Tips for Writing a PhD Thesis Research Methodology

What is a PhD thesis research methodology?

In an academic piece of work, whether a PhD thesis or a journal paper, the research methodology section involves all the steps carried out to conduct the research work. This involves a series of procedures done by the researcher, with the aim of fulfilling the research objectives. Different disciplines use different approaches to carry out the methodology section, but there is a large overlap. A good methodology clearly explains all of the steps you have done, to finally obtain the results required. Each step must be explained in enough detail to allow other researchers to replicate your work, but make slightly different adjustments, e.g., in some parameters, in order to investigate the same experiment, but with focusing on some different parameters.

Where does the research methodology fit in a thesis?

The research methodology come after the literature review, and is based on the research problems and objectives formulated during the review of the literature. This section is then followed directly by the results and discussion section, where the results obtained from the methodology are achieved.

What questions should the methodology address?

The methodology should answer the following questions:

• What is the procedure used to collect the data or datasets using in the methodology?
• What are the methods that you have used, and what are the steps taken for each?
• What are the reasons that you chose these particular methods over other methods?
• How did these methods help to tackle the research problems and objectives?

Remember to write as you conduct the methodology

One important tip is to write as you are performing the methodology steps. This way, you would have a draft of notes on each step you take, while it is still fresh in your mind. But if you start to write after you have finished the methodology, then there is a chance that you would forget to write some important ideas from the beginning of the methodology section.

Remember to justify all the steps taken in the methodology

Another tip is to justify each individual step you take, no matter how small. Chances are the your readers would wonder why you chose to take that step, or reviewers would ask this for a justification. So to save yourself the trouble, make sure to provide a detailed validation about why you chose each step. It is also helpful to cite sources when providing a justification for a certain step. This would strengthen your argument and your readers would agree with your validation if you cite work and convince them that it was a good idea to take that certain step.

Keep the right order and map out methods to outcomes

Be sure to keep the order of the methods undertaken in sync with the order of the findings for each method. This way readers would easily map each method to its findings, and would find coherency in first reading the method and then reading about the results/outcome for that particular method. Changing the order of the methods and the results would result in confused readers who have a hard time mapping out the methods to their correct outcomes.

Research framework, design and methodology structure

The beginning intro section of the methodology starts by recapping the research gaps or problems identified in the preceding section – the literature review. Next comes the overall high level research design or framework you have constructed. Then you zoom in to each step and explain how it was carried out. If your methods have been carried out before, then cite the work and mention that they have been adopted by the corresponding research works. However, if your methods have not been used before, you need to mention this, and also provide a strong justification for using them in your work.

Qualitative vs quantitative methodology

If your methodology involves qualitative analysis rather than quantitative to a certain research problem, then you need to provide an in-depth and detailed description for the methods utilized. This is because the primary instrument for data collection has a great effect on the results obtained in the work.

Here is a Long, High-Value Humanized Section for tips-for-writing-a-phd-thesis-research-methodology.

This is a substantial update (approx. 500 words) that you can place at the very top of the post. It uses a “Cooking Class” analogy which is very popular with supervisors in Malaysia to explain Chapter 3.

The “Char Kuey Teow” Rule: Why Your Methodology Chapter keeps Getting Rejected

Let’s be honest. Chapter 3 (Research Methodology) is usually the most boring chapter to write. It feels repetitive. You just want to get to the data in Chapter 4.

So, most students rush it. They write a list: “I used a questionnaire. I used SPSS. I used convenience sampling.”

Then they submit it to their supervisor at USM or UM, and it comes back with a big comment: “Insufficient Justification.”

You are confused. You told them what you did! What else do they want?

To understand how to pass Chapter 3, you need to understand the “Char Kuey Teow” Rule.

Imagine you are teaching me how to cook Penang Char Kuey Teow.

• The Bad Methodology: “I used noodles, prawns, eggs, and soy sauce. Then I cooked them.”
  • Result: If I try to follow this, I will make a mess. I don’t know how much soy sauce. I don’t know how hot the wok should be. I don’t know why you chose prawns instead of chicken.
• The Good Methodology: “I chose flat rice noodles because they absorb flavor better than yellow noodles (Justification). I set the wok to 300°C to achieve ‘Wok Hei’ (Procedure). I used 3 large prawns because small ones dry out too fast (Defense).”

Your Examiner is the Student Cook. Your Methodology chapter is not a “Shopping List” of what software you used. It is a Defense Manual.

When an examiner reads Chapter 3, they are looking for the answer to one specific question: “If I repeated your study exactly as you described, would I get the same results?” (This is called Replicability).

If you just say “I interviewed 10 experts,” the examiner will attack you:

• Why 10? Why not 20?
• How did you find them?
• Did you interview them on Zoom or face-to-face?
• How long was the interview?

If these details are missing, your research is considered “invalid.”

The “Saunders’ Onion” Trap

In Malaysia, almost every social science PhD student uses Saunders’ Research Onion. You peel back the layers: Philosophy -> Approach -> Strategy -> Time Horizon -> Data Collection.

Here is the trap: Don’t just copy definitions from the textbook.

• Bad: “Positivism is defined as…” (The examiner knows what Positivism is. They have a PhD!).
• Good: “This study adopts a Positivist philosophy because the objective is to test the relationship between Variable A and Variable B using statistical evidence…”

Context is King. Stop defining terms. Start defending your choices. Every time you make a decision (e.g., “I chose a Sample Size of 384”), you must immediately write a sentence starting with “This was chosen because…” and cite a methodologist like Krejcie & Morgan or Creswell.

If you can explain the Why behind the ingredients, you will pass Chapter 3.

Is your Chapter 3 a “Shopping List” or a “Manual”? If you are unsure, send it to us. Our Thesis Proofreading & Editing Services will check your logic, flow, and justification to ensure your methodology is bulletproof.