| Course | HS880 Doctoral Project III: Data Collection and Analysis |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Coding memo |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS880 Unit 5
The Parent Who Asked Where the Apron Was: A Unit 5 Coding Memo on One Disagreement and Codebook Version 1.2
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS880: Doctoral Project III: Data Collection and Analysis
Unit 5 Coding Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The study, transcripts and coders are composite; quoted passages are invented to illustrate the decision, and the methods sources cited are real.
Date and Context
Memo written [date], the day after the second coder returned transcripts P03, P07, P11 and P14, double-coded independently using codebook version 1.1.
The Disagreement
Across the four transcripts, [nine] passages described parents asking about a shield. A typical passage, paraphrased to protect the participant, described a parent who saw the shield hanging on the wall and asked why it was not being used on their child. The student coded all nine passages as social influences, following the codebook's rule that a person's expectation belongs to that domain. The second coder coded [six] of the nine as environmental context and resources, reasoning that the visible shield prompted the parent's question and that the participant's account emphasized the object in the room.
Why Both Readings Were Reasonable
The codebook's boundary note anticipated overlap between these domains but gave a rule that did not fit these passages cleanly. In each passage, two influences acted at once: the shield's visible presence and the parent's question. The participant's decision was shaped by the combination. Coding only one domain would erase half of what the participant described. Reviewing the published guidance, which allows a passage to be coded to more than one domain when it expresses more than one influence (Atkins et al., 2017), confirmed that double coding was acceptable.
The disagreement was not a coding error by either of us; it showed that the room and the parent work together, which the codebook had treated as alternatives.
Resolution
After discussion, the coders agreed to code these passages under both domains when the account mentions both the visible shield and the parent's question, and under social influences alone when the parent asked without any reference to the shield's visibility. A new belief statement was drafted under environmental context: "Visible shields invite questions." A matching statement under social influences reads: "Parents expect a shield and ask when they don't see one in use."
Options Considered
Three options were discussed before the resolution. The first was to keep the original rule and code all such passages as social influences, on the grounds that the parent's question was the immediate trigger. This would have been simple and consistent, but it would have hidden the role of the visible shield, which several participants mentioned unprompted. The second was to create a new combined code for passages where a room feature prompts a person's reaction. That would have captured the interaction but would have left the framework's structure, which the survey shares, and made integration harder. The third, chosen, was double coding with a clear rule for when it applies. It keeps both domains intact for comparison with the survey and records the interaction through paired belief statements.
What the Resolution Implies for Analysis
If passages about visible shields and parental questions recur across many transcripts, the joint display may show social influences and environmental context working together. That would suggest a practical response different from either alone, such as moving shields out of sight in pediatric rooms while preparing radiographers with a short explanation for parents who still ask.
Codebook Version 1.2
Changes logged: the boundary note for social influences was rewritten to allow double coding when both a person and an object prompt the decision; one invented example was replaced with a paraphrased real one; the two new belief statements were added. All earlier coding in the four transcripts was revised to version 1.2. Remaining transcripts will be coded with version 1.2.
Reflexive Note
The student first read all nine passages as social influence and did not notice the object in the room. Before beginning doctoral study, the student spent years teaching radiography students how to explain procedures to parents, which may have trained attention toward conversations and away from equipment. The second coder, a health sciences researcher without radiography experience, noticed the shield on the wall because it was unfamiliar. The student will watch for this pattern in later transcripts and flag passages where room features appear without being coded.
Agreement So Far
Across the four transcripts, the coders initially agreed on domain assignment for about [78] percent of coded passages. Most disagreements involved the same two domains. Agreement is reported here descriptively; the study will not rely on a single coefficient, given debate about whether such statistics suit interpretive analysis (O'Connor & Joffe, 2020).
Next Steps
Transcripts P01 to P20 will be coded with version 1.2, and the second coder will double-code [one] further transcript in every four, so that the boundary rule can be tested on new material. Directed content analysis expects initial codes to be refined in exactly this way as the data challenge them (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
References
Atkins, L., Francis, J., Islam, R., O'Connor, D., Patey, A., Ivers, N., Foy, R., Duncan, E. M., Colquhoun, H., Grimshaw, J. M., Lawton, R., & Michie, S. (2017). A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Science, 12, 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
O'Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
What the HS880 Unit 5 assignment asks for
The fifth unit generally asks candidates to write a dated memo about a significant decision in their qualitative analysis, often two to four pages. Instructors expect the memo to identify the data that prompted the decision, the options considered, the choice made and its consequences for the codebook and later analysis. Disagreements between coders are a common subject, and graders look for a resolution that improves the codebook rather than one that simply declares a winner. Many prompts ask for a reflexive note about how the candidate's own background may have shaped the decision. Reporting agreement figures, with attention to what they can and cannot show, is often expected.
Inside the HS880 Unit 5 example
The memo opens with its date and the transcripts involved. It describes the nine passages and both coders' choices, then explains why both were reasonable, citing guidance that allows a passage to carry two domains; the highlighted sentence reframes the disagreement as a finding about the data. Three options are weighed: keep the original rule, create a combined code or double code with a rule. A section notes what the resolution implies for analysis and practice. Codebook version 1.2 changes are logged. A reflexive note ties the student's years teaching parent communication to a blind spot about room features. Agreement and next steps close the memo.
Where the points sit in the HS880 Unit 5 rubric
Coding memos are usually assessed on specificity, quality of reasoning, transparency about the codebook change, reflexivity and connection to the wider analysis. Reasoning often weighs most; graders want to see options compared, not a decision simply announced. Specificity rewards memos that cite transcripts, passage counts and the exact rule changed. Transparency earns credit when the version change is logged with its date and effect on earlier coding. Reflexivity scores well when it names a concrete feature of the candidate's background and its likely effect on one decision. Linking the decision to integration or later findings shows analytic maturity. Clear dating and organization complete the grade. Instructors may compare the memo's date with the codebook log to confirm that the decision was recorded when it was made.
HS880 Unit 5 help from the desk
A common weakness is a memo that summarizes coding in general terms without a specific decision at its center. Another is resolving a disagreement by majority or seniority without explaining why the chosen reading fits the data better. Some candidates write reflexive notes that say only that bias is possible. Others change the codebook without recoding earlier transcripts. Reporting a reliability statistic without describing the disagreements behind it hides the most useful information. If your analysis has raised a different question, perhaps a theme that fits no code or a participant who contradicts the rest, send the passages and your codebook, and a memo can be prepared around that decision.
Get an HS880 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Coding memos range from a paragraph in a log to a formal memo per decision. Paste the Unit 5 prompt and the rubric, describe the coding decision you need to record, and include your codebook version. The sample documents the disagreement, the evidence, the rule that settled it and everything it changed. Your first custom sample is free, 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HS880 papers and DHSc samples
- HS880 Unit 1: Survey and Interview Recruitment Plan
- HS880 Unit 2: Low Survey Response Discussion Post
- HS880 Unit 3: Research Data Management Protocol
- HS880 Unit 4: Directed Content Analysis Codebook
- HS880 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HS880 Unit 7: Descriptive Results Summary
- HS880 Unit 8: Analysis Output Narrative
- HS880 Unit 9: Deviation and Limitation Memo
- HS880 Unit 10: Results Chapter Draft
- HS865 Unit 5: Theoretical Domains Framework Section
- HS810 Unit 5: Policy Alternatives Memo
- HS860 Unit 5: Lymphedema Surveillance Literature Map
- HS820 Unit 5: Kerala and Uttar Pradesh Burden Review
HS880 Unit 5 questions, answered
What is the purpose of a coding memo?
To record, at the time, the reasoning behind a coding choice: the data that prompted it, the options considered, the choice and its consequences. Memos make qualitative analysis traceable, supporting the dependability and confirmability that trustworthiness criteria ask for. They help the researcher too, since decisions made during long coding sessions are easily forgotten by the time the results chapter is written.
Should two coders always agree?
No. Disagreement is expected and useful, because it exposes ambiguous definitions. What matters is how disagreements are resolved and recorded. Some studies report an agreement statistic; many directed content analyses rely instead on consensus meetings with documented decisions. Either way, the codebook should change when a disagreement reveals a gap, and earlier coding should be revisited.
What should a reflexive note in a memo contain?
A specific statement of how the researcher's background might shape a particular decision, not a general acknowledgment that bias exists. Here the student notes that years of shielding might make patient requests sound like pressure. The useful follow-up is showing what was done about it, such as writing a rule that does not depend on that impression.
Where can I find a free HS880 Unit 5 sample paper?
The complete Unit 5 coding memo is shown here, settling a disagreement between social influences and environmental context and logging codebook version 1.2.
Can one passage be coded to two domains?
Yes, when it expresses two influences at once. Published guidance on the framework allows it, and the memo sets a rule for when double coding applies.