RMP.9:5 - Archetypal Grounding

The cases below are constructed teaching cases. Their stated premises define the situations in which the choices follow.

RMP.9:5.1 - Correct the calculation and retain the Method

A team’s accepted Method estimates sample variance for independent observations by dividing the squared-deviation sum by n−1. The receiving conditions still fit this Method. A software default instead divides by n.

For observations 2, 4, 6 and 8, the mean is 5 and the squared-deviation sum is 9 + 1 + 1 + 9 = 20. The specified sample variance is 20/3; the implementation reports 5. The difference is a determinate implementation defect under the case premises.

Correct the denominator and verify the calculation and its dependent uncertainty output. The result is: retain the Method for the named conditions, repair its implementation, identify analyses that used the wrong value, and return consequential corrections through RMP.5 and RMP.8. Unaffected analyses remain valid at their existing reach.

Additional participants or a new efficacy trial would not determine this already specified correction. The known-answer check establishes the corrected calculation; it does not qualify another estimator or a changed receiving situation. This is a completed useful ResearchMethodPracticeRevision.

RMP.9:5.2 - Select a worthwhile comparison without inventing its result

A programme now estimates an equally weighted mean across independent sites, with repeated observations within each site. Site sample sizes differ and observations within a site are dependent. The old pooled-observation analysis does not answer the intended site-level question with defensible uncertainty under the case premises.

The team first fixes the target. Two attainable candidates use the same mean of site means but construct uncertainty differently: a t interval from independent site means and an interval obtained by resampling whole sites. The names of these procedures do not settle their adequacy when there are few sites, skewed outcomes and plausible heterogeneity.

A qualified statistician, existing simulation code and a bounded two-day allocation make a discriminating comparison attainable. The programme will reuse the chosen analysis across several studies, and a wrong uncertainty claim would materially affect that work. Include design, code checks, computation, failed runs, Monte Carlo uncertainty, interpretation and transition in the burden; the two-day availability is a case premise, not a general cost estimate.

Select the simulation around relevant generating situations, the shared estimand and the performance required by the intended use. Preserve adverse and inconclusive results. Both candidates may prove inadequate for the proposed reach, leading to a narrower claim or stopped use.

The completed result here is a justified decision to obtain evidence. Method qualification and the choice of a winning procedure remain unresolved until actual results exist. If the access, capability or worth premises change, reconsider this acquisition decision.

RMP.9:5.3 - Repair interpretation within reflexive thematic analysis

A reflexive thematic analysis team receives a request to improve quality by maximizing agreement among coders. In this constructed case, the actual weakness is a topic list that does not develop a coherent interpretation. Disagreement alone does not identify a failure of this approach.

Rework the analysis through coherent interpretation and reflexive discussion, and judge the resulting themes against that purpose. A compulsory reliability study would address another question. If the research purpose instead requires repeatable fixed-category counts, select and qualify the corresponding Method and criteria. This distinction applies to reflexive thematic analysis; agreement criteria can be appropriate in other Methods.

RMP.9:5.4 - Correct source extraction without certifying a new tool

An OCR tool repeatedly omits marginal dates in a bounded historical collection. Source images are available. Recover the missing material, correct the affected transcription and chronology, and preserve the relation between the source and the resulting interpretation. This repairs the extraction and its consequences without automatically replacing the historical Method.

A replacement tool intended for a materially different handwriting collection raises another question. Select a comparison only when it can change a consequential source use and access, expertise and effort make it worthwhile. Faster extraction alone does not establish fidelity. If originals are unavailable, preserve the resulting limitation on the argument; declining a new experiment does not make the transcription reliable.

RMP.9:5.5 - Preserve the distinct contributions in mixed research

A project combines a fixed-category count with an interpretive account. A coding revision changes both what is counted and what the categories mean. Reassess the affected count, interpretation and integration relation at their own purposes. A gain in counting consistency cannot by itself settle the interpretation, while an interpretive insight cannot validate an altered measurement.

Return the affected operational, analytic or synthesis contribution through RMP.3, RMP.5 or RMP.7. Retain the unaffected material and make any changed claim visible to its actual recipient. The two contributions need a defensible relation, not an invented common score.