Each committee objection quoted, answered on its substance and tied to a page where the proposal changed, one declined with reasons: the HS860 committee response memo, Unit 9, composite. Searches like "hs 860 unit 9 assignment example", "hs860 unit 9 sample" and "hs860 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished HS860 Unit 9 committee response memo looks like
About four pages, most of it a table. Each row carries a comment paraphrased faithfully, the response, the change made and its location in the revised proposal. The methodologist's comment, that a record review describes steps but cannot explain departures, is accepted in part: the first question is reworded as descriptive and the interview arm is given explicit responsibility for reasons. The content expert's comment on case identification leads to a stated definition, a principal diagnosis of COPD, or respiratory failure with COPD as a secondary diagnosis, resembling the cohort used in the federal COPD readmission measure. The chair's comment on insider bias is answered with a recruitment change and a reflexive journal. One suggestion, adding a comparison hospital, is declined. Unresolved items are listed at the end.
How a HS860 Unit 9 example is structured
Every response opens by stating what the objection gets right, which is the memo's discipline throughout. The methodologist is correct that records show where patients stop, not why, so the memo concedes that point first and then explains what the revision does with it. The case-definition response gives the reasoning behind the chosen codes and names what the definition will miss, patients with COPD admitted under another principal diagnosis. The insider response avoids defensiveness: it accepts that the candidate's role could shape both recruitment and interpretation, proposes an outside caller and a second coder for the interviews, and describes a reflexive journal. Declining a suggestion demands the fullest answer, because a refusal needs more justification than an acceptance: a comparison site would double the approvals and exceed the time the feasibility appraisal established.
Concession before change
The methodologist's point, that records show where patients stop but not why, is granted in the memo's first sentence on it. Only then does the response describe the reworded question and the job now given to the interviews.
A case definition with its blind spot
Principal diagnosis of COPD, or respiratory failure with COPD recorded secondarily, defines an eligible admission. The response names who the definition misses and why the trade is acceptable for this purpose.
Insider bias, taken seriously
An outside caller recruits, a second coder reviews interview transcripts, and a reflexive journal records the candidate's reactions during analysis. The response accepts that the manager's role could color both steps.
A comparison site, declined
Adding a second hospital would strengthen the design and double the approvals. The response cites the feasibility appraisal's timeline and offers to discuss the comparison as a follow-on project.
Page numbers for every change
Each row points to the revised section and page. A committee member can check every claimed change in minutes, and the memo lists two comments still under discussion.
Where marks go in HS860 Unit 9
Response memos that thank the committee and reword the same sentences leave every objection standing, and markers at this stage typically ask whether the revision actually engaged. Conceding nothing, even where a comment is plainly right, reads as defensive. Accepting everything, including suggestions that would break the timeline, reads as having no position. Responses without page references force the committee to hunt for changes. A declined suggestion with a one-line refusal invites the comment again at the next meeting. Paraphrasing a comment into something easier to answer misrepresents the committee. Changes promised in the memo but absent from the proposal damage trust quickly. Claiming the revised proposal is approved, or implying the chair has signed off, oversteps; the memo requests review, and approval belongs to the committee alone.
Get a HS860 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Committee feedback in HS860 arrives in many forms, from margin comments to a formal letter. Share the comments as written, the proposal section they address, the Unit 9 prompt and the rubric. Each response concedes what is right, answers the substance and points to a page; any suggestion declined gets a full reason. First custom sample free; 24-48h.
HS860 Unit 9 questions, answered
How should a doctoral candidate respond to committee feedback?
Read each comment as a question about the project itself, not about its wording. State what the comment gets right, explain the change made or the reason for not making one, and point to where the revision appears. A table with columns for comment, response and location is common. Keep the tone professional and specific, and never mark a change as made unless it actually appears.
Can I decline a committee member's suggestion?
Yes, if you explain why with reference to the project's purpose, feasibility or evidence. A refusal needs more justification than an acceptance, and offering an alternative, such as addressing the suggestion as a limitation or a future study, often helps. If the member holds firm, the chair usually mediates. Declining without explanation tends to bring the comment back.
What is a reflexive journal?
A running record kept by a qualitative researcher of their own assumptions, reactions and decisions during data collection and analysis. It helps the researcher notice how their position might shape interpretation and gives an audit trail others can review. It is especially useful when the researcher has an insider role, such as working in or managing the setting being studied.