| Course | PHLT 8006 Foundations of Doctoral Success in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Reflective memo |
| Length | About 600 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8006 Week 2
Memorandum
To: Course Instructor
From: Doctoral Student
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Current research management practices and the gap they reveal
Purpose
This memo describes, as plainly as I can, how I have been saving, tagging and recalling research, and what that habit reveals now that I am starting doctoral work on minimum unit pricing for alcohol.
What I Have Been Doing
For about six years, first as a health department analyst and then in a master's program, I have saved articles as PDFs in folders named by topic: "alcohol policy," "tobacco," "obesity." When I read a paper, I add a short note to a running document: the citation, one or two sentences on what the paper found, and sometimes a phrase about why it matters. I tag notes with the folder topic. To recall research, I search the running document for a word, find the note and reopen the PDF if I need more.
What I Found When I Looked Back
I opened my notes on alcohol pricing this week and counted. I had 41 entries. Thirty-nine recorded the paper's conclusion, such as "price increases reduce drinking" or "minimum pricing would save lives." Only four recorded anything about how the paper reached its conclusion: the design, the comparison group, the data source or the population. None recorded a limitation the authors stated.
This matters because conclusions without methods cannot be weighed. My note on a large meta-analysis of alcohol prices and drinking says only "price matters for all drinks" (Wagenaar et al., 2009). My note on a modeling study says "MUP would cut deaths, especially in poor groups" (Holmes et al., 2014). Reading them side by side, the notes look equally strong. In fact one pools more than 1,000 observed estimates and the other projects outcomes from assumptions in a model. My notes erased the difference.
Why This Habit Formed
As an analyst, I mostly needed to know what the evidence said so I could cite it in a briefing. The question was rarely how strong a finding was. Booth et al. (2016) describe research as a conversation in which a reader must judge the reasons and evidence behind each claim. My notes were built for quoting, not for judging.
What I Will Change
1. Every new note will record design, data, comparison, population and one limitation, in addition to the finding.
2. I will add a strength tag, such as "natural experiment," "model" or "advocacy summary," so sources can be sorted by type.
3. I will reread my 41 alcohol notes and add methods for the ten sources I expect to use most.
4. I will move from a running document to a reference manager with fields for these elements, so they appear in every entry.
A Test of the New Approach
To see whether the new fields would help, I rewrote three old notes this week. My note on the Scottish sales evaluation used to say only that sales fell. The new version records an interrupted time series design, retail sales data, England and Wales as the comparison, adults in Scotland as the population and the limitation that sales cannot show who drank less. Reading the revised notes side by side, I could see at once that the sales study and the modeling study answer different questions, which the old notes had hidden.
What I Expect to Be Hard
Recording methods will slow my reading, at least at first. I also expect to find that some sources I relied on, such as advocacy summaries, do not report methods at all, which will itself be useful information.
References
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Holmes, J., Meng, Y., Meier, P. S., Brennan, A., Angus, C., Campbell-Burton, A., Guo, Y., Hill-McManus, D., & Purshouse, R. C. (2014). Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on different income and socioeconomic groups: A modelling study. The Lancet, 383(9929), 1655-1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62417-4
Wagenaar, A. C., Salois, M. J., & Komro, K. A. (2009). Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: A meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction, 104(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02438.x
The Walden PHLT 8006 Week 2 instructions
Students write a reflective memo on how they currently find, save, organize and recall research. Faculty want candor: a plain account of real habits, including weaknesses, rather than a description of ideal practice. The strongest memos examine actual notes or files and report what they find, ideally with counts or examples, and then explain why the habits formed and what they cost. A brief connection to a source on research practice helps frame the reflection. Faculty also expect specific changes the student will make, preferably numbered, and some evidence that the changes were tried. Memo format with clear headings is usual, and the tone should be professional but personal, since the subject is the writer's own practice.
How the PHLT 8006 Week 2 example is put together
The memo opens with its purpose. A section describes the author's folders, running document and tagging. A section reports the audit of 41 notes and quotes the notes on Wagenaar and colleagues' meta-analysis and Holmes and colleagues' modeling study to show how conclusions without methods erase differences in strength. A section explains, citing Booth and colleagues, that the notes were built for quoting in briefings rather than for judging. Four numbered changes follow, from recording design and limitations to moving to a reference manager. A section reports a test rewriting three notes, including one on the Scottish sales evaluation. A final section names the expected difficulty of slower reading.
Reading the PHLT 8006 Week 2 rubric
The honesty and specificity of the audit drive this grade. Memos that describe good intentions earn less than memos that examine real notes and report what they show. Counting entries and quoting examples demonstrates the reflection was grounded. Graders value an explanation of why habits formed, since it shows self-understanding. Changes should be concrete and testable, and a small trial of the new approach shows follow-through. Citing a source on research practice adds a frame without taking over the memo. Professional memo structure and a candid, unembarrassed tone complete a strong reflection. Memos that blame tools or time, without examining what the notes actually contain, miss the point of the exercise.
PHLT 8006 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Reflective memos often list research tools the student uses and promise to be more organized. That says little. To write a stronger memo, open your actual notes and count what they record. Quote two or three entries that show a pattern. Ask why the habit formed and what it costs now. Propose specific changes and try one on a few old notes. Name what will be hard. Keep the tone plain and professional. A reflective memo on your own research habits can be written from your notes. Keep the memo short enough that the finding, not the description of your folders, stands out, and end with the one change you will make first.
Get a PHLT 8006 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk honestly how you store and recall what you read now, then add the Week 2 prompt and rubric. The memo is written around your real habits, not this author's folders. The first one is free, back in 24 to 48 hours, with the proposed record laid out so you can adopt or discard each field.
More PHLT 8006 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8006 Week 1: Evidence-Honest Question Post
- PHLT 8006 Week 3: Single Study Appraisal
- PHLT 8006 Week 4: Weighted Annotated Bibliography
- PHLT 8006 Week 5: Evidence-Focused Peer Replies
- PHLT 8006 Week 6: Seven-Study Evidence Table
- PHLT 8006 Week 7: Scaled Claim Argument Memo
- PHLT 8006 Week 8: Admired Model Critique
- PHLT 8006 Week 9: Dissertation Topic Memo
- PHLT 8006 Week 10: Policy Literature Synthesis
- PHLT 8006 Week 11: Evidence-Scaled Position Paper
- HLTH 9101 Week 2: Dissertation Argument Audit
- HLTH 8815 Week 2: Diagnosis or Function Post
- HLTH 8745 Week 2: Wound Healing Mechanism Brief
- HLTH 8701 Week 2: Collectivism Construct Definition
PHLT 8006 Week 2 questions, answered
Is it risky to admit weak habits in a graded memo?
Rarely, because the prompt asks for exactly that admission. Faculty reading these memos expect gaps and grade the precision with which they are described and tested. A memo claiming excellent habits usually scores lower, since it leaves nothing to reflect on. The example admits a great deal and earns its credit by showing that each admission leads to a specific change.
Why test the old notes instead of just describing them?
Description shows what the habits are; the test shows what they cost. Asking the notes a real question, why a particular study once seemed convincing, turns a vague sense of disorganization into a documented failure. That move ties the reflection to what the course actually asks for, weighing sources, rather than leaving it as a remark about neatness.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8006 Week 2 sample paper?
You can read the full Week 2 reflective memo here, auditing six years of research notes and finding that they recorded conclusions but almost never methods, with three references.
What did the audit of old notes find?
Of 41 notes on alcohol pricing, 39 recorded the paper's conclusion and only four recorded anything about design, data, comparison or population. None recorded a limitation the authors stated.
Does the memo cite sources?
Yes, three: Booth and colleagues on research as a conversation, and two alcohol pricing studies whose old notes are quoted to show how recording conclusions alone made a meta-analysis and a modeling study look equally strong.