How to write a defensible Chapter 3 methodology

§ 1 · Design logic

Start with the research question, not the method

The most common Chapter 3 error is choosing a design first and then writing questions to fit it. Committees see this immediately: the design feels retrofitted, the justification is circular, and the questions do not map cleanly to the data.

Work backward from your research questions. Quantitative designs answer 'how much,' 'how often,' or 'to what extent.' Qualitative designs explore lived experience, meaning, and process. Mixed methods address both — but only when neither alone is sufficient.

• Does your design answer your specific research questions, or a related but different question?
• Can you name one alternative design you considered and explain why you rejected it?
• Is the epistemological worldview you claim consistent with the methods you selected?

§ 2 · Sampling

Sampling rationale is not just a number

Stating 'n=10 is consistent with phenomenological studies' without citing a source is not a sampling rationale. Committees want to know why that sample size is appropriate for your specific design, your specific population, and your specific purpose.

For qualitative studies, cite saturation or data sufficiency principles and explain how you will recognize when you reach them. For quantitative studies, show a power analysis with your effect size assumption, alpha level, and power target.

• What is your sampling strategy and why is it appropriate for your population?
• How did you determine the target sample size (cite the source)?
• What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria and why?
• How will you handle attrition or non-response?

§ 3 · Validity and trustworthiness

Name your strategies specifically — do not list them generically

Listing 'triangulation and member checking' without explaining how you will implement them is a red flag. Describe the specific steps you will take, when in the research process you will take them, and how they address the specific threats to validity in your design.

For qualitative studies, describe credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability strategies with concrete procedures. For quantitative studies, address internal and external validity threats directly.

• What are the three most likely threats to validity or trustworthiness in your design?
• For each threat, what specific procedural step will you take?
• If using member checking, who will you check with, when, and what you will do with disagreements?

§ 4 · Ethical compliance

IRB and ethical considerations must be specific

Do not paste a generic 'participants will be kept confidential' paragraph. Describe the specific ethical risks in your study, the specific protections you have designed, and the IRB review level you are seeking.

If you are using existing data, explain the provenance and any data sharing agreements. If you are recruiting vulnerable populations, explain the additional protections.