and conclusion section headings and subject headings (see above) are expected. For papers this length, there should be at least three (3) ‘levels of headings’.
• The introduction and conclusion sections should not be longer than ½ page each since the assignment is short in word count.
• The required abstract should be written as a stand-alone document and not written as an introduction since an introduction section is required. Therefore, refrain from using phrases such as, “in this paper,” and do not use citations. See example in APA manual.
• Sources of information from Wikipedia, dictionaries, and encyclopedia will not be accepted.
• Paragraph lengths: Each paragraph should have a topic sentence unless it continues from or provides support to the prior paragraph. A paragraph is defined in this course as being at least 4 sentences in length.
• All parts of the assignment must be based on scholarly and biblical literature.
Avoid clichés, slang, jargon, exaggerations, abbreviations, figurative language, and language that is too informal and too subjective
