project thesis methodology

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on August 25, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 20, 2023.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation , or research paper , the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research and your dissertation topic .

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analyzed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• How you mitigated or avoided research biases
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about methodology.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ? How did you prevent bias from affecting your data?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalizable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalized your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion and exclusion criteria , as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on July 4–8, 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

• Information bias
• Omitted variable bias
• Regression to the mean
• Survivorship bias
• Undercoverage bias
• Sampling bias

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyze?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness store’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

• The Hawthorne effect
• Observer bias
• The placebo effect
• Response bias and Nonresponse bias
• The Pygmalion effect
• Recall bias
• Social desirability bias
• Self-selection bias

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analyzed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analyzing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorizing and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviors, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalized beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalizable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research, you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 20). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analysed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyse?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analysing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorising and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviours, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalised beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalisable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives  and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).

In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.

Writing the Research Methodology Section of Your Thesis

This article explains the meaning of research methodology and the purpose and importance of writing a research methodology section or chapter for your thesis paper. It discusses what to include and not include in a research methodology section, the different approaches to research methodology that can be used, and the steps involved in writing a robust research methodology section.

What is a thesis research methodology?

A thesis research methodology explains the type of research performed, justifies the methods that you chose   by linking back to the literature review , and describes the data collection and analysis procedures. It is included in your thesis after the Introduction section . Most importantly, this is the section where the readers of your study evaluate its validity and reliability.

What should the research methodology section in your thesis include?

• The aim of your thesis
• An outline of the research methods chosen (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods)
• Background and rationale for the methods chosen, explaining why one method was chosen over another
• Methods used for data collection and data analysis
• Materials and equipment used—keep this brief
• Difficulties encountered during data collection and analysis. It is expected that problems will occur during your research process. Use this as an opportunity to demonstrate your problem-solving abilities by explaining how you overcame all obstacles. This builds your readers’ confidence in your study findings.
• A brief evaluation of your research explaining whether your results were conclusive and whether your choice of methodology was effective in practice

What should not be included in the research methodology section of your thesis?

• Irrelevant details, for example, an extensive review of methodologies (this belongs in the literature review section) or information that does not contribute to the readers’ understanding of your chosen methods
• A description of basic procedures
• Excessive details about materials and equipment used. If an extremely long and detailed list is necessary, add it as an appendix

Types of methodological approaches

The choice of which methodological approach to use depends on your field of research and your thesis question. Your methodology should establish a clear relationship with your thesis question and must also be supported by your  literature review . Types of methodological approaches include quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. 

Quantitative studies generate data in the form of numbers   to count, classify, measure, or identify relationships or patterns. Information may be collected by performing experiments and tests, conducting surveys, or using existing data. The data are analyzed using  statistical tests and presented as charts or graphs. Quantitative data are typically used in the Sciences domain.

For example, analyzing the effect of a change, such as alterations in electricity consumption by municipalities after installing LED streetlights.

The raw data will need to be prepared for statistical analysis by identifying variables and checking for missing data and outliers. Details of the statistical software program used (name of the package, version number, and supplier name and location) must also be mentioned.

Qualitative studies gather non-numerical data using, for example, observations, focus groups, and in-depth interviews.   Open-ended questions are often posed. This yields rich, detailed, and descriptive results. Qualitative studies are usually   subjective and are helpful for investigating social and cultural phenomena, which are difficult to quantify. Qualitative studies are typically used in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) domain.

For example, determining customer perceptions on the extension of a range of baking utensils to include silicone muffin trays.

The raw data will need to be prepared for analysis by coding and categorizing ideas and themes to interpret the meaning behind the responses given.

Mixed methods use a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to present multiple findings about a single phenomenon. T his enables triangulation: verification of the data from two or more sources.

Data collection

Explain the rationale behind the sampling procedure you have chosen. This could involve probability sampling (a random sample from the study population) or non-probability sampling (does not use a random sample).

For quantitative studies, describe the sampling procedure and whether statistical tests were used to determine the  sample size .

Following our example of analyzing the changes in electricity consumption by municipalities after installing LED streetlights, you will need to determine which municipal areas will be sampled and how the information will be gathered (e.g., a physical survey of the streetlights or reviewing purchase orders).

For qualitative research, describe how the participants were chosen and how the data is going to be collected.

Following our example about determining customer perceptions on the extension of a range of baking utensils to include silicone muffin trays, you will need to decide the criteria for inclusion as a study participant (e.g., women aged 20–70 years, bakeries, and bakery supply shops) and how the information will be collected (e.g., interviews, focus groups, online or in-person questionnaires, or video recordings) .

Data analysis

For quantitative research, describe what tests you plan to perform and why you have chosen them. Popular data analysis methods in quantitative research include:

• Descriptive statistics (e.g., means, medians, modes)
• Inferential statistics (e.g., correlation, regression, structural equation modeling)

For qualitative research, describe how the data is going to be analyzed and justify your choice. Popular data analysis methods in qualitative research include:

• Qualitative content analysis
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Narrative analysis
• Grounded theory
• Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)

Evaluate and justify your methodological choices

You need to convince the reader that you have made the correct methodological choices. Once again, this ties back to your thesis question and  literature review . Write using a persuasive tone, and use  rhetoric to convince the reader of the quality, reliability, and validity of your research.

Ethical considerations

• The young researcher should maintain objectivity at all times
• All participants have the right to privacy and anonymity
• Research participation must be voluntary
• All subjects have the right to withdraw from the research at any time
• Consent must be obtained from all participants before starting the research
• Confidentiality of data provided by individuals must be maintained
• Consider how the interpretation and reporting of the data will affect the participants

Tips for writing a robust thesis research methodology

• Determine what kind of knowledge you are trying to uncover. For example, subjective or objective, experimental or interpretive.
• A thorough literature review is the best starting point for choosing your methods.
• Ensure that there is continuity throughout the research process. The authenticity of your research depends upon the validity of the research data, the reliability of your data measurements, and the time taken to conduct the analysis.
• Choose a research method that is achievable. Consider the time and funds available, feasibility, ethics, and access and availability of equipment to measure the phenomenon or answer your thesis question correctly.
• If you are struggling with a concept, ask for help from your supervisor, academic staff members, or fellow students.

A thesis methodology justifies why you have chosen a specific approach to address your thesis question. It explains how you will collect the data and analyze it. Above all, it allows the readers of your study to evaluate its validity and reliability.

A thesis is the most crucial document that you will write during your academic studies. For professional thesis editing and thesis proofreading services, visit  Enago Thesis Editing for more information.

Editor’s pick

Get free updates.

Subscribe to our newsletter for regular insights from the research and publishing industry!

Review Checklist

Introduce your methodological approach , for example, quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods.

Explain why your chosen approach is relevant to the overall research design and how it links with your  thesis question.

Justify your chosen method and why it is more appropriate than others.

Provide background information on methods that may be unfamiliar to readers of your thesis.

Introduce the tools that you will use for data collection , and explain how you plan to use them (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments, or existing data).

Explain how you will analyze your results. The type of analysis used depends on the methods you chose. For example, exploring theoretical perspectives to support your explanation of observed behaviors in a qualitative study or using statistical analyses in a quantitative study.

Mention any research limitations. All studies are expected to have limitations, such as the sample size, data collection method, or equipment. Discussing the limitations justifies your choice of methodology despite the risks. It also explains under which conditions the results should be interpreted and shows that you have taken a holistic approach to your study.

What is the difference between methodology and methods? +

Methodology  refers to the overall rationale and strategy of your thesis project. It involves studying the theories or principles behind the methods used in your field so that you can explain why you chose a particular method for your research approach.  Methods , on the other hand, refer to how the data were collected and analyzed (e.g., experiments, surveys, observations, interviews, and statistical tests).

What is the difference between reliability and validity? +

Reliability refers to whether a measurement is consistent (i.e., the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).  Validity refers to whether a measurement is accurate (i.e., the results represent what was supposed to be measured). For example, when investigating linguistic and cultural guidelines for administration of the Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition (PLS5) in Arab-American preschool children, the normative sample curves should show the same distribution as a monolingual population, which would indicate that the test is valid. The test would be considered reliable if the results obtained were consistent across different sampling sites.

What tense is used to write the methods section? +

The methods section is written in the past tense because it describes what was done.

What software programs are recommended for statistical analysis? +

Recommended programs include Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) ,  Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) ,  JMP ,  R software,  MATLAB , Microsoft Excel,  GraphPad Prism , and  Minitab .

• Staff Directory
• Library Policies
• Hege Research Award
• Quaker Archives
• Art Gallery
• Student Support
• Teaching & Learning
• Reserving spaces
• Technology Lending
• Interlibrary Loan
• Course Reserves
• Copyright & Fair Use
• Poster Printing
• Virtual Reference
• Research Guides
• Off-campus access
• Digital Scholarship
• Guilford Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• Quaker Collections
• Digital Collections
• College Archives
• Underground Railroad
• Universities Studying Slavery
• Images & Exhibitions

Service Alert

Hege Library & Learning Technologies

Guide for Thesis Research

• Introduction to the Thesis Process
• Project Planning
• Literature Review
• Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology
• GC Honors Program Theses
• Thesis Submission Instructions This link opens in a new window
• Accessing Guilford Theses from 1898 to 2020 This link opens in a new window

Basics of Methodology

Research is a process of inquiry that is carried out in a pondered, organized, and strategic manner. In order to obtain high quality results, it is important to understand methodology.

Research methodology refers to how your project will be designed, what you will observe or measure, and how you will collect and analyze data. The methods you choose must be appropriate for your field and for the specific research questions you are setting out to answer.

A strong understanding of methodology will help you:

• apply appropriate research techniques
• design effective data collection instruments
• analyze and interpret your data
• develop well-founded conclusions

Below, you will find resources that mostly cover general aspects of research methodology. In the left column, you will find resources that specifically cover qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research.

General Works on Methodology

Qualitative Research

Quantitative Research

Mixed Methods Research

• << Previous: Theoretical Frameworks
• Next: Citation >>
• Last Updated: Jan 23, 2024 4:31 PM
• URL: https://library.guilford.edu/thesis-guide

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 6. The Methodology
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE :   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE : If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE :   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 1:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

What is a thesis | A Complete Guide with Examples

Table of Contents

A thesis is a comprehensive academic paper based on your original research that presents new findings, arguments, and ideas of your study. It’s typically submitted at the end of your master’s degree or as a capstone of your bachelor’s degree.

However, writing a thesis can be laborious, especially for beginners. From the initial challenge of pinpointing a compelling research topic to organizing and presenting findings, the process is filled with potential pitfalls.

Therefore, to help you, this guide talks about what is a thesis. Additionally, it offers revelations and methodologies to transform it from an overwhelming task to a manageable and rewarding academic milestone.

What is a thesis?

A thesis is an in-depth research study that identifies a particular topic of inquiry and presents a clear argument or perspective about that topic using evidence and logic.

Writing a thesis showcases your ability of critical thinking, gathering evidence, and making a compelling argument. Integral to these competencies is thorough research, which not only fortifies your propositions but also confers credibility to your entire study.

Furthermore, there's another phenomenon you might often confuse with the thesis: the ' working thesis .' However, they aren't similar and shouldn't be used interchangeably.

A working thesis, often referred to as a preliminary or tentative thesis, is an initial version of your thesis statement. It serves as a draft or a starting point that guides your research in its early stages.

As you research more and gather more evidence, your initial thesis (aka working thesis) might change. It's like a starting point that can be adjusted as you learn more. It's normal for your main topic to change a few times before you finalize it.

While a thesis identifies and provides an overarching argument, the key to clearly communicating the central point of that argument lies in writing a strong thesis statement.

What is a thesis statement?

A strong thesis statement (aka thesis sentence) is a concise summary of the main argument or claim of the paper. It serves as a critical anchor in any academic work, succinctly encapsulating the primary argument or main idea of the entire paper.

Typically found within the introductory section, a strong thesis statement acts as a roadmap of your thesis, directing readers through your arguments and findings. By delineating the core focus of your investigation, it offers readers an immediate understanding of the context and the gravity of your study.

Furthermore, an effectively crafted thesis statement can set forth the boundaries of your research, helping readers anticipate the specific areas of inquiry you are addressing.

Different types of thesis statements

A good thesis statement is clear, specific, and arguable. Therefore, it is necessary for you to choose the right type of thesis statement for your academic papers.

Thesis statements can be classified based on their purpose and structure. Here are the primary types of thesis statements:

Argumentative (or Persuasive) thesis statement

Purpose : To convince the reader of a particular stance or point of view by presenting evidence and formulating a compelling argument.

Example : Reducing plastic use in daily life is essential for environmental health.

Analytical thesis statement

Purpose : To break down an idea or issue into its components and evaluate it.

Example : By examining the long-term effects, social implications, and economic impact of climate change, it becomes evident that immediate global action is necessary.

Expository (or Descriptive) thesis statement

Purpose : To explain a topic or subject to the reader.

Example : The Great Depression, spanning the 1930s, was a severe worldwide economic downturn triggered by a stock market crash, bank failures, and reduced consumer spending.

Cause and effect thesis statement

Purpose : To demonstrate a cause and its resulting effect.

Example : Overuse of smartphones can lead to impaired sleep patterns, reduced face-to-face social interactions, and increased levels of anxiety.

Compare and contrast thesis statement

Purpose : To highlight similarities and differences between two subjects.

Example : "While both novels '1984' and 'Brave New World' delve into dystopian futures, they differ in their portrayal of individual freedom, societal control, and the role of technology."

When you write a thesis statement , it's important to ensure clarity and precision, so the reader immediately understands the central focus of your work.

What is the difference between a thesis and a thesis statement?

While both terms are frequently used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings.

A thesis refers to the entire research document, encompassing all its chapters and sections. In contrast, a thesis statement is a brief assertion that encapsulates the central argument of the research.

Here’s an in-depth differentiation table of a thesis and a thesis statement.

Now, to craft a compelling thesis, it's crucial to adhere to a specific structure. Let’s break down these essential components that make up a thesis structure

15 components of a thesis structure

Navigating a thesis can be daunting. However, understanding its structure can make the process more manageable.

Here are the key components or different sections of a thesis structure:

Your thesis begins with the title page. It's not just a formality but the gateway to your research.

Here, you'll prominently display the necessary information about you (the author) and your institutional details.

• Title of your thesis
• Your full name
• Your department
• Your institution and degree program
• Your submission date
• Your Supervisor's name (in some cases)
• Your Department or faculty (in some cases)
• Your University's logo (in some cases)
• Your Student ID (in some cases)

In a concise manner, you'll have to summarize the critical aspects of your research in typically no more than 200-300 words.

This includes the problem statement, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. For many, the abstract will determine if they delve deeper into your work, so ensure it's clear and compelling.

Acknowledgments

Research is rarely a solitary endeavor. In the acknowledgments section, you have the chance to express gratitude to those who've supported your journey.

This might include advisors, peers, institutions, or even personal sources of inspiration and support. It's a personal touch, reflecting the humanity behind the academic rigor.

Table of contents

A roadmap for your readers, the table of contents lists the chapters, sections, and subsections of your thesis.

By providing page numbers, you allow readers to navigate your work easily, jumping to sections that pique their interest.

List of figures and tables

Research often involves data, and presenting this data visually can enhance understanding. This section provides an organized listing of all figures and tables in your thesis.

It's a visual index, ensuring that readers can quickly locate and reference your graphical data.

Introduction

Here's where you introduce your research topic, articulate the research question or objective, and outline the significance of your study.

• Present the research topic : Clearly articulate the central theme or subject of your research.
• Background information : Ground your research topic, providing any necessary context or background information your readers might need to understand the significance of your study.
• Define the scope : Clearly delineate the boundaries of your research, indicating what will and won't be covered.
• Literature review : Introduce any relevant existing research on your topic, situating your work within the broader academic conversation and highlighting where your research fits in.
• State the research Question(s) or objective(s) : Clearly articulate the primary questions or objectives your research aims to address.
• Outline the study's structure : Give a brief overview of how the subsequent sections of your work will unfold, guiding your readers through the journey ahead.

The introduction should captivate your readers, making them eager to delve deeper into your research journey.

Literature review section

Your study correlates with existing research. Therefore, in the literature review section, you'll engage in a dialogue with existing knowledge, highlighting relevant studies, theories, and findings.

It's here that you identify gaps in the current knowledge, positioning your research as a bridge to new insights.

To streamline this process, consider leveraging AI tools. For example, the SciSpace literature review tool enables you to efficiently explore and delve into research papers, simplifying your literature review journey.

Methodology

In the research methodology section, you’ll detail the tools, techniques, and processes you employed to gather and analyze data. This section will inform the readers about how you approached your research questions and ensures the reproducibility of your study.

Here's a breakdown of what it should encompass:

• Research Design : Describe the overall structure and approach of your research. Are you conducting a qualitative study with in-depth interviews? Or is it a quantitative study using statistical analysis? Perhaps it's a mixed-methods approach?
• Data Collection : Detail the methods you used to gather data. This could include surveys, experiments, observations, interviews, archival research, etc. Mention where you sourced your data, the duration of data collection, and any tools or instruments used.
• Sampling : If applicable, explain how you selected participants or data sources for your study. Discuss the size of your sample and the rationale behind choosing it.
• Data Analysis : Describe the techniques and tools you used to process and analyze the data. This could range from statistical tests in quantitative research to thematic analysis in qualitative research.
• Validity and Reliability : Address the steps you took to ensure the validity and reliability of your findings to ensure that your results are both accurate and consistent.
• Ethical Considerations : Highlight any ethical issues related to your research and the measures you took to address them, including — informed consent, confidentiality, and data storage and protection measures.

Moreover, different research questions necessitate different types of methodologies. For instance:

• Experimental methodology : Often used in sciences, this involves a controlled experiment to discern causality.
• Qualitative methodology : Employed when exploring patterns or phenomena without numerical data. Methods can include interviews, focus groups, or content analysis.
• Quantitative methodology : Concerned with measurable data and often involves statistical analysis. Surveys and structured observations are common tools here.
• Mixed methods : As the name implies, this combines both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

The Methodology section isn’t just about detailing the methods but also justifying why they were chosen. The appropriateness of the methods in addressing your research question can significantly impact the credibility of your findings.

Results (or Findings)

This section presents the outcomes of your research. It's crucial to note that the nature of your results may vary; they could be quantitative, qualitative, or a mix of both.

Quantitative results often present statistical data, showcasing measurable outcomes, and they benefit from tables, graphs, and figures to depict these data points.

Qualitative results , on the other hand, might delve into patterns, themes, or narratives derived from non-numerical data, such as interviews or observations.

Regardless of the nature of your results, clarity is essential. This section is purely about presenting the data without offering interpretations — that comes later in the discussion.

In the discussion section, the raw data transforms into valuable insights.

Start by revisiting your research question and contrast it with the findings. How do your results expand, constrict, or challenge current academic conversations?

Dive into the intricacies of the data, guiding the reader through its implications. Detail potential limitations transparently, signaling your awareness of the research's boundaries. This is where your academic voice should be resonant and confident.

Practical implications (Recommendation) section

Based on the insights derived from your research, this section provides actionable suggestions or proposed solutions.

Whether aimed at industry professionals or the general public, recommendations translate your academic findings into potential real-world actions. They help readers understand the practical implications of your work and how it can be applied to effect change or improvement in a given field.

When crafting recommendations, it's essential to ensure they're feasible and rooted in the evidence provided by your research. They shouldn't merely be aspirational but should offer a clear path forward, grounded in your findings.

The conclusion provides closure to your research narrative.

It's not merely a recap but a synthesis of your main findings and their broader implications. Reconnect with the research questions or hypotheses posited at the beginning, offering clear answers based on your findings.

Reflect on the broader contributions of your study, considering its impact on the academic community and potential real-world applications.

Lastly, the conclusion should leave your readers with a clear understanding of the value and impact of your study.

References (or Bibliography)

Every theory you've expounded upon, every data point you've cited, and every methodological precedent you've followed finds its acknowledgment here.

In references, it's crucial to ensure meticulous consistency in formatting, mirroring the specific guidelines of the chosen citation style .

Proper referencing helps to avoid plagiarism , gives credit to original ideas, and allows readers to explore topics of interest. Moreover, it situates your work within the continuum of academic knowledge.

To properly cite the sources used in the study, you can rely on online citation generator tools  to generate accurate citations!

Here’s more on how you can cite your sources.

Often, the depth of research produces a wealth of material that, while crucial, can make the core content of the thesis cumbersome. The appendix is where you mention extra information that supports your research but isn't central to the main text.

Whether it's raw datasets, detailed procedural methodologies, extended case studies, or any other ancillary material, the appendices ensure that these elements are archived for reference without breaking the main narrative's flow.

For thorough researchers and readers keen on meticulous details, the appendices provide a treasure trove of insights.

Glossary (optional)

In academics, specialized terminologies, and jargon are inevitable. However, not every reader is versed in every term.

The glossary, while optional, is a critical tool for accessibility. It's a bridge ensuring that even readers from outside the discipline can access, understand, and appreciate your work.

By defining complex terms and providing context, you're inviting a wider audience to engage with your research, enhancing its reach and impact.

Remember, while these components provide a structured framework, the essence of your thesis lies in the originality of your ideas, the rigor of your research, and the clarity of your presentation.

As you craft each section, keep your readers in mind, ensuring that your passion and dedication shine through every page.

Thesis examples

To further elucidate the concept of a thesis, here are illustrative examples from various fields:

Example 1 (History): Abolition, Africans, and Abstraction: the Influence of the ‘Noble Savage’ on British and French Antislavery Thought, 1787-1807 by Suchait Kahlon.

Example 2 (Climate Dynamics): Influence of external forcings on abrupt millennial-scale climate changes: a statistical modelling study by Takahito Mitsui · Michel Crucifix

Checklist for your thesis evaluation

Evaluating your thesis ensures that your research meets the standards of academia. Here's an elaborate checklist to guide you through this critical process.

Content and structure

• Is the thesis statement clear, concise, and debatable?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context?
• Is the literature review comprehensive, relevant, and well-organized?
• Does the methodology section clearly describe and justify the research methods?
• Are the results/findings presented clearly and logically?
• Does the discussion interpret the results in light of the research question and existing literature?
• Is the conclusion summarizing the research and suggesting future directions or implications?

Clarity and coherence

• Is the writing clear and free of jargon?
• Are ideas and sections logically connected and flowing?
• Is there a clear narrative or argument throughout the thesis?

Research quality

• Is the research question significant and relevant?
• Are the research methods appropriate for the question?
• Is the sample size (if applicable) adequate?
• Are the data analysis techniques appropriate and correctly applied?
• Are potential biases or limitations addressed?

Originality and significance

• Does the thesis contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?
• Is the research grounded in existing literature while offering fresh perspectives?

Formatting and presentation

• Is the thesis formatted according to institutional guidelines?
• Are figures, tables, and charts clear, labeled, and referenced in the text?
• Is the bibliography or reference list complete and consistently formatted?
• Are appendices relevant and appropriately referenced in the main text?

Grammar and language

• Is the thesis free of grammatical and spelling errors?
• Is the language professional, consistent, and appropriate for an academic audience?
• Are quotations and paraphrased material correctly cited?

Feedback and revision

• Have you sought feedback from peers, advisors, or experts in the field?
• Have you addressed the feedback and made the necessary revisions?

Overall assessment

• Does the thesis as a whole feel cohesive and comprehensive?
• Would the thesis be understandable and valuable to someone in your field?

Ensure to use this checklist to leave no ground for doubt or missed information in your thesis.

After writing your thesis, the next step is to discuss and defend your findings verbally in front of a knowledgeable panel. You’ve to be well prepared as your professors may grade your presentation abilities.

Preparing your thesis defense

A thesis defense, also known as "defending the thesis," is the culmination of a scholar's research journey. It's the final frontier, where you’ll present their findings and face scrutiny from a panel of experts.

Typically, the defense involves a public presentation where you’ll have to outline your study, followed by a question-and-answer session with a committee of experts. This committee assesses the validity, originality, and significance of the research.

The defense serves as a rite of passage for scholars. It's an opportunity to showcase expertise, address criticisms, and refine arguments. A successful defense not only validates the research but also establishes your authority as a researcher in your field.

Here’s how you can effectively prepare for your thesis defense .

Now, having touched upon the process of defending a thesis, it's worth noting that scholarly work can take various forms, depending on academic and regional practices.

One such form, often paralleled with the thesis, is the 'dissertation.' But what differentiates the two?

Dissertation vs. Thesis

Often used interchangeably in casual discourse, they refer to distinct research projects undertaken at different levels of higher education.

To the uninitiated, understanding their meaning might be elusive. So, let's demystify these terms and delve into their core differences.

Here's a table differentiating between the two.

Wrapping up

From understanding the foundational concept of a thesis to navigating its various components, differentiating it from a dissertation, and recognizing the importance of proper citation — this guide covers it all.

As scholars and readers, understanding these nuances not only aids in academic pursuits but also fosters a deeper appreciation for the relentless quest for knowledge that drives academia.

It’s important to remember that every thesis is a testament to curiosity, dedication, and the indomitable spirit of discovery.

Good luck with your thesis writing!

Frequently Asked Questions

A thesis typically ranges between 40-80 pages, but its length can vary based on the research topic, institution guidelines, and level of study.

A PhD thesis usually spans 200-300 pages, though this can vary based on the discipline, complexity of the research, and institutional requirements.

To identify a thesis topic, consider current trends in your field, gaps in existing literature, personal interests, and discussions with advisors or mentors. Additionally, reviewing related journals and conference proceedings can provide insights into potential areas of exploration.

The conceptual framework is often situated in the literature review or theoretical framework section of a thesis. It helps set the stage by providing the context, defining key concepts, and explaining the relationships between variables.

A thesis statement should be concise, clear, and specific. It should state the main argument or point of your research. Start by pinpointing the central question or issue your research addresses, then condense that into a single statement, ensuring it reflects the essence of your paper.

You might also like

AI for Meta Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Beyond Google Scholar: Why SciSpace is the best alternative

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

• Table of Contents

Dissertation Methodology

In any research, the methodology chapter is one of the key components of your dissertation. It provides a detailed description of the methods you used to conduct your research and helps readers understand how you obtained your data and how you plan to analyze it. This section is crucial for replicating the study and validating its results.

Here are the basic elements that are typically included in a dissertation methodology:

• Introduction : This section should explain the importance and goals of your research .
• Research Design : Outline your research approach and why it’s appropriate for your study. You might be conducting an experimental research, a qualitative research, a quantitative research, or a mixed-methods research.
• Data Collection : This section should detail the methods you used to collect your data. Did you use surveys, interviews, observations, etc.? Why did you choose these methods? You should also include who your participants were, how you recruited them, and any ethical considerations.
• Data Analysis : Explain how you intend to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, thematic analysis, content analysis, etc., depending on the nature of your study.
• Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your study. For instance, you could discuss measures taken to reduce bias, how you ensured that your measures accurately capture what they were intended to, or how you will handle any limitations in your study.
• Ethical Considerations : This is where you state how you have considered ethical issues related to your research, how you have protected the participants’ rights, and how you have complied with the relevant ethical guidelines.
• Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations of your methodology, including any biases and constraints that might have affected your study.
• Summary : Recap the key points of your methodology chapter, highlighting the overall approach and rationalization of your research.

Types of Dissertation Methodology

The type of methodology you choose for your dissertation will depend on the nature of your research question and the field you’re working in. Here are some of the most common types of methodologies used in dissertations:

Experimental Research

This involves creating an experiment that will test your hypothesis. You’ll need to design an experiment, manipulate variables, collect data, and analyze that data to draw conclusions. This is commonly used in fields like psychology, biology, and physics.

Survey Research

This type of research involves gathering data from a large number of participants using tools like questionnaires or surveys. It can be used to collect a large amount of data and is often used in fields like sociology, marketing, and public health.

Qualitative Research

This type of research is used to explore complex phenomena that can’t be easily quantified. Methods include interviews, focus groups, and observations. This methodology is common in fields like anthropology, sociology, and education.

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research uses numerical data to answer research questions. This can include statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. It’s common in fields like economics, psychology, and health sciences.

Case Study Research

This type of research involves in-depth investigation of a particular case, such as an individual, group, or event. This methodology is often used in psychology, social sciences, and business.

Mixed Methods Research

This combines qualitative and quantitative research methods in a single study. It’s used to answer more complex research questions and is becoming more popular in fields like social sciences, health sciences, and education.

Action Research

This type of research involves taking action and then reflecting upon the results. This cycle of action-reflection-action continues throughout the study. It’s often used in fields like education and organizational development.

Longitudinal Research

This type of research involves studying the same group of individuals over an extended period of time. This could involve surveys, observations, or experiments. It’s common in fields like psychology, sociology, and medicine.

Ethnographic Research

This type of research involves the in-depth study of people and cultures. Researchers immerse themselves in the culture they’re studying to collect data. This is often used in fields like anthropology and social sciences.

Structure of Dissertation Methodology

The structure of a dissertation methodology can vary depending on your field of study, the nature of your research, and the guidelines of your institution. However, a standard structure typically includes the following elements:

• Introduction : Briefly introduce your overall approach to the research. Explain what you plan to explore and why it’s important.
• Research Design/Approach : Describe your overall research design. This can be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain the rationale behind your chosen design and why it is suitable for your research questions or hypotheses.
• Data Collection Methods : Detail the methods you used to collect your data. You should include what type of data you collected, how you collected it, and why you chose this method. If relevant, you can also include information about your sample population, such as how many people participated, how they were chosen, and any relevant demographic information.
• Data Analysis Methods : Explain how you plan to analyze your collected data. This will depend on the nature of your data. For example, if you collected quantitative data, you might discuss statistical analysis techniques. If you collected qualitative data, you might discuss coding strategies, thematic analysis, or narrative analysis.
• Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your research. This might include steps you took to reduce bias or increase the accuracy of your measurements.
• Ethical Considerations : If relevant, discuss any ethical issues associated with your research. This might include how you obtained informed consent from participants, how you ensured participants’ privacy and confidentiality, or any potential conflicts of interest.
• Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations in your research methodology. This could include potential sources of bias, difficulties with data collection, or limitations in your analysis methods.
• Summary/Conclusion : Briefly summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps answer your research questions or hypotheses.

How to Write Dissertation Methodology

Writing a dissertation methodology requires you to be clear and precise about the way you’ve carried out your research. It’s an opportunity to convince your readers of the appropriateness and reliability of your approach to your research question. Here is a basic guideline on how to write your methodology section:

1. Introduction

Start your methodology section by restating your research question(s) or objective(s). This ensures your methodology directly ties into the aim of your research.

2. Approach

Identify your overall approach: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain why you have chosen this approach.

• Qualitative methods are typically used for exploratory research and involve collecting non-numerical data. This might involve interviews, observations, or analysis of texts.
• Quantitative methods are used for research that relies on numerical data. This might involve surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis.
• Mixed methods use a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

3. Research Design

Describe the overall design of your research. This could involve explaining the type of study (e.g., case study, ethnography, experimental research, etc.), how you’ve defined and measured your variables, and any control measures you’ve implemented.

4. Data Collection

Explain in detail how you collected your data.

• If you’ve used qualitative methods, you might detail how you selected participants for interviews or focus groups, how you conducted observations, or how you analyzed existing texts.
• If you’ve used quantitative methods, you might detail how you designed your survey or experiment, how you collected responses, and how you ensured your data is reliable and valid.

5. Data Analysis

Describe how you analyzed your data.

• If you’re doing qualitative research, this might involve thematic analysis, discourse analysis, or grounded theory.
• If you’re doing quantitative research, you might be conducting statistical tests, regression analysis, or factor analysis.

Discuss any ethical issues related to your research. This might involve explaining how you obtained informed consent, how you’re protecting participants’ privacy, or how you’re managing any potential harms to participants.

7. Reliability and Validity

Discuss the steps you’ve taken to ensure the reliability and validity of your data.

• Reliability refers to the consistency of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve piloted your instruments or used standardized measures.
• Validity refers to the accuracy of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve ensured your measures reflect the concepts they’re supposed to measure.

8. Limitations

Every study has its limitations. Discuss the potential weaknesses of your chosen methods and explain any obstacles you faced in your research.

9. Conclusion

Summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps to address your research question or objective.

Example of Dissertation Methodology

An Example of Dissertation Methodology is as follows:

Chapter 3: Methodology

• Introduction

This chapter details the methodology adopted in this research. The study aimed to explore the relationship between stress and productivity in the workplace. A mixed-methods research design was used to collect and analyze data.

Research Design

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. The rationale for this approach is that while quantitative data can provide a broad overview of the relationships between variables, qualitative data can provide deeper insights into the nuances of these relationships.

Data Collection Methods

Quantitative Data Collection : An online self-report questionnaire was used to collect data from participants. The questionnaire consisted of two standardized scales: the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) to measure stress levels and the Individual Work Productivity Questionnaire (IWPQ) to measure productivity. The sample consisted of 200 office workers randomly selected from various companies in the city.

Qualitative Data Collection : Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants chosen from the initial sample. The interview guide included questions about participants’ experiences with stress and how they perceived its impact on their productivity.

Data Analysis Methods

Quantitative Data Analysis : Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the survey data. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between stress and productivity.

Qualitative Data Analysis : Interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis using NVivo software. This process allowed for identifying and analyzing patterns and themes regarding the impact of stress on productivity.

Reliability and Validity

To ensure reliability and validity, standardized measures with good psychometric properties were used. In qualitative data analysis, triangulation was employed by having two researchers independently analyze the data and then compare findings.

Ethical Considerations

All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. They were informed about the purpose of the study, their rights as participants, and the confidentiality of their responses.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study is its reliance on self-report measures, which can be subject to biases such as social desirability bias. Moreover, the sample was drawn from a single city, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Where to Write Dissertation Methodology

In a dissertation or thesis, the Methodology section usually follows the Literature Review. This placement allows the Methodology to build upon the theoretical framework and existing research outlined in the Literature Review, and precedes the Results or Findings section. Here’s a basic outline of how most dissertations are structured:

• Acknowledgements
• Literature Review (or it may be interspersed throughout the dissertation)
• Methodology
• Results/Findings
• References/Bibliography

In the Methodology chapter, you will discuss the research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and any ethical considerations pertaining to your study. This allows your readers to understand how your research was conducted and how you arrived at your results.

Advantages of Dissertation Methodology

The dissertation methodology section plays an important role in a dissertation for several reasons. Here are some of the advantages of having a well-crafted methodology section in your dissertation:

• Clarifies Your Research Approach : The methodology section explains how you plan to tackle your research question, providing a clear plan for data collection and analysis.
• Enables Replication : A detailed methodology allows other researchers to replicate your study. Replication is an important aspect of scientific research because it provides validation of the study’s results.
• Demonstrates Rigor : A well-written methodology shows that you’ve thought critically about your research methods and have chosen the most appropriate ones for your research question. This adds credibility to your study.
• Enhances Transparency : Detailing your methods allows readers to understand the steps you took in your research. This increases the transparency of your study and allows readers to evaluate potential biases or limitations.
• Helps in Addressing Research Limitations : In your methodology section, you can acknowledge and explain the limitations of your research. This is important as it shows you understand that no research method is perfect and there are always potential weaknesses.
• Facilitates Peer Review : A detailed methodology helps peer reviewers assess the soundness of your research design. This is an important part of the publication process if you aim to publish your dissertation in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Establishes the Validity and Reliability : Your methodology section should also include a discussion of the steps you took to ensure the validity and reliability of your measurements, which is crucial for establishing the overall quality of your research.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Dissertation vs Thesis – Key Differences

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Thesis, major paper, and major project proposals

• Definitions
• Introductory section
• Literature review

Methodology

• Schedule/work plan
• Other potential elements
• Proposal references
• Ask for help

The methodology section can include (but isn't limited to):

• A description of the research design and methods
• A description of data-gathering instruments
• Methods of data collection
• Ethical considerations
• Analysis strategies and techniques
• Potential participants
• Rationale for your choice of methodological choices
• How the methodology is appropriate for the organization or participants
• The advantages and disadvantages of the methodology
• References to scholarly literature that support the chosen research design and methods

If you are unsure if including the methodology is required in your thesis, major project, or research paper proposal, please consult with your instructor or advisor.

This information regarding the methodology section of a proposal was gathered from RRU thesis and major project handbooks, current in 2020, from programs in the Faculty of Social and Applied Sciences, the Faculty of Management, and the College of Interdisciplinary Studies. If the details here differ from the information provided in the handbook for your project, please follow the handbook's directions.

Image credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

• In SAGE Research Methods Project Planner ; access via this link requires a RRU username and password.

Data Collection

How Do I Write About Theory?

• In SAGE Research Methods: Writing Up ; look for the How Do I Write About Theory? drop down option. Access via this link requires a RRU username and password.

How Do I Write My Methodology Section?

• In SAGE Research Methods: Writing Up ; look for the How Do I Write My Methodology Section? drop down option. Access via this link requires a RRU username and password.

Research Ethics

Image credit: Image by Mohamed Assan from Pixabay

• << Previous: Literature review
• Next: Schedule/work plan >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 12:29 PM
• URL: https://libguides.royalroads.ca/proposals

How To Choose Your Research Methodology

Qualitative vs quantitative vs mixed methods.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Without a doubt, one of the most common questions we receive at Grad Coach is “ How do I choose the right methodology for my research? ”. It’s easy to see why – with so many options on the research design table, it’s easy to get intimidated, especially with all the complex lingo!

In this post, we’ll explain the three overarching types of research – qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods – and how you can go about choosing the best methodological approach for your research.

Overview: Choosing Your Methodology

Understanding the options – Qualitative research – Quantitative research – Mixed methods-based research

Choosing a research methodology – Nature of the research – Research area norms – Practicalities

1. Understanding the options

Before we jump into the question of how to choose a research methodology, it’s useful to take a step back to understand the three overarching types of research – qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods -based research. Each of these options takes a different methodological approach.

Qualitative research utilises data that is not numbers-based. In other words, qualitative research focuses on words , descriptions , concepts or ideas – while quantitative research makes use of numbers and statistics. Qualitative research investigates the “softer side” of things to explore and describe, while quantitative research focuses on the “hard numbers”, to measure differences between variables and the relationships between them.

Importantly, qualitative research methods are typically used to explore and gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of a situation – to draw a rich picture . In contrast to this, quantitative methods are usually used to confirm or test hypotheses . In other words, they have distinctly different purposes. The table below highlights a few of the key differences between qualitative and quantitative research – you can learn more about the differences here.

• Uses an inductive approach
• Is used to build theories
• Takes a subjective approach
• Adopts an open and flexible approach
• The researcher is close to the respondents
• Interviews and focus groups are oftentimes used to collect word-based data.
• Generally, draws on small sample sizes
• Uses qualitative data analysis techniques (e.g. content analysis , thematic analysis , etc)
• Uses a deductive approach
• Is used to test theories
• Takes an objective approach
• Adopts a closed, highly planned approach
• The research is disconnected from respondents
• Surveys or laboratory equipment are often used to collect number-based data.
• Generally, requires large sample sizes
• Uses statistical analysis techniques to make sense of the data

Mixed methods -based research, as you’d expect, attempts to bring these two types of research together, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data. Quite often, mixed methods-based studies will use qualitative research to explore a situation and develop a potential model of understanding (this is called a conceptual framework), and then go on to use quantitative methods to test that model empirically.

In other words, while qualitative and quantitative methods (and the philosophies that underpin them) are completely different, they are not at odds with each other. It’s not a competition of qualitative vs quantitative. On the contrary, they can be used together to develop a high-quality piece of research. Of course, this is easier said than done, so we usually recommend that first-time researchers stick to a single approach , unless the nature of their study truly warrants a mixed-methods approach.

The key takeaway here, and the reason we started by looking at the three options, is that it’s important to understand that each methodological approach has a different purpose – for example, to explore and understand situations (qualitative), to test and measure (quantitative) or to do both. They’re not simply alternative tools for the same job. 

Right – now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look at how you can go about choosing the right methodology for your research.

2. How to choose a research methodology

To choose the right research methodology for your dissertation or thesis, you need to consider three important factors . Based on these three factors, you can decide on your overarching approach – qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. Once you’ve made that decision, you can flesh out the finer details of your methodology, such as the sampling , data collection methods and analysis techniques (we discuss these separately in other posts ).

The three factors you need to consider are:

• The nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions
• The methodological approaches taken in the existing literature
• Practicalities and constraints

Let’s take a look at each of these.

Factor #1: The nature of your research

As I mentioned earlier, each type of research (and therefore, research methodology), whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed, has a different purpose and helps solve a different type of question. So, it’s logical that the key deciding factor in terms of which research methodology you adopt is the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions .

But, what types of research exist?

Broadly speaking, research can fall into one of three categories:

• Exploratory – getting a better understanding of an issue and potentially developing a theory regarding it
• Confirmatory – confirming a potential theory or hypothesis by testing it empirically
• A mix of both – building a potential theory or hypothesis and then testing it

As a rule of thumb, exploratory research tends to adopt a qualitative approach , whereas confirmatory research tends to use quantitative methods . This isn’t set in stone, but it’s a very useful heuristic. Naturally then, research that combines a mix of both, or is seeking to develop a theory from the ground up and then test that theory, would utilize a mixed-methods approach.

Let’s look at an example in action.

If your research aims were to understand the perspectives of war veterans regarding certain political matters, you’d likely adopt a qualitative methodology, making use of interviews to collect data and one or more qualitative data analysis methods to make sense of the data.

If, on the other hand, your research aims involved testing a set of hypotheses regarding the link between political leaning and income levels, you’d likely adopt a quantitative methodology, using numbers-based data from a survey to measure the links between variables and/or constructs .

So, the first (and most important thing) thing you need to consider when deciding which methodological approach to use for your research project is the nature of your research aims , objectives and research questions. Specifically, you need to assess whether your research leans in an exploratory or confirmatory direction or involves a mix of both.

The importance of achieving solid alignment between these three factors and your methodology can’t be overstated. If they’re misaligned, you’re going to be forcing a square peg into a round hole. In other words, you’ll be using the wrong tool for the job, and your research will become a disjointed mess.

If your research is a mix of both exploratory and confirmatory, but you have a tight word count limit, you may need to consider trimming down the scope a little and focusing on one or the other. One methodology executed well has a far better chance of earning marks than a poorly executed mixed methods approach. So, don’t try to be a hero, unless there is a very strong underpinning logic.

Need a helping hand?

Factor #2: The disciplinary norms

Choosing the right methodology for your research also involves looking at the approaches used by other researchers in the field, and studies with similar research aims and objectives to yours. Oftentimes, within a discipline, there is a common methodological approach (or set of approaches) used in studies. While this doesn’t mean you should follow the herd “just because”, you should at least consider these approaches and evaluate their merit within your context.

A major benefit of reviewing the research methodologies used by similar studies in your field is that you can often piggyback on the data collection techniques that other (more experienced) researchers have developed. For example, if you’re undertaking a quantitative study, you can often find tried and tested survey scales with high Cronbach’s alphas. These are usually included in the appendices of journal articles, so you don’t even have to contact the original authors. By using these, you’ll save a lot of time and ensure that your study stands on the proverbial “shoulders of giants” by using high-quality measurement instruments .

Of course, when reviewing existing literature, keep point #1 front of mind. In other words, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and questions. Don’t fall into the trap of adopting the methodological “norm” of other studies just because it’s popular. Only adopt that which is relevant to your research.

Factor #3: Practicalities

When choosing a research methodology, there will always be a tension between doing what’s theoretically best (i.e., the most scientifically rigorous research design ) and doing what’s practical , given your constraints . This is the nature of doing research and there are always trade-offs, as with anything else.

But what constraints, you ask?

When you’re evaluating your methodological options, you need to consider the following constraints:

• Data access
• Equipment and software
• Your knowledge and skills

Let’s look at each of these.

Constraint #1: Data access

The first practical constraint you need to consider is your access to data . If you’re going to be undertaking primary research , you need to think critically about the sample of respondents you realistically have access to. For example, if you plan to use in-person interviews , you need to ask yourself how many people you’ll need to interview, whether they’ll be agreeable to being interviewed, where they’re located, and so on.

If you’re wanting to undertake a quantitative approach using surveys to collect data, you’ll need to consider how many responses you’ll require to achieve statistically significant results. For many statistical tests, a sample of a few hundred respondents is typically needed to develop convincing conclusions.

So, think carefully about what data you’ll need access to, how much data you’ll need and how you’ll collect it. The last thing you want is to spend a huge amount of time on your research only to find that you can’t get access to the required data.

Constraint #2: Time

The next constraint is time. If you’re undertaking research as part of a PhD, you may have a fairly open-ended time limit, but this is unlikely to be the case for undergrad and Masters-level projects. So, pay attention to your timeline, as the data collection and analysis components of different methodologies have a major impact on time requirements . Also, keep in mind that these stages of the research often take a lot longer than originally anticipated.

Another practical implication of time limits is that it will directly impact which time horizon you can use – i.e. longitudinal vs cross-sectional . For example, if you’ve got a 6-month limit for your entire research project, it’s quite unlikely that you’ll be able to adopt a longitudinal time horizon. 

Constraint #3: Money

As with so many things, money is another important constraint you’ll need to consider when deciding on your research methodology. While some research designs will cost near zero to execute, others may require a substantial budget .

Some of the costs that may arise include:

• Software costs – e.g. survey hosting services, analysis software, etc.
• Promotion costs – e.g. advertising a survey to attract respondents
• Incentive costs – e.g. providing a prize or cash payment incentive to attract respondents
• Equipment rental costs – e.g. recording equipment, lab equipment, etc.
• Travel costs
• Food & beverages

These are just a handful of costs that can creep into your research budget. Like most projects, the actual costs tend to be higher than the estimates, so be sure to err on the conservative side and expect the unexpected. It’s critically important that you’re honest with yourself about these costs, or you could end up getting stuck midway through your project because you’ve run out of money.

Constraint #4: Equipment & software

Another practical consideration is the hardware and/or software you’ll need in order to undertake your research. Of course, this variable will depend on the type of data you’re collecting and analysing. For example, you may need lab equipment to analyse substances, or you may need specific analysis software to analyse statistical data. So, be sure to think about what hardware and/or software you’ll need for each potential methodological approach, and whether you have access to these.

Constraint #5: Your knowledge and skillset

The final practical constraint is a big one. Naturally, the research process involves a lot of learning and development along the way, so you will accrue knowledge and skills as you progress. However, when considering your methodological options, you should still consider your current position on the ladder.

Some of the questions you should ask yourself are:

• Am I more of a “numbers person” or a “words person”?
• How much do I know about the analysis methods I’ll potentially use (e.g. statistical analysis)?
• How much do I know about the software and/or hardware that I’ll potentially use?
• How excited am I to learn new research skills and gain new knowledge?
• How much time do I have to learn the things I need to learn?

Answering these questions honestly will provide you with another set of criteria against which you can evaluate the research methodology options you’ve shortlisted.

So, as you can see, there is a wide range of practicalities and constraints that you need to take into account when you’re deciding on a research methodology. These practicalities create a tension between the “ideal” methodology and the methodology that you can realistically pull off. This is perfectly normal, and it’s your job to find the option that presents the best set of trade-offs.

Recap: Choosing a methodology

In this post, we’ve discussed how to go about choosing a research methodology. The three major deciding factors we looked at were:

• Exploratory
• Confirmatory
• Combination
• Research area norms
• Hardware and software
• Your knowledge and skillset

If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like a helping hand with your research methodology, check out our 1-on-1 research coaching service , or book a free consultation with a friendly Grad Coach.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

Very useful and informative especially for beginners

Nice article! I’m a beginner in the field of cybersecurity research. I am a Telecom and Network Engineer and Also aiming for PhD scholarship.

I find the article very informative especially for my decitation it has been helpful and an eye opener.

Hi I am Anna ,

I am a PHD candidate in the area of cyber security, maybe we can link up

The Examples shows by you, for sure they are really direct me and others to knows and practices the Research Design and prepration.

I found the post very informative and practical.

I’m the process of constructing my research design and I want to know if the data analysis I plan to present in my thesis defense proposal possibly change especially after I gathered the data already.

Thank you so much this site is such a life saver. How I wish 1-1 coaching is available in our country but sadly it’s not.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.)

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

Chapter 2 project design and methodology.

• Introduction

This project was initially designed by a group of academic researchers and research partners drawn from the Service User and Carer Involvement in Research (SUCIR) group at the University of the West of England (UWE). An outline application was submitted in May 2010 to a joint funding call for proposals from the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme (HS&DR) and INVOLVE on public involvement in research (see Research brief ). The team were invited to submit a full proposal, which was submitted in October 2010 and approved in February 2011. The HS&DR Board asked the team to consider three points relating to the economic evaluation, the involvement of children and young people and the total number of interviews to be conducted, and changes were made in response in redrafting the project protocol in July 2011 prior to submission for ethical review. A second version of the protocol was drafted once the research fellow was in post in November 2011 and recruitment of case studies had been completed. The overall design and methodology remained similar, but some minor changes were made. In particular, the research fellow appointed was an anthropologist who argued the need for more informal visits at the beginning of the study and observation of case study processes. Because of the time between application, approval and commencing the project other factors became apparent that required additional minor modifications of the planned design. In particular the timescales for public involvement in the agreed case studies were not always optimal for our planned data collection processes and timescales and, as discussed below, research governance processes led to some delays in our starting data collection in some case studies.

Research brief

The NIHR HS&DR Programme and INVOLVE jointly invited proposals in 2010 to address the gap in evidence around the impact of public involvement in research. 15 A background paper summarised the evidence then available, particularly drawing on the reviews by Staley 11 and Brett et al. 12 The invitation expressed three key aims for the research: to collect evidence on the impact of public involvement in research, to identify methods of evaluating this involvement, and to identify effective ways of involving the public in research (implementation). The call was open to a range of methodological approaches.

• Methodology

Realist evaluation framework

Our research design was based on the application of realist theory of evaluation, particularly drawing on the work of Ray Pawson, 13 , 16 , 17 which argues that social programmes (in this case public involvement in research) are driven by an underlying vision of change – a ‘programme theory’ of how the programme is supposed to work. The role of the evaluator is to compare the theory and the practice: ‘It is the realist evaluator’s task, and the added value of social science, to identify and explain the precise circumstances under which each theory holds.’ 17 Moreover, the outcomes of social programmes can be understood by identifying regularities of CMO. Thus the key question for the evaluator is ‘What works for whom in what circumstances . . . and why?’ 17 The realist approach is increasingly used in the evaluation of complex health programmes, and producing useful analyses. 18 , 19 After our study began, Staley et al. published a paper calling for the application of realist evaluation to the study of the impact of public involvement in research. 20 The development of our realist theory of public involvement in research over the course of our study is described in more detail in Chapter 3 .

Our realist theory of public involvement in research was based on the two recently published literature reviews, 11 , 12 which allowed us to identify a number of contextual factors and mechanisms that we believe were intended by policy-makers and other stakeholders in research policy to enable desired outcomes to be achieved. There has not previously been a robust testing of the underlying ‘programme theory’ of public involvement in research; our study was designed to allow an independent prospective testing of this underlying programme theory for the first time. We included an economic evaluation, designed to complement a realist evaluation design, estimating the resources used for public involvement across eight case studies.

Case study sampling

The setting for this project was within organisations hosting health and social care-related research studies (i.e. universities, NHS trusts and third-sector organisations) in the west of England. Our aim was to recruit a methodologically diverse sample of eight case studies which would have significant elements of public involvement during the period January to December 2012. There was no existing database or other source of routinely available data that enabled such upcoming studies to be identified. To meet our aims the studies needed only to be diverse, not representative, so we took the pragmatic decision to sample through our existing knowledge of studies with public involvement in the west of England and to ‘snowball’ through our existing networks, including the People and Research West of England consortium.

We developed a pro forma to identify from network stakeholders upcoming studies they were involved in or aware of with what they identified as ‘significant’ elements of public involvement. Our key inclusion criterion was evidence of some ongoing public involvement in key stages of the research process (design, recruitment, data collection, analysis, dissemination). A key exclusion criterion was that no study would be included unless both the principal investigator (PI) and at least one research partner agreed to take part. In order to identify generalisable regularities of CMO for public involvement in research, we wanted to identify a maximum variety sample of studies in terms of study type, stages of the research process and public involved. In a relatively small-scale study such as this, however, we knew we would not be able to achieve full diversity in all three dimensions. We therefore prioritised diversity of study type, as different study types can drive very different priorities for public involvement (e.g. emphasis on participant information and recruitment in clinical trials). We also prioritised including some studies involving young people and families with children because they make up a substantial minority of health service users but are underrepresented in the literature on public involvement in research. Our case studies are described in Chapter 4 .

In deciding the number of case studies to undertake we recognise that there is always a trade-off between the depth of exploration (which suggests a small number of case studies) and identification of regularities (which benefits from a larger number). There are many ways to categorise research studies (e.g. basic science vs. applied, qualitative vs. quantitative, pilot studies vs. full trials, clinical vs. epidemiological, primary vs. secondary data, action research, translational research) and we could not hope to cover the full diversity in our case studies. From previous experience of case study research, 21 we believed that eight case studies would enable us both to examine the CMO regularities in depth and to look for generalisable regularities across the case studies. This number of case studies did not enable us to examine all potential types of research study, but did enable us to include the most common, for example qualitative, mixed methods, feasibility and clinical trials. We received agreement from four PIs with appropriate funded studies taking place in the west of England at the application stage of our study, and the final four between approval and the early months of our study.

Case study data collection

The first stage of data collection involved initial mapping of the eight case studies through informal visits, encompassing observation of research settings and team meetings (where possible) and unstructured interviews.

Intelligence from the informal visits, together with previous findings from the two literature reviews and the CMO configuration, was then used to design an interview guide for semistructured interviews with case study project stakeholders. For each case study we aimed to carry out semistructured interviews with approximately five stakeholders (PIs, other researchers, research managers and two research partners) on three occasions over the course of the year of data collection, January–December 2012 (three interviews × five participants × eight case studies = 120 interviews in total during the year). Potential interviewees were identified in discussion with PIs and invitations forwarded via the PI or an administrative member of the PI’s team.

Interviews were broadly structured around our CMO hypothesis. Data collected include measurable elements (e.g. resources allocated for supporting public involvement and actual spend) and stakeholder perceptions (e.g. respective views of researchers and research partners on whether research partner contributions influenced project decisions). In addition, some of the stakeholders were given a resource log to record over 2 weeks, chosen at random, the amount of time spent contributing to a range of activities linked to public involvement in each case study. These were then costed using prices taken from published or recognised sources (see Chapter 7 ). Interviews were intended to take place at three broadly evenly spaced times over the 12-month data collection period.

In practice the number and timing of interviews varied widely across the case studies for a variety of reasons including delays in research governance approvals, illness among case study participants and research team members, delays in one research project commencing, and general logistical issues. In two case studies it was possible to carry out only two rounds of interviews rather than three, and the total number of interviews completed was 88 with 42 participants rather than the 120 with 40 participants initially envisaged. Table 1 summarises the total number of interviews (and research partner interviews) undertaken in each round across the case studies.

Total number of interviews (research partners) conducted per case study per round

Case study 4 was exceptional in that, unexpectedly, no public involvement activity took place during the year. Thus the PI, a research manager and one research partner were interviewed initially and only the research manager at the end of the year. The other case studies where numbers of interviews were relatively low were case study 6, which started much later in the year than expected and where only one research partner chose to participate, and case study 7, where the research team was relatively small, there was relatively little involvement activity, and illness prevented final interviews with the two research partners. The relatively low completion rates on the initially planned 120 interviews were not a problem in themselves, so much as a symptom of lack of involvement activity for long periods in some of the case studies.

Given the small numbers of research partners overall, and the fact that some case studies targeted particular socioeconomic or age groups, we do not believe it would be meaningful to present demographic data on these participants. Our perception was, however, that our experience echoed other reports that those members of the public who choose to get involved in research tend to have attained a higher educational level than the population as a whole.

We recognise that a few interviewees do not fall easily into the categories of researcher, research manager or research partner, but we have kept to a limited number of categories to ensure anonymity.

Each case study was intended to be conducted by pairing an academic researcher and a research partner, under the overall supervision of the PI and co-ordinated by the research fellow. In one case, for logistical reasons, the research fellow undertook the data collection on his own. In the other cases, interviews were conducted by both an academic and research partner, usually separately but on occasion interviewing together.

The first round of interviews focused particularly on understanding the context of the case study and the mechanisms for public involvement planned for the remainder of the year. The second round of interviews was ‘light touch’, intended to capture developments in public involvement since the first round and to identify members of the research team able to nominate at least one research partner per case study who could be approached to complete the resource logs for economic costing. The final round of interviews focused on capturing outcomes and learning from the year, to enable us to assess how the researchers’ initial intentions and aspirations for public involvement turned out in practice. In addition to the semistructured interviews, a flexible approach to capturing data included observation of meetings where possible and/or other group tasks directly related to public involvement, and collection of project documents related to involvement processes. Observations were carried out in case studies 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 but were not possible in case studies 3, 4 or 6, either because of internal case study project considerations or because no public involvement activity took place during the study period.

Developing a methodology for the economic costing of public involvement

There has been minimal exploration and there is little evidence for the costs and benefits of public involvement in research. El Ansari and Andersson conclude that analysis of the costs and benefits of participatory activities should form part of an overall evaluation of public participation. 22 They state that, for participation to move forward as a field, a broader ‘set of analytical frameworks is required, which captures the richness and unique qualities of participation, [and] that recognises and values the different perspectives that led to its initial development.’ 22

Our work here is an attempt to develop an analytical framework of how to assess the economic costs of involvement in research. Planning the budget for public involvement in research at the outset is crucial. The budget needs to include all planned research involvement work to be completed by research partners (for example participating in patient advisory groups or undertaking data analysis) as well as time for academics to facilitate research partners. Two key aspects of budgeting for public involvement are the researcher and research partner relationship and contingency planning. For example, research partners may be asked to contribute their expertise to respond to problems arising during a research project, for example poor recruitment of participants to a study (there were several examples of this among our case studies). These contributions generally arose during the research process and were not foreseen.

Payment and reward issues have generally proved controversial. At our second consensus event our case study participants debated the nature of payment and reward for public involvement vigorously, revealing a wide range of strongly held views on this subject. INVOLVE has developed guidelines on payments for involvement research work to respond to these issues. A recent document outlines the issues to bear in mind in paying research partners, gives examples of payments and provides general tips about issues connected with payment and ‘payments in kind’ that need to be carefully considered by project managers. 23 A range of pay rates for different research activities connected with public involvement are mentioned in INVOLVE documents, including a flat rate payment of £19.40 per hour. 23

Our economic analysis aimed to collect data from each case study team, in order to:

• identify all activities relating to public involvement
• measure the amounts of activities using a resource log
• value or put a price on these activities using prices from published or established sources.

Identifying and measuring involvement activity

To gather data from our eight case studies for our economic analysis, we asked selected members of the case study teams (researchers, research managers and research partners) to log all the resources that were used in public involvement work/activities over a snapshot 2-week period. During the 2 weeks each person recorded/logged:

• all involvement-related activities
• length of time spent on each activity.

We asked them to include all activities (or inputs) that were undertaken as contributing to or enabling the central objective (or output) of public involvement in research. A sample log sheet for research partners on 1 day is in Appendix 1 . Our ethical approval letter stipulated that research staff within each case study were to nominate research partners to provide our data, so we were dependent on these nominations being made successfully from within our case studies, as we were not able to make direct contact with research partners.

We issued user-friendly guidance for completing our resource log, and supported respondents over a 2-week period by e-mail and providing a telephone helpline. Our guidance document for research partners to complete resource logs is in Appendix 2 . Our contact and ongoing dialogue with the academics and research partners who used our guidance and completed our resource logs enabled us to become familiar with how involvement activities were working within each case study from the point of view of both academics and their nominated research partners. These exchanges helped us gain a rounded understanding of the nature and diversity of involvement activity and the relationships and issues within each case study.

Economic valuation/costing of involvement activities

We translated the knowledge we had accrued of each case study into some working assumptions about each one. These assumptions are significant but complex, so we have detailed them in Appendices 3 – 5 .

We then used the completed 2-week resource logs to estimate involvement costs for a projected 12-month period. From there we scaled up the 12-month projected costs to the length of each case study. This enabled us to compare the actual budgeted costs from each grant with the projected costs on a like-for-like basis.

We followed a standard economic approach to treat resource use and prices separately to arrive at a cost.

For example:

Ideally the price applied should come from a published source or the next best alternative, a recognised or established source. There are illustrative examples within INVOLVE guidelines of a range of prices for different research activities connected with public involvement. In our own project we had previously paid research partners at a ‘meeting rate’ of £19.77 per hour, but early in this project it became obvious that most work was being done outside meetings, so a lower ‘research associate’ rate of £14.02 per hour was agreed. Research partners kept records of all their work for the project (including e-mails, collecting and analysing data, and writing) and submitted claim forms regularly. Our project did not have a means of costing researcher time for public involvement activities, as working alongside research partners was a continuous process during our project.

A new set of guidelines from INVOLVE to budget for involvement was incomplete at the time of our analysis, but we saw the draft document, which again gave the example of the flat rate payment of £19.40 per hour for public involvement participation, so we used this price when costing research partners’ activities for our case studies. 23

Reflective practice

Data were captured on our reflective learning on the impact of public involvement in our own study. This was done by facilitating and audio-recording short reflective sessions during team meetings on our own experiences as a project team of academic researchers and research partners working together.

Consensus events

Two consensus workshops were organised as part of our plans to develop and test a theory of public involvement in research. Initially we aimed to hold the first event prior to the first round of data collection to inform the interview schedules for this round. As the project developed, however, we realised that this would not be practical in terms of the length of time research governance approval was taking from some NHS trusts and, more importantly, that an event after the first round would be more fruitful in terms of theory development. Thus, the decision was taken to hold the first consensus event between the first and second rounds of data collection.

At the first workshop we presented an overview of our initial findings from our first round of interviews and visits in the eight case studies. The overview was in the form of 12 statements drawn from our initial mapping of the case studies. The statements identify key contextual factors and mechanisms for public involvement in research that we hypothesised were regularly linked to positive impacts on research design and delivery.

The aim of the workshop was to test these statements with case study participants and steering group members, drawing on their experiences and insights regarding public involvement in research, in order to refine or replace the statements, to inform the next phase of data collection and analysis. The workshop was limited to one afternoon in the hope that this relatively short time commitment would make it more feasible for case study participants to attend.

Nineteen participants took part in the first consensus workshop. Six of the eight case studies were represented. The intention had been that all case studies would be represented by both research staff and research partners in their projects, but it was not possible to achieve this because of participants’ other commitments and some last-minute illness.

Participants first voted electronically on the 12 statements with the choices ‘agree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘abstain’. Participants were then divided into three groups, with each group asked to look in depth at four of the statements, discuss and revise them as necessary and identify any omissions, connections or other comments. The groups then fed back to a plenary session and participated in a final discussion.

A second half-day consensus workshop was held at the end of the third round of data collection. On this occasion all eight case studies were represented with a total of 29 participants. Our emerging theory of public involvement was presented in graphic form in a set of four slides covering different aspects of CMO regularities (field of research, leadership and culture, relationships and structures of involvement). Participants were asked to discuss, amend and comment on A1 printed versions of the slides. The output of the workshop was amended slides with marginal commentary, which were further analysed by the project team and used to form the basis of the analysis of findings presented in Chapter 5 and the development of our theory of public involvement as described in Chapter 8 , Our revised theory of public involvement in research .

Case study data analysis

All interview data were transcribed and entered into an NVivo 10 database (QSR International, Warrington, Cheshire, UK). A key team discussion was how to most fully involve our research partners in the analysis of these data given that only one of them had experience of using any version of the NVivo software. The decision was made to offer NVivo 10 training to research partners but not to require this, as some did not feel confident of learning and using the programme effectively in the time available. A manual coding alternative was therefore made available. In order to make this practical, we limited the number of codes we identified to a minimum necessary to allow meaningful analysis. Those team members coding in NVivo 10 were supplied with this coding framework. Those coding manually were given a numerical code to use with transcripts and the coding was entered into the NVivo 10 database by the project research associate. For each case study, at least one transcript was coded independently by a researcher and research partner, and any divergence discussed and a joint approach agreed.

Data analysis focused on identifying CMO regularities across our case studies. From the initial CMO configuration identified in the proposal, with amendments from the first consensus workshop, a coding framework was devised with 38 codes (see Appendix 6 ) organised into six broad themes: relationships, leadership and culture, field of research, structures of involvement, resources and outcomes. We agreed as a team that the codes were the primary unit of analysis and the themes were provisional. Following coding of data, team discussion lead to the codes being reordered in terms of hypothesised CMO regularities presented in Chapter 5 . This coding framework was then validated by one academic team member not involved in the case studies, who independently undertook a framework analysis 24 of a sample of transcripts and compared her emerging framework with that drawn from the CMO configuration.

Verification of coding

Initial data were analysed by team members identifying codes within interviews. NVivo 10 software was used for data storage, retrieval, coding, analysis, memo writing and theme building across the CMO approach. This was useful in that data coding and development of findings was a collective team activity but an overall verification process was also established. One senior team member, who had not been party to the initial coding discussions, undertook a second verification to ensure consistency and rigor. The coding verification consisted of five transcripts randomly chosen across the case studies and involved two activities: naive reading and structured coding review analysis.

First, transcripts were repeatedly read, blindly from assigned codes, by the independent reviewer, with memo writing with regard to potential codes. Next, data were coded line by line, and each sentence or group of sentences was given a code using the direct meaning of the text. The second reviewer then read the transcripts with the allocated codes assigned by the initial coder. Similarities and differences were recorded. Comparing and contrasting meanings across and within transcripts through the use of memos was used. There was very high agreement found between the coder and second reviewer, which was a very positive result.

Narrative review

There were many issues of agreement in the broader level of understanding. For example, leadership emerged in all five transcripts, as did common terms such as culture (team and organisational), PI beliefs or senior lead issues. Feeling valued, trust and interpersonal relationships and other ‘emotional’-type codes were allocated by coders in all five transcripts. The second reviewer found similar patterns and this showed good overall broad agreement of coders. Power emerged in three transcripts more clearly and repeatedly but was in all five transcripts in some form.

There were minor issues of differences in coding where coders had consistently coded information in a similar way in terms of the value of public involvement. There was only one research partner who coded public involvement not just in terms of value but in terms of impact .

The thematic analysis of each code across the case studies was then used as the basis for the thematic analysis used to test our theory of public involvement in research as presented in Chapter 5 .

Research ethics and governance

The study team took the importance of ethical practice extremely seriously and considered whether it raised any substantive ethical issues. As the study was primarily qualitative and did not involve questions around particularly personal health status or behaviours, we came to the view that it was relatively low risk. However, we recognised that, in asking researchers and research partners from the same studies about what was working and not working in terms of public involvement, we could potentially be raising some sensitive interpersonal relationship issues. We therefore sought to address these issues in our study design, participant information sheets and processes for ensuring confidentiality and anonymity. Following the screening questions on the Integrated Research Application System form, our study was identified as eligible for proportionate review. Ethical approval for the study was therefore sought from the County Durham & Tees Valley Research Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the study and approval was given with minor conditions in August 2011. An application for a substantive amendment was made in December 2011 to include observation of case study meetings, which had not been included in the original application. Approval was given in February 2012.

Research governance approval, which was sought from the three NHS trusts hosting the four NHS-based case studies, proved much more time-consuming and problematic to obtain than expected. This was particularly because of our desire to enable research partners to participate fully in data collection, which required taking them through the NHS research passport system, something that neither the university nor the NHS trust human resources departments appeared familiar with. Final research governance approval for all three NHS trusts was not obtained until late March 2012, thus delaying our planned date for data collection in some case studies by around 3 months.

Throughout the study we sought to adhere to our ethical and research governance approvals by ensuring informed consent for all participants and fully complying with all conditions of our approvals. All case study participants were sent copies of the report in draft form and invited to comment on how their data had been used and any inaccuracies or other comments on their case studies.

Public involvement in our team

Our aim throughout this project has been to model good practice in our own research while studying the impact of public involvement in our case studies. The project was developed by the SUCIR group at UWE, which had strong service user representation. One research partner co-applicant was the cochair of SUCIR. Three other research partner co-applicants had previously worked with the PI and other academic co-applicants on developing the SUCIR scheme and/or on other research projects.

The four research partner co-applicants were involved in all aspects of the project including design, data collection, analysis and dissemination. The case studies were designed to be undertaken by four subteams, each consisting of one academic researcher and one research partner working together on two case studies. The research partners also formed a separate research partner reference group meeting bimonthly.

The initial intention was for two academic co-applicants with extensive experience in working with young people to recruit and support a young persons’ advisory group to work on the two case studies where participants were young people. In the end it did not prove feasible to recruit such a group and a decision was made to develop an alternative model of involving young people in the project. Two young people, one of whom who had worked on a previous study, were recruited to join the project as research partners. Over time they came to play a similar role to the original four research partners, attending team meetings, research partner meetings and other events, and participating in data collection and analysis in their two case studies.

Research partners were involved in our team’s reflective process on what worked well and what did not work well in terms of our own processes around public involvement. A period of approximately 15 minutes was set aside at the beginning of each team meeting and research partner meeting to share reflections and learning about public involvement in our own project. Research partners have co-authored and presented our outputs at the INVOLVE conference and elsewhere, and have contributed to ensuring that this final report is as user-friendly as possible, and that our wider dissemination plans include outputs specifically designed to be accessible to a wide public. The plain English summary of this report was drafted by research partners. Chapter 6 of this report includes the synthesis, led by one research partner, of the shared reflections on public involvement in our project by both the academic researchers and the research partners.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.) Chapter 2, Project design and methodology.
• PDF version of this title (4.3M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Project design and methodology - Public involvement in research: assessing impac... Project design and methodology - Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers