Overview
A strong methodology chapter answers two questions for every decision: what did you do, and why was that the right choice for your research questions? Weak chapters describe methods without justification, copy textbook definitions of paradigms without connecting them to the study, or report a design that differs from what was actually done.
We review your chapter with the eye of a methods-focused examiner. We check the chain from research questions to design, sampling, data collection, analysis and quality criteria; we look for missing details that would prevent replication or evaluation; and we flag common weaknesses such as unjustified sample sizes, untested instruments or vague ethics sections. Where you used a framework such as Saunders' research onion, we make sure it clarifies rather than pads the chapter.
You write the chapter; we give detailed methodological feedback, explain options and help you anticipate examiner questions.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Students writing a methodology chapter for a proposal (future tense) or final thesis (past tense)
- Quantitative researchers who must justify sampling, instruments and statistical tests
- Qualitative researchers who must explain approach, sampling, saturation, reflexivity and trustworthiness
- Mixed-methods researchers who need to explain integration, not just two methods side by side
- Business and management students expected to use the research onion
Common problems we help with
- The chapter describes what you did but not why
- Your philosophy section is long and generic, and not linked to the design
- Sample size is justified by "convenience" or a rule of thumb only
- Validity and reliability (or trustworthiness) are mentioned but not demonstrated
- Ethics is covered in one sentence about "informed consent"
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Review of alignment between research questions, philosophy, approach and design
- Feedback on how you justify quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods design
- Sampling: population, sampling technique, size justification (power analysis, saturation or information power) and recruitment
- Instruments and data collection: questionnaire sources, adaptation, piloting, interview or observation protocols
- Analysis procedures: named techniques, software, steps and how they answer each question
- Ethics: approval process, consent, confidentiality, data storage, risk and power issues
- Quality criteria: validity and reliability for quantitative work; credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability for qualitative work
- Limitations of the method and how you mitigated them
Not included
- Writing the chapter for you
- Describing procedures you did not carry out, or back-dating ethics approval
- Making design decisions on your behalf without your understanding and your supervisor's agreement
- Running the analysis itself — see our data analysis services
What you receive
- Methodological alignment table
- Research questions against design, sample, data, analysis and quality criteria, with gaps highlighted.
- Annotated chapter
- Detailed comments on justification, completeness, consistency, tense and technical accuracy.
- Examiner question list
- Questions an examiner is likely to ask about your methods, with pointers to what your answers should cover.
- Revision priorities
- A short summary separating issues that could affect credibility from presentation improvements.
How it works
Understand the study
You share the chapter, questions, instruments and ethics documents, and tell us what has already been done.
Methodological review
We examine design logic, sampling, instruments, analysis and quality criteria, and prepare the alignment table.
Feedback and discussion
You receive annotated comments; we can meet to talk through methodological choices and alternatives.
Revision check
We review your revised chapter and confirm consistency with the results chapter.
What the chapter needs to cover
- Research philosophy and approach
- Positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, critical realism or others, and deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning — kept brief and linked to your design.
- Research onion (Saunders et al.)
- Philosophy, approach, strategy, methodological choice, time horizon, and techniques and procedures. Useful scaffolding, especially in business schools, but not required everywhere.
- Design and strategy
- Survey, experiment, case study, ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, action research or mixed-methods designs such as explanatory sequential or convergent.
- Sampling
- Probability or non-probability techniques, size justification with power analysis for quantitative work, and saturation or information power for qualitative work.
- Quality criteria
- Content, construct and criterion validity; internal consistency such as Cronbach's alpha; or Lincoln and Guba's trustworthiness criteria with audit trail, member reflection and reflexivity.
- Ethics
- Approval body, informed consent, anonymization, data management, withdrawal rights and handling of power relations or vulnerable participants.
Using the research onion without padding
The research onion, from Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill's business research methods text, walks through philosophy, approach, strategy, choices, time horizon, and techniques and procedures. It is a helpful checklist, but examiners often criticize chapters that spend pages defining every paradigm before stating which one applies.
We recommend a short explanation of your position and why it suits your questions, followed by the practical decisions, each justified. If your field does not use the onion, we help you structure the chapter conventionally instead.
Justifying the sample
Sample size is the most frequently questioned methodological decision. For quantitative studies, an a priori power analysis (for example with G*Power) based on expected effect size is usually stronger than a rule of thumb. For qualitative studies, explain how you judged sufficiency: saturation, information power or the depth each case offers. In both, report recruitment honestly, including response rates or refusals.
Proposal tense versus thesis tense
Proposal methods are written in the future tense as a plan. The final chapter is written in the past tense and must report what actually happened, including any deviations such as a changed recruitment strategy or a dropped instrument. Examiners notice when a final thesis still reads like a plan, or when methods and results disagree. We check for both.
Frequent examiner concerns
These are the issues we most often raise in methodology feedback, because they are the ones that lead to corrections.
- Design not justified against alternatives
- Instrument sources, adaptation and piloting not reported
- Qualitative analysis described as "themes emerged" without procedure
- Researcher positionality and reflexivity missing in interpretive work
- Mixed methods with no explanation of how strands are integrated
- Limitations acknowledged but consequences not discussed
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative example: strengthening a qualitative methods chapter
A fictional PhD candidate in social work had interviewed 14 foster carers. The methodology chapter stated that "thematic analysis was used" and "data saturation was reached". Details are invented.
Feedback on analysis
We suggested naming the specific approach (reflexive thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke) and describing each phase as it was actually carried out, including how codes were developed and reviewed.
Feedback on sample sufficiency
Because reflexive thematic analysis does not rely on saturation in the same way, we pointed the candidate to the information power concept as a more consistent justification.
Trustworthiness
The candidate added a reflexivity section on their own foster-care background, an account of the audit trail, and a note on how the findings were discussed with two participants.
Illustrative example with invented details; it is not a real client case.
What you’ll need to provide
- The methodology chapter draft (or proposal methods section)
- Research questions and hypotheses
- Instruments: questionnaire, interview guide or observation protocol
- Ethics approval documents and participant information sheets, if available
- Program guidance on chapter structure and any supervisor comments
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Chapter length and methodological complexity
- Single method versus mixed methods
- Whether instruments and ethics documents are also reviewed
- Number of review rounds and whether a discussion session is included
Turnaround depends on
- Availability of instruments and ethics documents
- Whether data collection has finished (past-tense chapter) or not (proposal)
- Committee or submission deadlines
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Do I need to include research philosophy?
Many business, management and social science programs expect it; some science and health programs do not. We follow your program's expectations and help you keep it brief and relevant.
Can you help me choose a method?
Yes, as guidance. We explain the options and their trade-offs for your questions, so you can decide with your supervisor. For in-depth design support, see our research design services.
My supervisor and I disagree about the design. Can you help?
We can explain the methodological arguments on both sides so you can have an informed conversation. Your supervisor and ethics approval set the final design.
Will you check my questionnaire too?
We can review how your instrument is described and justified. For detailed instrument development or validation, our questionnaire design service is more suitable.
Is it acceptable to get help with my methodology?
Methodological guidance is common and usually permitted, but you must write the chapter yourself and understand every decision. Check your program's rules on acknowledging outside assistance.