how to write methodology in a dissertation

• 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...

• How it works

Writing a Methodology for your Dissertation | Complete Guide & Steps

What is a methodology.

The methodology is perhaps the most challenging and laborious part of the dissertation . Essentially, the methodology helps in understanding the broad, philosophical approach behind the methods of research you chose to employ in your study. The research methodology elaborates on the ‘how’ part of your research.

This means that your methodology chapter should clearly state whether you chose to use quantitative or qualitative data collection techniques or a mix of both.

Your research methodology should explain the following:

• What was the purpose of your research?
• What type of research method was used?
• What were the data-collecting methods?
• How did you analyse the data?
• What kind of resources were used in your research?
• Why did you choose these methods?

You will be required to provide justifications as to why you preferred a certain method over the others. If you are trying to figure out exactly how to write methodology or the structure of a methodology for a dissertation, this article will point you in the right direction.

Students must be sure of why they chose a certain research method over another. “I figured out” or “In my opinion” statements will not be an acceptable justification. So, you will need to come up with concrete academic reasons for your selection of research methods.

What are the Standard Contents of a Research Methodology?

The methodology generally acts as a guideline or plan for exactly how you intend to carry out your research. This is especially true for students who must submit their methodology chapter before carrying out the research.

Your methodology should link back to the literature review and clearly state why you chose certain data collection and analysis methods for your research/dissertation project.

The methodology chapter consists of the following:

• Research Design
• Philosophical Approach
• Data Collection Methods
• Research Limitations
• Ethical Considerations (If Any)
• Data Analysis Methods

For those who are submitting their dissertation as a single paper, their methodology should also touch on any modifications they had to make as their work progressed.

However, it is essential to provide academic justifications for all choices made by the researcher.

How to Choose your Dissertation Methodology and Research Design?

The theme of your research methodology chapter should be related to your literature review and research question (s).

You can visit your college or university library to find textbooks and articles that provide information about the commonly employed research methods .

An intensive reading of such books can help you devise your research philosophy and choose the appropriate methods. Any limitations or weaknesses of your chosen research approach should also be explained, as well as the strategies to overcome them.

To research well, you should read well! Read as many research articles (from reputed journals) as you can. Seeing how other researchers use methods in their studies and why will help you justify, in the long run, your own research method(s).

Regardless of the chosen research approach, you will find researchers who either support it or don’t. Use the arguments for and against articulated in the literature to clarify why you decided to choose the selected research design and why the research limitations are irrelevant to your research.

How to Structure your Dissertation Methodology?

The typical structure of the methodology chapter is as follows:

• Research Design And Strategy
• Methods Of Data Collection And Data Analysis
• Ethical Considerations, Reliability , Limitations And Generalisability

In research jargon, generalisability is termed external validity . It means how generalisable your research findings are to other contexts, places, times, people, etc. External validity is expected to be significantly high, especially in quantitative studies.

According to USC-Research Guides (2017) , a research design’s primary function is to enable the researcher to answer the research questions through evidence effectively. Generally, this section will shed light on how you collected your data.

The researcher will have to justify their choice of data collection methods, such as the one that was reviewed, the use of data tools (interviews, phone surveys, questionnaires, observation, online surveys , etc.) and the like.

Moreover, data sampling choice should also be clearly explained with a focus on how you chose the ethnicity, group, profession and age of the participants.

• What type of questions do you intend to ask the respondents?
• How will they help to answer your research questions ?
• How will they help to test the hypothesis of the dissertation?

It is recommended to prepare these questions at the start of your research. You should develop your research problem and questions. This approach can allow the room to change or modify research questions if your data collection methods do not give the desired results.

It’s a good practice to keep referring to your research questions whilst planning or writing the research design section. This will help your reader recall what the research is about; why you have done what you did. Even though this technique is recommended to be applied at the start of every section within a dissertation, it’s especially beneficial in the methodology section.

In short, you will need to make sure that the data you are going to collect relates to the topic you are exploring. The complexity and length of the research design section will vary depending on your academic subject and the scope of your research, but a well-written research design will have the following characteristics:

• It sheds light on alternative research design options and justifies why your chosen design is the best to address the research problem.
• Clearly specifies the research questions that the research aims to address or the hypothesis to validate.
• Explain how the collected data will help address the research problem and discusses your research methodology to collect the data.

Philosophical Approach Behind Writing a Methodology

This will discuss your chosen philosophy to strengthen your research and the research model. Commonly employed philosophies in academia are

• Interpretivism,
• Positivism/Post-Positivism
• Constructivism

There are several other research philosophies that you could adopt.

The choice of philosophy will depend on many factors, including your academic subject and the type and complexity of the research study. Regardless of which philosophy is used, you will be required to make different assumptions about the world.

Once you have chosen your research philosophy, the next step will describe your research context to answer all the questions, including when, where, why, how and what of your research.

Essentially, as a researcher, you will be required to decide whether you will be using a qualitative method, a quantitative method or a mix of both.

Did you know?

Using both qualitative and quantitative methods leads to the use of a mixed-methods approach. This approach also goes by another seldom-used name: eclectic approach.

The process of data collection is different for each method. Typically, you would want to decide whether you will adopt the positivist approach, defining your hypothesis and testing it against reality.

If this is the case, you will be required to take the quantitative approach, collecting numerical data at a large scale (from 30 or more respondents) and testing your hypotheses with this data.

Collecting data from at least 30 respondents/participants ensures reliable statistical analysis . This is especially true for quantitative studies. If the data contains less than 30 responses, it won’t be enough to carry out reliable statistical analyses on such data.

The other option for you would be to base your research on a qualitative approach, which will point you in a direction where you will be investigating broader areas by identifying people’s emotions and perceptions of a subject.

With a qualitative approach, you will have to collect responses from respondents and look at them in all their richness to develop theories about the field you are exploring.

Finally, you can also use a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (which is becoming increasingly popular among researchers these days). This method is beneficial if you are interested in putting quantitative data into a real-world context or reflecting different perspectives on a subject.

Research philosophy in the ‘research onion.’

Methods of Data Collection and Data Analysis

This section will require you to clearly specify how you gathered the data and briefly discuss the tools you used to analyse it. For example, you may choose to conduct surveys and/or interviews as part of the data collection process.

Similarly, if you used software such as Excel or SPSS to process the data , you will have to justify your software choice. In this section of your methodology chapter , you will also have to explain how you arrived at your findings and how reliable they are.

It is important to note that your readers or supervisor would want to see a correlation between your findings and the hypothesis/research questions you based your study on at the very beginning.

Your supervisor or dissertation research assistant can play a key role in helping you write the methodology chapter according to established research standards. So, keep your supervisor in the loop to get their contributions and recommendations throughout the process.

In this section, you should briefly describe the methods you’ve used to analyse the data you’ve collected.

Qualitative Methods

The qualitative method includes analysing language, images, audio, videos, or any textual data (textual analysis). The following types of methods are used in textual analysis .

Discourse analysis:

Discourse analysis is an essential aspect of studying a language and its uses in day-to-day life.

Content analysis:

It is a method of studying and retrieving meaningful information from documents Thematic analysis:

It’s a method of identifying patterns of themes in the collected information, such as face-to-face interviews, texts, and transcripts.

Example: After collecting the data, it was checked thoroughly to find the missing information. The interviews were transcribed, and textual analysis was conducted. The repetitions of the text, types of colours displayed, and the tone of the speakers was measured.

Quantitative Methods

Quantitative data analysis is used for analysing numerical data. Include the following points:

• The methods of preparing data before analysing it.
• Which statistical test you have used? (one-ended test, two-ended test)
• The type of software you’ve used.

Ethical Considerations, Reliability and Limitations of a Dissertation Methodology

Other important sections of your methodology are:

Ethical Considerations

Always consider how your research will influence other individuals who are beyond the scope of the study. This is especially true for human subjects. As a researcher, you are always expected to make sure that your research and ideas do not harm anyone in any way.Discussion concerning data protection, data handling and data confidentiality will also be included in this brief segment.

• How did you ensure your participants’/respondents’ anonymity and/or confidentiality?
• Did you remove any identifiable markers after conducting the study (post-test stage) so that readers wouldn’t be able to guess the identity of the participant/respondent?
• Was personal information collected according to the purpose of the research? (For instance, asking respondents their age when it wasn’t even relevant in the study). All such ethical considerations need to be mentioned.

Even though there is no established rule to include ethical considerations and limitations within the methodology section, it’s generally recommended to include it in this section, as it makes more sense than including it, say, after the discussions section or within the conclusion.

This is mainly because limitations almost always occur in the methodology stage of research. And ethical considerations need to be taken while sampling, an important aspect of the research methodology.

Here are some examples of ethical issues that you should be mindful of

• Does your research involve participants recalling episodes of suffering and pain?
• Are you trying to find answers to questions considered culturally sensitive either by participants or the readers?
• Are your research, analysis and findings based on a specific location or a group of people?

All such issues should be categorically addressed and a justification provided for your chosen research methodology by highlighting the study’s benefits.

Reliability

Is your research study and findings reliable for other researchers in your field of work? To establish yourself as a reliable researcher, your study should be both authentic and reliable.

Reliability means the extent to which your research can yield similar results if it was replicated in another setting, at a different time, or under different circumstances. If replication occurs and different findings come to light, your (original) research would be deemed unreliable.

Limitations

Good dissertation writers will always acknowledge the limitations of their research study. Limitations in data sampling can decrease your results’ reliability.

A classic example of research limitation is collecting responses from people of a certain age group when you could have targeted a more representative cross-section of the population.Be humble and admit to your own study’s limitations. Doing so makes your referees, editors, supervisors, readers and anyone else involved in the research enterprise aware that you were also aware of the things that limited your study.

Limitations are NOT the same as implications. Sometimes, the two can be confused. Limitations lead to implications, that is, due to a certain factor being absent in the study (limitation) for instance, future research could be carried out in a setting where that factor is present (implication).

Dissertation Methodology Example

At this point, you might have a basic understanding of how to craft a well-written, organised, accurate methodology section for your dissertation. An example might help bring all the aforementioned points home. Here is a dissertation methodology example in pdf to better understand how to write methodology for a dissertation.

Sample Dissertation Methodology

Does your Research Methodology Have the Following?

• Great Research/Sources
• Perfect Language
• Accurate Sources

If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of Research Methodology strong.

Types of Methodologies

A scientific or lab-based study.

A methodology section for a scientific study will need to elaborate on reproducibility and meticulousness more than anything else. If your methods have obvious flaws, the readers are not going to be impressed. Therefore, it is important to ensure that your chosen research methodology is vigorous in nature.

Any information related to the procedure, setup and equipment should be clearly stated so other researchers in your field of study can work with the same method in the future if needed.

Variables that are likely to falsify your data must be taken into the equation to avoid ambiguities. It is recommended to present a comprehensive strategy to deal with these variables when gathering and analysing the data and drawing conclusions.

Statistical models employed as part of your scientific study will have to be justified, and so your methodology should include details of those statistical models.

Another scholar in the future might use any aspect of your methodology as the starting point for their research. For example, they might base their research on your methodology but analyse the data using other statistical models. Hence, this is something you should be mindful of.

Behavioural or Social Sciences-Based Dissertation

Like scientific or lab-based research, a behavioural and social sciences methodology needs to be built along the same lines. The chosen methodology should demonstrate reproducibility and firmness so other scholars can use your whole dissertation methodology or a part of it based on their research needs.

But there are additional issues that the researcher must take into consideration when working with human subjects. As a starting point, you will need to decide whether your analysis will be based on qualitative data, quantitative data or mixed-method of research, where qualitative data is used to provide contextual background to quantitative data or the other way around.

Here are some questions for you to consider:

• Will you observe the participants undertaking some activity, ask them to fill out a questionnaire, or record their responses during the interviews ?
• Will you base your research on existing evidence and datasets and avoid working with human subjects?
• What are the length, width, and reach of your data? Define its scope.
• Is the data highly explicit to the location or cultural setting you carried your study in, or can it be generalised to other situations and frameworks (reliability)? What are your reasons and justifications?

While you will be required to demonstrate that you have taken care of the above questions, it is equally important to make sure that you address your research study’s ethical issues side-by-side.

Of course, the first step in that regard will be to obtain formal approval for your research design from the ethics bodies (such as IRBs – institutional review boards), but still, there will be many more issues that could trigger a sense of grief and discomfort among some of the readers.

Humanities and Arts Dissertation Project

The rigour and dependability of the methods of research employed remain undisputed and unquestionable for humanities and arts-based dissertations as well. However, the way you convince your readers of your dissertation’s thoroughness is slightly different.

Unlike social science dissertation or a scientific study, the methodology of dissertations in arts and humanities subjects needs to be directly linked to the literature review regardless of how innovative your dissertation’s topic might be.

For example, you could demonstrate the relationship between A and B to discover a new theoretical background or use existing theories in a new framework.

The methodology section of humanities and arts-based dissertations is less complex, so there might be no need to justify it in detail. Students can achieve a seamless transition from the literature review to the analysis section.

However, like with every other type of research methodology, it is important to provide a detailed justification of your chosen methodology and relate it to the research problem.

Failing to do so could leave some readers unconvinced of your theoretical foundations’ suitability, which could potentially jeopardise your whole research.

Make sure that you are paying attention to and giving enough information about the social and historical background of the theoretical frameworks your research methodology is based on. This is especially important if there is an essential difference of opinion between your research and the research done on the subject in the past.

A justification of why opposing schools of thought disagree and why you still went ahead to use aspects of these schools of thought in your methodology should be clearly presented for the readers to understand how they would support your readings.

A Dissertation in Creative Arts

Some degree programs in the arts allow students to undertake a portfolio of artworks or creative writing rather than produce an extended dissertation research project.However, in practice, your creative research will be required to be submitted along with a comprehensive evaluative paper, including background information and an explanation that hypothesises your innovative exercise.

While this might seem like an easy thing to do, critical evaluation of someone’s work is highly complex and notorious in nature. This further reinforces the argument of developing a rigorous methodology and adhering to it.

As a scholar, you will be expected to showcase the ability to critically analyse your methodology and show that you are capable of critically evaluating your own creative work.Such an approach will help you justify your method of creating the work, which will give the readers the impression that your research is grounded in theory.

What to Avoid in Methodology?

All chapters of a dissertation paper are interconnected. This means that there will undoubtedly be some information that would overlap between the different chapters of the dissertation .

For example, some of the text material may seem appropriate to both the literature review and methodology sections; you might even end up moving information from pillar to post between different chapters as you edit and improve your dissertation .

However, make sure that you are not making the following a part of your dissertation methodology, even though it may seem appropriate to fit them in there:

A Long Review of Methods Employed by Previous Researchers

It might seem relevant to include details of the models your dissertation methodology is based on. However, a detailed review of models and precedents used by other scholars and theorists will better fit in the literature review chapter, which you can link back to. This will help the readers understand why you decided to go in favour of or against a certain tactic.

Unnecessary Details Readers Might Not be Interested In

There is absolutely no need to provide extensive details of things like lab equipment and experiment procedures. Having such information in the methodology chapter would discourage some readers who might not be interested in your equipment, setup, lab environment, etc.

Your aim as the author of the document will be to retain the readers’ interest and make the methodology chapter as readable as possible.

While it is important to get all the information relating to how others can reproduce your experiment, it is equally important to ensure your methodology section isn’t unnecessarily long. Again, additional information is better to be placed within the appendices chapter.

The methodology is not the section to provide raw data, even if you are only discussing the data collection process. All such information should be moved to the appendices section.

Even if you feel some finding or numerical data is crucial to be presented within the methodology section, you can, at most, make brief comments about such data. Its discussion, however, is only allowed in the discussions section .

What Makes your Methodology Stand Out?

The factors which can determine if your dissertation methodology is ‘great’ depend on many factors, including the level of study you are currently enrolled in.

Undergraduate dissertations are, of course, less complex and less demanding. At most universities in the UK, undergraduate students are required to exhibit the ability to conduct thorough research as they engage for the first time with theoretical and conceptual frameworks in their chosen research area.

As an undergraduate student, you will be expected to showcase the capacity to reproduce what you have learnt from theorists in your academic subject, transform your leanings into a methodology that would help you address the research problem, and test the research hypothesis, as mentioned in the introduction chapter.

A great undergraduate-level dissertation will incorporate different schools of thought and make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge. However, in general, undergraduate-level dissertations’ focus should be to show thorough desk-based and independent research skills.

Postgraduate dissertation papers are much more compound and challenging because they are expected to make a substantial contribution to existing knowledge.

Depending on the academic institute, some postgraduate students are even required to develop a project published by leading academic journals as an approval of their research skills.

It is important to recognise the importance of a postgraduate dissertation towards building your professional career, especially if your work is considered impactful in your area of study and receives citations from multiple scholars, enhancing your reputation in academic communities.

Even if some academics cite your literature review and conclusion in their own work, it is a well-known fact that your methodology framework will result in many more citations regardless of your academic subject.

Other scholars and researchers in your area of study are likely to give much more value to a well-crafted methodology, especially one they can use as the starting point for their own research.

Of course, they can alter, refine and enhance your methodology in one way or another. They can even apply your methodological framework to a new data set or apply it in a completely new situation that is irrelevant to your work.

Finally, postgraduate dissertations are expected to be highly convincing and demonstrate in-depth engagement. They should be reproducible and show rigour, so the findings and conclusions can be regarded as authentic and reliable among scientific and academic communities.

The methodology is the door to success when it comes to dissertation projects. An original methodology that takes into consideration all aspects of research is likely to have an impact on the field of study.

As a postgraduate student, you should ask yourself, Is my dissertation methodology reproducible and transferable? Producing a methodology that others can reproduce in the future is as important as answering research questions .

The methodology chapter can either make or break the grade of your research/dissertation paper. It’s one of the research elements that leave a memorable impression on your readers. So, it would help if you took your time when it comes to choosing the right design and philosophical approach for your research.

Always use authentic academic sources and discuss your plans in detail with your supervisor if you believe your research design or approach has flaws in it.

Did this article help you learn how to write a dissertation methodology and how to structure a dissertation methodology? Let us know in your comments.

Are you struggling to create a thorough and well-rounded dissertation methodology?

Avail of our dissertation writing services ! At ResearchProspect, we have Master’s and PhD qualified dissertation writers for all academic subjects, so you can be confident that the writer we will assign to your dissertation order will be an expert in your field of study. They can help you with your whole dissertation or just a part of it. You decide how much or how little help you need.

You May Also Like

Are you looking for intriguing and trending dissertation topics? Get inspired by our list of free dissertation topics on all subjects.

Looking for an easy guide to follow to write your essay? Here is our detailed essay guide explaining how to write an essay and examples and types of an essay.

Learn about the steps required to successfully complete their research project. Make sure to follow these steps in their respective order.

More Interesting Articles

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Writing the Dissertation - Guides for Success: The Methodology

• Writing the Dissertation Homepage
• Overview and Planning
• The Literature Review
• The Methodology
• The Results and Discussion
• The Conclusion
• The Abstract
• Getting Started
• What to Avoid

Overview of writing the methodology

The methodology chapter precisely outlines the research method(s) employed in your dissertation and considers any relevant decisions you made, and challenges faced, when conducting your research. Getting this right is crucial because it lays the foundation for what’s to come: your results and discussion.

Disciplinary differences

Please note: this guide is not specific to any one discipline. The methodology can vary depending on the nature of the research and the expectations of the school or department. Please adapt the following advice to meet the demands of your dissertation and the expectations of your school or department. Consult your supervisor for further guidance; you can also check out our  Writing Across Subjects guide .

Guide contents

As part of the Writing the Dissertation series, this guide covers the most common conventions found in a methodology chapter, giving you the necessary knowledge, tips and guidance needed to impress your markers!  The sections are organised as follows:

• Getting Started  - Defines the methodology and its core characteristics.
• Structure  - Provides a detailed walk-through of common subsections or components of the methodology.
• What to Avoid  - Covers a few frequent mistakes you'll want to...avoid!
• FAQs  - Guidance on first- vs. third-person, secondary literature and more.
• Checklist  - Includes a summary of key points and a self-evaluation checklist.

Training and tools

• The Academic Skills team has recorded a Writing the Dissertation workshop series to help you with each section of a standard dissertation, including a video on writing the method/methodology .
• For more on methods and methodologies, you can check out USC's methodology research guide  and Huddersfield's guide to writing the methodology of an undergraduate dissertation .
• The dissertation planner tool can help you think through the timeline for planning, research, drafting and editing.
• iSolutions offers training and a Word template to help you digitally format and structure your dissertation.

What is the methodology?

The methodology of a dissertation is like constructing a house of cards. Having strong and stable foundations for your research relies on your ability to make informed and rational choices about the design of your study. Everything from this point on – your results and discussion –  rests on these decisions, like the bottom layer of a house of cards.

The methodology is where you explicitly state, in relevant detail, how you conduced your study in direct response to your research question(s) and/or hypotheses. You should work through the linear process of devising your study to implementing it, covering the important choices you made and any potential obstacles you faced along the way.

Methods or methodology?

Some disciplines refer to this chapter as the research methods , whilst others call it the methodology . The two are often used interchangeably, but they are slightly different. The methods chapter outlines the techniques used to conduct the research and the specific steps taken throughout the research process. The methodology also outlines how the research was conducted, but is particularly interested in the philosophical underpinning that shapes the research process. As indicated by the suffix, -ology , meaning the study of something, the methodology is like the study of research, as opposed to simply stating how the research was conducted.

This guide focuses on the methodology, as opposed to the methods, although the content and guidance can be tailored to a methods chapter. Every dissertation is different and every methodology has its own nuances, so ensure you adapt the content here to your research and always consult your supervisor for more detailed guidance.

What are my markers looking for?

Your markers are looking   for your understanding of the complex process behind original (see definition) research. They are assessing your ability to...

• Demonstrate   an understanding of the impact that methodological choices can have on the reliability and validity of your findings, meaning you should engage with ‘why’ you did that, as opposed to simply ‘what’ you did.
• Make   informed methodological choices that clearly relate to your research question(s).

But what does it mean to engage in 'original' research? Originality doesn’t strictly mean you should be inventing something entirely new. Originality comes in many forms, from updating the application of a theory, to adapting a previous experiment for new purposes – it’s about making a worthwhile contribution.

Structuring your methodology

The methodology chapter should outline the research process undertaken, from selecting the method to articulating the tool or approach adopted to analyse your results. Because you are outlining this process, it's important that you structure your methodology in a linear way, showing how certain decisions have impacted on subsequent choices.

Scroll to continue reading, or click a link below to jump immediately to that section:

The 'research onion'

To ensure you write your methodology in a linear way, it can be useful to think of the methodology in terms of layers, as shown in the figure below.

Figure: 'Research onion' from Saunders et al. (2007).

You don't need to precisely follow these exact layers as some won't be relevant to your research. However, the layered 'out to in' structure developed by Saunders et al. (2007) is appropriate for any methodology chapter because it guides your reader through the process in a linear fashion, demonstrating how certain decisions impacted on others. For example, you need to state whether your research is qualitative, quantitative or mixed before articulating your precise research method. Likewise, you need to explain how you collected your data before you inform the reader of how you subsequently analysed that data.

Using this linear approach from 'outer' layer to 'inner' layer, the next sections will take you through the most common layers used to structure a methodology chapter.

Introduction and research outline

Like any chapter, you should open your methodology with an introduction. It's good to start by briefly restating the research problem, or gap, that you're addressing, along with your research question(s) and/or hypotheses. Following this, it's common to provide a very condensed statement that outlines the most important elements of your research design. Here's a short example:

This study adopted qualitative research through a series of semi-structured interviews with seven experienced industry professionals.

Like any other introduction, you can then provide a brief statement outlining what the chapter is about and how it's structured (e.g., an essay map ).

Restating the research problem (or gap) and your research question(s) and/or hypotheses creates a natural transition from your previous review of the literature - which helped you to identify the gap or problem - to how you are now going to address such a problem. Your markers are also going to assess the relevance and suitability of your method and methodological choices against your research question(s), so it's good to 'frame' the entire chapter around the research question(s) by bringing them to the fore.

Research philosophy

A research philosophy is an underlying belief that shapes the way research is conducted. For this reason, as featured in the 'research onion' above, the philosophy should be the outermost layer - the first methodological issue you deal with following the introduction and research outline - because every subsequent choice, from the method employed to the way you analyse data, is directly influenced by your philosophical stance.

You can say something about other philosophies, but it's best to directly relate this to your research and the philosophy you have selected - why the other philosophy isn't appropriate for you to adopt, for instance. Otherwise, explain to your reader the philosophy you have selected (using secondary literature), its underlying principles, and why this philosophy, therefore, is particularly relevant to your research.

The research philosophy is sometimes featured in a methodology chapter, but not always. It depends on the conventions within your school or discipline , so only include this if it's expected.

The reason for outlining the research philosophy is to show your understanding of the role that your chosen philosophy plays in shaping the design and approach of your research study. The philosophy you adopt also indicates your worldview (in the context of this research), which is an important way of highlighting the role you, the researcher, play in shaping new knowledge.

Research method

This is where you state whether you're doing qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods research before outlining the exact instrument or strategy (see definition) adopted for research (interviews, case study, etc.). It's also important that you explain why you have chosen that particular method and strategy. You can also explain why you're not adopting an alternate form of research, or why you haven't used a particular instrument, but keep this brief and use it to reinforce why you have chosen your method and strategy.

Your research method, more than anything else, is going to directly influence how effectively you answer your research question(s). For that reason, it's crucial that you emphasise the suitability of your chosen method and instrument for the purposes of your research.                       

Data collection

The data collection part of your methodology explain the process of how you accessed and collected your data. Using an interview as a qualitative example, this might include the criteria for selecting participants, how you recruited the participants and how and where you conducted the interviews. There is often some overlap with data collection and research method, so don't worry about this. Just make sure you get the essential information across to your reader.

The details of how you accessed and collected your data are important for replicability purposes - the ability for someone to adopt the same approach and repeat the study. It's also important to include this information for reliability and consistency purposes (see  validity and reliability  on the next tab of this guide for more).

Data analysis

After describing how you collected the data, you need to identify your chosen method of data analysis. Inevitably, this will vary depending on whether your research is qualitative or quantitative (see note below).

Qualitative research tends to be narrative-based where forms of ‘coding’ are employed to categorise and group the data into meaningful themes and patterns (Bui, 2014). Quantitative deals with numerical data meaning some form of statistical approach is taken to measure the results against the research question(s).

Tell your reader which data analysis software (such as SPSS or Atlast.ti) or method you’ve used and why, using relevant literature. Again, you can mention other data analysis tools that you haven’t used, but keep this brief and relate it to your discussion of your chosen approach. This isn’t to be confused with the results and discussion chapters where you actually state and then analyse your results. This is simply a discussion of the approach taken, how you applied this approach to your data and why you opted for this method of data analysis.

Detail of how you analysed your data helps to contextualise your results and discussion chapters. This is also a validity issue (see next tab of guide), as you need to ensure that your chosen method for data analysis helps you to answer your research question(s) and/or respond to your hypotheses. To use an example from Bui (2014: 155), 'if one of the research questions asks whether the participants changed their behaviour before and after the study, then one of the procedures for data analysis needs to be a comparison of the pre- and postdata'.

Validity and reliability

Validity simply refers to whether the research method(s) and instrument(s) applied are directly suited to meet the purposes of your research – whether they help you to answer your research question(s), or allow you to formulate a response to your hypotheses.

Validity can be separated into two forms: internal and external. The difference between the two is defined by what exists inside the study (internal) and what exists outside the study (external).

• Internal validity is the extent to which ‘the results obtained can be attributed to the manipulation of the independent variable' (Salkind, 2011: 147).
• External validity refers to the application of your study’s findings outside the setting of your study. This is known as generalisability , meaning to what extent are the results applicable to a wider context or population.

Reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency with which you designed and implemented your research instrument(s). The idea behind this is to ensure that someone else could replicate your study and, by applying the instrument in the exact same way, would achieve the same results. This is crucial to quantitative and scientific based research, but isn’t strictly the case with qualitative research given the subjective nature of the data.

With qualitative data, it’s important to emphasise that data was collected in a consistent way to avoid any distortions. For example, let’s say you’ve circulated a questionnaire to participants. You would want to ensure that every participant receives the exact same questionnaire with precisely the same questions and wording, unless different questionnaires are required for different members of the sample for the purposes of the research.

Ethical considerations

Any research involving human participants needs to consider ethical factors. In response, you need to show your markers that you have implemented the necessary measures to cover the relevant ethical issues. These are some of the factors that are typically included:

• How did you gain the consent of participants, and how did you formally record this consent?
• What measures did you take to ensure participants had enough understanding of their role to make an informed decision, including the right to withdraw at any stage?
• What measures did you take to maintain the confidentiality of participants during the research and, potentially, for the write-up?
• What measures did you take to store the raw data and protect it from external access and use prior to the write-up?

These are only a few examples of the ethical factors you need to write about in your methodology. Depending on the nature of your research, ethical considerations might form a significant part of your methodology chapter, or may only constitute a few sentences. Either way, it’s imperative that you show your markers that you’ve considered the relevant ethical implications of your research.

Limitations

Don’t make the mistake of ignoring the limitations of your study (see the next tab, 'What to Avoid', for more on this) – it’s a common part of research and should be confronted. Limitations of research can be diverse, but tend to be logistical issues relating to time, scope and access . Whilst accepting that your study has certain limitations, the key is to put a positive spin on it, like the example below:

Despite having a limited sample size compared to other similar studies, the number of participants is enough to provide sufficient data, whilst the in-depth nature of the interviews facilitates detailed responses from participants.

• Bui, Y. N. (2014) How to Write a Master’s Thesis. 2dn Edtn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, N. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105-117.
• Salkind, N. J. (2011) ‘Internal and external validity’, in Moutinho, L. and Hutchenson, G. D. (eds.) The SAGE Dictionary of Quantitative Management Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 147-149.
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students . 4th Edtn. Harlow: Pearson.

What to avoid

This portion of the guide will cover some common missteps you should try to avoid in writing your methodology.

Ignoring limitations

It might seem instinctive to hide any flaws or limitations with your research to protect yourself from criticism. However, you need to highlight any problems you encountered during the research phase, or any limitations with your approach. Your markers are expecting you to engage with these limitations and highlight the kind of impact they may have had on your research.

Just be careful that you don’t overstress these limitations. Doing so could undermine the reliability and validity of your results, and your credibility as a researcher.

Literature review of methods

Don’t mistake your methodology chapter as a detailed review of methods employed in other studies. This level of detail should, where relevant, be incorporated in the literature review chapter, instead (see our Writing the Literature Review guide ). Any reference to methodological choices made by other researchers should come into your methodology chapter, but only in support of the decisions you made.

Unnecessary detail

It’s important to be thorough in a methodology chapter. However, don’t include unnecessary levels of detail. You should provide enough detail that allows other researchers to replicate or adapt your study, but don’t bore your reader with obvious or extraneous detail.

Any materials or content that you think is worth including, but not essential in the chapter, could be included in an appendix (see definition). These don’t count towards your word count (unless otherwise stated), and they can provide further detail and context for your reader. For instance, it’s quite common to include a copy of a questionnaire in an appendix, or a list of interview questions.

Q: Should the methodology be in the past or present tense?

A: The past tense. The study has already been conducted and the methodological decisions have been implemented, meaning the chapter should be written in the past tense. For example...

Data was collected over the course of four weeks.

I informed participants of their right to withdraw at any time.

The surveys included ten questions about job satisfaction and ten questions about familial life (see Appendix).

Q: Should the methodology include secondary literature?

A: Yes, where relevant. Unlike the literature review, the methodology is driven by what you did rather than what other people have done. However, you should still draw on secondary sources, when necessary, to support your methodological decisions.

Q: Do you still need to write a methodology for secondary research?

A: Yes, although it might not form a chapter, as such. Including some detail on how you approached the research phase is always a crucial part of a dissertation, whether primary or secondary. However, depending on the nature of your research, you may not have to provide the same level of detail as you would with a primary-based study.

For example, if you’re analysing two particular pieces of literature, then you probably need to clarify how you approached the analysis process, how you use the texts (whether you focus on particular passages, for example) and perhaps why these texts are scrutinised, as opposed to others from the relevant literary canon.

In such cases, the methodology may not be a chapter, but might constitute a small part of the introduction. Consult your supervisor for further guidance.

Q: Should the methodology be in the first-person or third?

A: It’s important to be consistent , so you should use whatever you’ve been using throughout your dissertation. Third-person is more commonly accepted, but certain disciplines are happy with the use of first-person. Just remember that the first-person pronoun can be a distracting, but powerful device, so use it sparingly. Consult your supervisor for further guidance.

It’s important to remember that all research is different and, as such, the methodology chapter is likely to be very different from dissertation to dissertation. Whilst this guide has covered the most common and essential layers featured in a methodology, your methodology might be very different in terms of what you focus on, the depth of focus and the wording used.

What’s important to remember, however, is that every methodology chapter needs to be structured in a linear, layered way that guides the reader through the methodological process in sequential order. Through this, your marker can see how certain decisions have impacted on others, showing your understanding of the research process.

Here’s a final checklist for writing your methodology. Remember that not all of these points will be relevant for your methodology, so make sure you cover whatever’s appropriate for your dissertation. The asterisk (*) indicates any content that might not be relevant for your dissertation. You can download a copy of the checklist to save and edit via the Word document, below.

• Methodology self-evaluation checklist

• << Previous: The Literature Review
• Next: The Results and Discussion >>
• Last Updated: Feb 22, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://library.soton.ac.uk/writing_the_dissertation

• LEARNING SKILLS
• Writing a Dissertation or Thesis
• Methodology

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Learning Skills:

• A - Z List of Learning Skills
• What is Learning?
• Learning Approaches
• Learning Styles
• 8 Types of Learning Styles
• Understanding Your Preferences to Aid Learning
• Lifelong Learning
• Decisions to Make Before Applying to University
• Top Tips for Surviving Student Life
• Living Online: Education and Learning
• 8 Ways to Embrace Technology-Based Learning Approaches
• Critical Thinking Skills
• Critical Thinking and Fake News
• Understanding and Addressing Conspiracy Theories
• Critical Analysis
• Study Skills
• Exam Skills
• How to Write a Research Proposal
• Ethical Issues in Research
• Dissertation: The Introduction
• Researching and Writing a Literature Review
• Writing your Methodology
• Dissertation: Results and Discussion
• Dissertation: Conclusions and Extras

Writing Your Dissertation or Thesis eBook

Part of the Skills You Need Guide for Students .

• Research Methods
• Teaching, Coaching, Mentoring and Counselling
• Employability Skills for Graduates

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Writing your Dissertation: Methodology

A key part of your dissertation or thesis is the methodology. This is not quite the same as ‘methods’.

The methodology describes the broad philosophical underpinning to your chosen research methods, including whether you are using qualitative or quantitative methods, or a mixture of both, and why.

You should be clear about the academic basis for all the choices of research methods that you have made. ' I was interested ' or ' I thought... ' is not enough; there must be good academic reasons for your choice.

What to Include in your Methodology

If you are submitting your dissertation in sections, with the methodology submitted before you actually undertake the research, you should use this section to set out exactly what you plan to do.

The methodology should be linked back to the literature to explain why you are using certain methods, and the academic basis of your choice.

If you are submitting as a single thesis, then the Methodology should explain what you did, with any refinements that you made as your work progressed. Again, it should have a clear academic justification of all the choices that you made and be linked back to the literature.

Common Research Methods for the Social Sciences

There are numerous research methods that can be used when researching scientific subjects, you should discuss which are the most appropriate for your research with your supervisor.

The following research methods are commonly used in social science, involving human subjects:

One of the most flexible and widely used methods for gaining qualitative information about people’s experiences, views and feelings is the interview.

An interview can be thought of as a guided conversation between a researcher (you) and somebody from whom you wish to learn something (often referred to as the ‘informant’).

The level of structure in an interview can vary, but most commonly interviewers follow a semi-structured format.  This means that the interviewer will develop a guide to the topics that he or she wishes to cover in the conversation, and may even write out a number of questions to ask.

However, the interviewer is free to follow different paths of conversation that emerge over the course of the interview, or to prompt the informant to clarify and expand on certain points. Therefore, interviews are particularly good tools for gaining detailed information where the research question is open-ended in terms of the range of possible answers.

Interviews are not particularly well suited for gaining information from large numbers of people. Interviews are time-consuming, and so careful attention needs to be given to selecting informants who will have the knowledge or experiences necessary to answer the research question.  

See our page: Interviews for Research for more information.

Observations

If a researcher wants to know what people do under certain circumstances, the most straightforward way to get this information is sometimes simply to watch them under those circumstances.

Observations can form a part of either quantitative or qualitative research.  For instance, if a researcher wants to determine whether the introduction of a traffic sign makes any difference to the number of cars slowing down at a dangerous curve, she or he could sit near the curve and count the number of cars that do and do not slow down.  Because the data will be numbers of cars, this is an example of quantitative observation.

A researcher wanting to know how people react to a billboard advertisement might spend time watching and describing the reactions of the people.  In this case, the data would be descriptive , and would therefore be qualitative.

There are a number of potential ethical concerns that can arise with an observation study. Do the people being studied know that they are under observation?  Can they give their consent?  If some people are unhappy with being observed, is it possible to ‘remove’ them from the study while still carrying out observations of the others around them?

See our page: Observational Research and Secondary Data for more information.

Questionnaires

If your intended research question requires you to collect standardised (and therefore comparable) information from a number of people, then questionnaires may be the best method to use.

Questionnaires can be used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data, although you will not be able to get the level of detail in qualitative responses to a questionnaire that you could in an interview.

Questionnaires require a great deal of care in their design and delivery, but a well-developed questionnaire can be distributed to a much larger number of people than it would be possible to interview. 

Questionnaires are particularly well suited for research seeking to measure some parameters for a group of people (e.g., average age, percentage agreeing with a proposition, level of awareness of an issue), or to make comparisons between groups of people (e.g., to determine whether members of different generations held the same or different views on immigration).

See our page: Surveys and Survey Design for more information.

Documentary Analysis

Documentary analysis involves obtaining data from existing documents without having to question people through interview, questionnaires or observe their behaviour. Documentary analysis is the main way that historians obtain data about their research subjects, but it can also be a valuable tool for contemporary social scientists.

Documents are tangible materials in which facts or ideas have been recorded.  Typically, we think of items written or produced on paper, such as newspaper articles, Government policy records, leaflets and minutes of meetings.  Items in other media can also be the subject of documentary analysis, including films, songs, websites and photographs.

Documents can reveal a great deal about the people or organisation that produced them and the social context in which they emerged. 

Some documents are part of the public domain and are freely accessible, whereas other documents may be classified, confidential or otherwise unavailable to public access.  If such documents are used as data for research, the researcher must come to an agreement with the holder of the documents about how the contents can and cannot be used and how confidentiality will be preserved.

How to Choose your Methodology and Precise Research Methods

Your methodology should be linked back to your research questions and previous research.

Visit your university or college library and ask the librarians for help; they should be able to help you to identify the standard research method textbooks in your field. See also our section on Research Methods for some further ideas.

Such books will help you to identify your broad research philosophy, and then choose methods which relate to that. This section of your dissertation or thesis should set your research in the context of its theoretical underpinnings.

The methodology should also explain the weaknesses of your chosen approach and how you plan to avoid the worst pitfalls, perhaps by triangulating your data with other methods, or why you do not think the weakness is relevant.

For every philosophical underpinning, you will almost certainly be able to find researchers who support it and those who don’t.

Use the arguments for and against expressed in the literature to explain why you have chosen to use this methodology or why the weaknesses don’t matter here.

Structuring your Methodology

It is usually helpful to start your section on methodology by setting out the conceptual framework in which you plan to operate with reference to the key texts on that approach.

You should be clear throughout about the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen approach and how you plan to address them. You should also note any issues of which to be aware, for example in sample selection or to make your findings more relevant.

You should then move on to discuss your research questions, and how you plan to address each of them.

This is the point at which to set out your chosen research methods, including their theoretical basis, and the literature supporting them. You should make clear whether you think the method is ‘tried and tested’ or much more experimental, and what kind of reliance you could place on the results. You will also need to discuss this again in the discussion section.

Your research may even aim to test the research methods, to see if they work in certain circumstances.

You should conclude by summarising your research methods, the underpinning approach, and what you see as the key challenges that you will face in your research. Again, these are the areas that you will want to revisit in your discussion.

Your methodology, and the precise methods that you choose to use in your research, are crucial to its success.

It is worth spending plenty of time on this section to ensure that you get it right. As always, draw on the resources available to you, for example by discussing your plans in detail with your supervisor who may be able to suggest whether your approach has significant flaws which you could address in some way.

Continue to: Research Methods Designing Research

See Also: Dissertation: Results and Discussion Writing a Literature Review | Writing a Research Proposal Writing a Dissertation: The Introduction

Editorial Manager, our manuscript submissions site will be unavailable between 12pm April 5, 2024 and 12pm April 8 2024 (Pacific Standard Time). We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Your Methods

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

What should you include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate?

Why Methods Matter

The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher’s website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in science has reinstated the importance of the methods section. Methods are now viewed as a key element in establishing the credibility of the research being reported, alongside the open availability of data and results.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability.

For example, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology project set out in 2013 to replicate experiments from 50 high profile cancer papers, but revised their target to 18 papers once they understood how much methodological detail was not contained in the original papers.

What to include in your methods section

What you include in your methods sections depends on what field you are in and what experiments you are performing. However, the general principle in place at the majority of journals is summarized well by the guidelines at PLOS ONE : “The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. ” The emphases here are deliberate: the methods should enable readers to understand your paper, and replicate your study. However, there is no need to go into the level of detail that a lay-person would require—the focus is on the reader who is also trained in your field, with the suitable skills and knowledge to attempt a replication.

A constant principle of rigorous science

A methods section that enables other researchers to understand and replicate your results is a constant principle of rigorous, transparent, and Open Science. Aim to be thorough, even if a particular journal doesn’t require the same level of detail . Reproducibility is all of our responsibility. You cannot create any problems by exceeding a minimum standard of information. If a journal still has word-limits—either for the overall article or specific sections—and requires some methodological details to be in a supplemental section, that is OK as long as the extra details are searchable and findable .

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

As part of PLOS’ presentation on Reproducibility and Open Publishing (part of UCSF’s Reproducibility Series ) we recommend planning the level of detail in your methods section by imagining you are writing for your future self, replicating your own work. When you consider that you might be at a different institution, with different account logins, applications, resources, and access levels—you can help yourself imagine the level of specificity that you yourself would require to redo the exact experiment. Consider:

• Which details would you need to be reminded of? 
• Which cell line, or antibody, or software, or reagent did you use, and does it have a Research Resource ID (RRID) that you can cite?
• Which version of a questionnaire did you use in your survey? 
• Exactly which visual stimulus did you show participants, and is it publicly available? 
• What participants did you decide to exclude? 
• What process did you adjust, during your work? 

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

You yourself would want to know about any adjustments, if you ever replicate the work, so you can surmise that anyone else would want to as well. Even if a necessary adjustment you made was not ideal, transparency is the key to ensuring this is not regarded as an issue in the future. It is far better to transparently convey any non-optimal methods, or methodological constraints, than to conceal them, which could result in reproducibility or ethical issues downstream.

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Consider whether a visual representation of your methods could be appropriate or aid understanding your process. A visual reference readers can easily return to, like a flow-diagram, decision-tree, or checklist, can help readers to better understand the complete article, not just the methods section.

Ethical Considerations

In addition to describing what you did, it is just as important to assure readers that you also followed all relevant ethical guidelines when conducting your research. While ethical standards and reporting guidelines are often presented in a separate section of a paper, ensure that your methods and protocols actually follow these guidelines. Read more about ethics .

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

While the level of detail contained in a methods section should be guided by the universal principles of rigorous science outlined above, various disciplines, fields, and projects have worked hard to design and develop consistent standards, guidelines, and tools to help with reporting all types of experiment. Below, you’ll find some of the key initiatives. Ensure you read the submission guidelines for the specific journal you are submitting to, in order to discover any further journal- or field-specific policies to follow, or initiatives/tools to utilize.

Tip: Keep your paper moving forward by providing the proper paperwork up front

Be sure to check the journal guidelines and provide the necessary documents with your manuscript submission. Collecting the necessary documentation can greatly slow the first round of peer review, or cause delays when you submit your revision.

Randomized Controlled Trials – CONSORT The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) project covers various initiatives intended to prevent the problems of  inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The primary initiative is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials known as the CONSORT Statement . 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) is an evidence-based minimum set of items focusing  on the reporting of  reviews evaluating randomized trials and other types of research.

Research using Animals – ARRIVE The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ( ARRIVE ) guidelines encourage maximizing the information reported in research using animals thereby minimizing unnecessary studies. (Original study and proposal , and updated guidelines , in PLOS Biology .) 

Laboratory Protocols Protocols.io has developed a platform specifically for the sharing and updating of laboratory protocols , which are assigned their own DOI and can be linked from methods sections of papers to enhance reproducibility. Contextualize your protocol and improve discovery with an accompanying Lab Protocol article in PLOS ONE .

Consistent reporting of Materials, Design, and Analysis – the MDAR checklist A cross-publisher group of editors and experts have developed, tested, and rolled out a checklist to help establish and harmonize reporting standards in the Life Sciences . The checklist , which is available for use by authors to compile their methods, and editors/reviewers to check methods, establishes a minimum set of requirements in transparent reporting and is adaptable to any discipline within the Life Sciences, by covering a breadth of potentially relevant methodological items and considerations. If you are in the Life Sciences and writing up your methods section, try working through the MDAR checklist and see whether it helps you include all relevant details into your methods, and whether it reminded you of anything you might have missed otherwise.

Summary Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your methods is keeping it readable AND covering all the details needed for reproducibility and replicability. While this is difficult, do not compromise on rigorous standards for credibility!

• Keep in mind future replicability, alongside understanding and readability.
• Follow checklists, and field- and journal-specific guidelines.
• Consider a commitment to rigorous and transparent science a personal responsibility, and not just adhering to journal guidelines.
• Establish whether there are persistent identifiers for any research resources you use that can be specifically cited in your methods section.
• Deposit your laboratory protocols in Protocols.io, establishing a permanent link to them. You can update your protocols later if you improve on them, as can future scientists who follow your protocols.
• Consider visual aids like flow-diagrams, lists, to help with reading other sections of the paper.
• Be specific about all decisions made during the experiments that someone reproducing your work would need to know.

Don’t

• Summarize or abbreviate methods without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.
• Presume you will always be able to remember how you performed the experiments, or have access to private or institutional notebooks and resources.
• Attempt to hide constraints or non-optimal decisions you had to make–transparency is the key to ensuring the credibility of your research.
• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

• 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 9, 2024 1:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings? In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

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:

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

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

Library Guides

Dissertations 4: methodology: methods.

• Introduction & Philosophy
• Methodology

Primary & Secondary Sources, Primary & Secondary Data

When describing your research methods, you can start by stating what kind of secondary and, if applicable, primary sources you used in your research. Explain why you chose such sources, how well they served your research, and identify possible issues encountered using these sources.  

Definitions  

There is some confusion on the use of the terms primary and secondary sources, and primary and secondary data. The confusion is also due to disciplinary differences (Lombard 2010). Whilst you are advised to consult the research methods literature in your field, we can generalise as follows:  

Secondary sources 

Secondary sources normally include the literature (books and articles) with the experts' findings, analysis and discussions on a certain topic (Cottrell, 2014, p123). Secondary sources often interpret primary sources.  

Primary sources 

Primary sources are "first-hand" information such as raw data, statistics, interviews, surveys, law statutes and law cases. Even literary texts, pictures and films can be primary sources if they are the object of research (rather than, for example, documentaries reporting on something else, in which case they would be secondary sources). The distinction between primary and secondary sources sometimes lies on the use you make of them (Cottrell, 2014, p123). 

Primary data 

Primary data are data (primary sources) you directly obtained through your empirical work (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2015, p316). 

Secondary data 

Secondary data are data (primary sources) that were originally collected by someone else (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2015, p316).   

Comparison between primary and secondary data   

Use  

Virtually all research will use secondary sources, at least as background information. 

Often, especially at the postgraduate level, it will also use primary sources - secondary and/or primary data. The engagement with primary sources is generally appreciated, as less reliant on others' interpretations, and closer to 'facts'. 

The use of primary data, as opposed to secondary data, demonstrates the researcher's effort to do empirical work and find evidence to answer her specific research question and fulfill her specific research objectives. Thus, primary data contribute to the originality of the research.    

Ultimately, you should state in this section of the methodology: 

What sources and data you are using and why (how are they going to help you answer the research question and/or test the hypothesis. 

If using primary data, why you employed certain strategies to collect them. 

What the advantages and disadvantages of your strategies to collect the data (also refer to the research in you field and research methods literature). 

Quantitative, Qualitative & Mixed Methods

The methodology chapter should reference your use of quantitative research, qualitative research and/or mixed methods. The following is a description of each along with their advantages and disadvantages. 

Quantitative research 

Quantitative research uses numerical data (quantities) deriving, for example, from experiments, closed questions in surveys, questionnaires, structured interviews or published data sets (Cottrell, 2014, p93). It normally processes and analyses this data using quantitative analysis techniques like tables, graphs and statistics to explore, present and examine relationships and trends within the data (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2015, p496). 

Qualitative research  

Qualitative research is generally undertaken to study human behaviour and psyche. It uses methods like in-depth case studies, open-ended survey questions, unstructured interviews, focus groups, or unstructured observations (Cottrell, 2014, p93). The nature of the data is subjective, and also the analysis of the researcher involves a degree of subjective interpretation. Subjectivity can be controlled for in the research design, or has to be acknowledged as a feature of the research. Subject-specific books on (qualitative) research methods offer guidance on such research designs.  

Mixed methods 

Mixed-method approaches combine both qualitative and quantitative methods, and therefore combine the strengths of both types of research. Mixed methods have gained popularity in recent years.  

When undertaking mixed-methods research you can collect the qualitative and quantitative data either concurrently or sequentially. If sequentially, you can for example, start with a few semi-structured interviews, providing qualitative insights, and then design a questionnaire to obtain quantitative evidence that your qualitative findings can also apply to a wider population (Specht, 2019, p138). 

Ultimately, your methodology chapter should state: 

Whether you used quantitative research, qualitative research or mixed methods. 

Why you chose such methods (and refer to research method sources). 

Why you rejected other methods. 

How well the method served your research. 

The problems or limitations you encountered. 

Doug Specht, Senior Lecturer at the Westminster School of Media and Communication, explains mixed methods research in the following video:

LinkedIn Learning Video on Academic Research Foundations: Quantitative

The video covers the characteristics of quantitative research, and explains how to approach different parts of the research process, such as creating a solid research question and developing a literature review. He goes over the elements of a study, explains how to collect and analyze data, and shows how to present your data in written and numeric form.

Link to quantitative research video

Some Types of Methods

There are several methods you can use to get primary data. To reiterate, the choice of the methods should depend on your research question/hypothesis. 

Whatever methods you will use, you will need to consider: 

why did you choose one technique over another? What were the advantages and disadvantages of the technique you chose? 

what was the size of your sample? Who made up your sample? How did you select your sample population? Why did you choose that particular sampling strategy?) 

ethical considerations (see also tab...)  

safety considerations  

validity  

feasibility  

recording  

procedure of the research (see box procedural method...).  

Check Stella Cottrell's book  Dissertations and Project Reports: A Step by Step Guide  for some succinct yet comprehensive information on most methods (the following account draws mostly on her work). Check a research methods book in your discipline for more specific guidance.  

Experiments 

Experiments are useful to investigate cause and effect, when the variables can be tightly controlled. They can test a theory or hypothesis in controlled conditions. Experiments do not prove or disprove an hypothesis, instead they support or not support an hypothesis. When using the empirical and inductive method it is not possible to achieve conclusive results. The results may only be valid until falsified by other experiments and observations. 

For more information on Scientific Method, click here . 

Observations 

Observational methods are useful for in-depth analyses of behaviours in people, animals, organisations, events or phenomena. They can test a theory or products in real life or simulated settings. They generally a qualitative research method.  

Questionnaires and surveys 

Questionnaires and surveys are useful to gain opinions, attitudes, preferences, understandings on certain matters. They can provide quantitative data that can be collated systematically; qualitative data, if they include opportunities for open-ended responses; or both qualitative and quantitative elements. 

Interviews  

Interviews are useful to gain rich, qualitative information about individuals' experiences, attitudes or perspectives. With interviews you can follow up immediately on responses for clarification or further details. There are three main types of interviews: structured (following a strict pattern of questions, which expect short answers), semi-structured (following a list of questions, with the opportunity to follow up the answers with improvised questions), and unstructured (following a short list of broad questions, where the respondent can lead more the conversation) (Specht, 2019, p142). 

This short video on qualitative interviews discusses best practices and covers qualitative interview design, preparation and data collection methods. 

Focus groups   

In this case, a group of people (normally, 4-12) is gathered for an interview where the interviewer asks questions to such group of participants. Group interactions and discussions can be highly productive, but the researcher has to beware of the group effect, whereby certain participants and views dominate the interview (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2015, p419). The researcher can try to minimise this by encouraging involvement of all participants and promoting a multiplicity of views. 

This video focuses on strategies for conducting research using focus groups.  

Check out the guidance on online focus groups by Aliaksandr Herasimenka, which is attached at the bottom of this text box. 

Case study 

Case studies are often a convenient way to narrow the focus of your research by studying how a theory or literature fares with regard to a specific person, group, organisation, event or other type of entity or phenomenon you identify. Case studies can be researched using other methods, including those described in this section. Case studies give in-depth insights on the particular reality that has been examined, but may not be representative of what happens in general, they may not be generalisable, and may not be relevant to other contexts. These limitations have to be acknowledged by the researcher.     

Content analysis 

Content analysis consists in the study of words or images within a text. In its broad definition, texts include books, articles, essays, historical documents, speeches, conversations, advertising, interviews, social media posts, films, theatre, paintings or other visuals. Content analysis can be quantitative (e.g. word frequency) or qualitative (e.g. analysing intention and implications of the communication). It can detect propaganda, identify intentions of writers, and can see differences in types of communication (Specht, 2019, p146). Check this page on collecting, cleaning and visualising Twitter data.

Extra links and resources:  

Research Methods  

A clear and comprehensive overview of research methods by Emerald Publishing. It includes: crowdsourcing as a research tool; mixed methods research; case study; discourse analysis; ground theory; repertory grid; ethnographic method and participant observation; interviews; focus group; action research; analysis of qualitative data; survey design; questionnaires; statistics; experiments; empirical research; literature review; secondary data and archival materials; data collection. 

Doing your dissertation during the COVID-19 pandemic  

Resources providing guidance on doing dissertation research during the pandemic: Online research methods; Secondary data sources; Webinars, conferences and podcasts; 

• Virtual Focus Groups Guidance on managing virtual focus groups

5 Minute Methods Videos

The following are a series of useful videos that introduce research methods in five minutes. These resources have been produced by lecturers and students with the University of Westminster's School of Media and Communication. 

Case Study Research

Research Ethics

Quantitative Content Analysis 

Sequential Analysis 

Qualitative Content Analysis 

Thematic Analysis 

Social Media Research 

Mixed Method Research 

Procedural Method

In this part, provide an accurate, detailed account of the methods and procedures that were used in the study or the experiment (if applicable!). 

Include specifics about participants, sample, materials, design and methods. 

If the research involves human subjects, then include a detailed description of who and how many participated along with how the participants were selected.  

Describe all materials used for the study, including equipment, written materials and testing instruments. 

Identify the study's design and any variables or controls employed. 

Write out the steps in the order that they were completed. 

Indicate what participants were asked to do, how measurements were taken and any calculations made to raw data collected. 

Specify statistical techniques applied to the data to reach your conclusions. 

Provide evidence that you incorporated rigor into your research. This is the quality of being thorough and accurate and considers the logic behind your research design. 

Highlight any drawbacks that may have limited your ability to conduct your research thoroughly. 

You have to provide details to allow others to replicate the experiment and/or verify the data, to test the validity of the research. 

Bibliography

Cottrell, S. (2014). Dissertations and project reports: a step by step guide. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lombard, E. (2010). Primary and secondary sources.  The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 36(3), 250-253

Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2015).  Research Methods for Business Students.  New York: Pearson Education. 

Specht, D. (2019).  The Media And Communications Study Skills Student Guide . London: University of Westminster Press.  

• << Previous: Introduction & Philosophy
• Next: Ethics >>
• Last Updated: Sep 14, 2022 12:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations

CONNECT WITH US

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

How to Write a Dissertation | A Guide to Structure & Content

A dissertation or thesis is a long piece of academic writing based on original research, submitted as part of an undergraduate or postgraduate degree.

The structure of a dissertation depends on your field, but it is usually divided into at least four or five chapters (including an introduction and conclusion chapter).

The most common dissertation structure in the sciences and social sciences includes:

• An introduction to your topic
• A literature review that surveys relevant sources
• An explanation of your methodology
• An overview of the results of your research
• A discussion of the results and their implications
• A conclusion that shows what your research has contributed

Dissertations in the humanities are often structured more like a long essay , building an argument by analysing primary and secondary sources . Instead of the standard structure outlined here, you might organise your chapters around different themes or case studies.

Other important elements of the dissertation include the title page , abstract , and reference list . If in doubt about how your dissertation should be structured, always check your department’s guidelines and consult with your supervisor.

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

Acknowledgements, table of contents, list of figures and tables, list of abbreviations, introduction, literature review / theoretical framework, methodology, reference list.

The very first page of your document contains your dissertation’s title, your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date. Sometimes it also includes your student number, your supervisor’s name, and the university’s logo. Many programs have strict requirements for formatting the dissertation title page .

The title page is often used as cover when printing and binding your dissertation .

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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.

Correct my document today

The acknowledgements section is usually optional, and gives space for you to thank everyone who helped you in writing your dissertation. This might include your supervisors, participants in your research, and friends or family who supported you.

The abstract is a short summary of your dissertation, usually about 150-300 words long. You should write it at the very end, when you’ve completed the rest of the dissertation. In the abstract, make sure to:

• State the main topic and aims of your research
• Describe the methods you used
• Summarise the main results
• State your conclusions

Although the abstract is very short, it’s the first part (and sometimes the only part) of your dissertation that people will read, so it’s important that you get it right. If you’re struggling to write a strong abstract, read our guide on how to write an abstract .

In the table of contents, list all of your chapters and subheadings and their page numbers. The dissertation contents page gives the reader an overview of your structure and helps easily navigate the document.

All parts of your dissertation should be included in the table of contents, including the appendices. You can generate a table of contents automatically in Word.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

If you have used a lot of tables and figures in your dissertation, you should itemise them in a numbered list . You can automatically generate this list using the Insert Caption feature in Word.

If you have used a lot of abbreviations in your dissertation, you can include them in an alphabetised list of abbreviations so that the reader can easily look up their meanings.

If you have used a lot of highly specialised terms that will not be familiar to your reader, it might be a good idea to include a glossary . List the terms alphabetically and explain each term with a brief description or definition.

In the introduction, you set up your dissertation’s topic, purpose, and relevance, and tell the reader what to expect in the rest of the dissertation. The introduction should:

• Establish your research topic , giving necessary background information to contextualise your work
• Narrow down the focus and define the scope of the research
• Discuss the state of existing research on the topic, showing your work’s relevance to a broader problem or debate
• Clearly state your objectives and research questions , and indicate how you will answer them
• Give an overview of your dissertation’s structure

Everything in the introduction should be clear, engaging, and relevant to your research. By the end, the reader should understand the what , why and how of your research. Not sure how? Read our guide on how to write a dissertation introduction .

Before you start on your research, you should have conducted a literature review to gain a thorough understanding of the academic work that already exists on your topic. This means:

• Collecting sources (e.g. books and journal articles) and selecting the most relevant ones
• Critically evaluating and analysing each source
• Drawing connections between them (e.g. themes, patterns, conflicts, gaps) to make an overall point

In the dissertation literature review chapter or section, you shouldn’t just summarise existing studies, but develop a coherent structure and argument that leads to a clear basis or justification for your own research. For example, it might aim to show how your research:

• Addresses a gap in the literature
• Takes a new theoretical or methodological approach to the topic
• Proposes a solution to an unresolved problem
• Advances a theoretical debate
• Builds on and strengthens existing knowledge with new data

The literature review often becomes the basis for a theoretical framework , in which you define and analyse the key theories, concepts and models that frame your research. In this section you can answer descriptive research questions about the relationship between concepts or variables.

The methodology chapter or section describes how you conducted your research, allowing your reader to assess its validity. You should generally include:

• The overall approach and type of research (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, experimental, ethnographic)
• Your methods of collecting data (e.g. interviews, surveys, archives)
• Details of where, when, and with whom the research took place
• Your methods of analysing data (e.g. statistical analysis, discourse analysis)
• Tools and materials you used (e.g. computer programs, lab equipment)
• A discussion of any obstacles you faced in conducting the research and how you overcame them
• An evaluation or justification of your methods

Your aim in the methodology is to accurately report what you did, as well as convincing the reader that this was the best approach to answering your research questions or objectives.

Next, you report the results of your research . You can structure this section around sub-questions, hypotheses, or topics. Only report results that are relevant to your objectives and research questions. In some disciplines, the results section is strictly separated from the discussion, while in others the two are combined.

For example, for qualitative methods like in-depth interviews, the presentation of the data will often be woven together with discussion and analysis, while in quantitative and experimental research, the results should be presented separately before you discuss their meaning. If you’re unsure, consult with your supervisor and look at sample dissertations to find out the best structure for your research.

In the results section it can often be helpful to include tables, graphs and charts. Think carefully about how best to present your data, and don’t include tables or figures that just repeat what you have written  –  they should provide extra information or usefully visualise the results in a way that adds value to your text.

Full versions of your data (such as interview transcripts) can be included as an appendix .

The discussion  is where you explore the meaning and implications of your results in relation to your research questions. Here you should interpret the results in detail, discussing whether they met your expectations and how well they fit with the framework that you built in earlier chapters. If any of the results were unexpected, offer explanations for why this might be. It’s a good idea to consider alternative interpretations of your data and discuss any limitations that might have influenced the results.

The discussion should reference other scholarly work to show how your results fit with existing knowledge. You can also make recommendations for future research or practical action.

The dissertation conclusion should concisely answer the main research question, leaving the reader with a clear understanding of your central argument. Wrap up your dissertation with a final reflection on what you did and how you did it. The conclusion often also includes recommendations for research or practice.

In this section, it’s important to show how your findings contribute to knowledge in the field and why your research matters. What have you added to what was already known?

You must include full details of all sources that you have cited in a reference list (sometimes also called a works cited list or bibliography). It’s important to follow a consistent reference style . Each style has strict and specific requirements for how to format your sources in the reference list.

The most common styles used in UK universities are Harvard referencing and Vancouver referencing . Your department will often specify which referencing style you should use – for example, psychology students tend to use APA style , humanities students often use MHRA , and law students always use OSCOLA . M ake sure to check the requirements, and ask your supervisor if you’re unsure.

To save time creating the reference list and make sure your citations are correctly and consistently formatted, you can use our free APA Citation Generator .

Your dissertation itself should contain only essential information that directly contributes to answering your research question. Documents you have used that do not fit into the main body of your dissertation (such as interview transcripts, survey questions or tables with full figures) can be added as appendices .

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• What Is a Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples
• How to Write a Dissertation Proposal | A Step-by-Step Guide

More interesting articles

• Checklist: Writing a dissertation
• Dissertation & Thesis Outline | Example & Free Templates
• Dissertation binding and printing
• Dissertation Table of Contents in Word | Instructions & Examples
• Dissertation title page
• Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis
• Figure & Table Lists | Word Instructions, Template & Examples
• How to Choose a Dissertation Topic | 8 Steps to Follow
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Conclusion
• How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction
• How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• List of Abbreviations | Example, Template & Best Practices
• Operationalisation | A Guide with Examples, Pros & Cons
• Prize-Winning Thesis and Dissertation Examples
• Relevance of Your Dissertation Topic | Criteria & Tips
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Thesis & Dissertation Acknowledgements | Tips & Examples
• Thesis & Dissertation Database Examples
• What is a Dissertation Preface? | Definition & Examples
• What is a Glossary? | Definition, Templates, & Examples
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips
• What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide
• What Is a Thesis? | Ultimate Guide & Examples

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 .

What Is a Dissertation Methodology?

How to choose your methodology, final thoughts, how to write your dissertation methodology.

Updated September 30, 2021

Due to the complexities of the different research methods, writing your dissertation methodology can often be the most challenging and time-consuming part of your postgraduate dissertation .

This article focuses on the importance of writing a good PhD or master's dissertation methodology – and how to achieve this.

A postgraduate dissertation (or thesis) is usually formed of several detailed sections, including:

Abstract – A summary of your research topic.

Introduction – Provides background information on your topic, putting it into context. You will also confirm the main focus of your study, explain why it will add value to your area of interest and specify your key objectives.

Literature Review – A critical review of literature that relates to your chosen research topic. You will also need to identify which gap in the literature your study aims to address.

Methodology – Focuses on the research methods used within your research.

Results – Used to report on your main findings and how these relate to your research question.

Conclusion – Used to confirm the answer to your main research question, reflect on the research process and offer recommendations on future research.

The dissertation methodology forms the skeleton of any research project. It provides the reader with a clear outline of the methods you decided to use when carrying out your research.

By studying your dissertation methodology, the reader will be able to assess your research in terms of its validity and reliability.

In line with the outline given above, the methodology chapter usually appears after the literature review . Your methodology should be closely linked to the research that you conducted as part of this review, as well as the questions you aim to answer through your research and analysis.

Taking the time to find out about the different types of research available to you will allow you to identify any potential drawbacks to the method you have chosen to use. You should then be able to make allowances or adjustments to address these when it comes to carrying out your research.

Choosing your methodology will largely depend on the discipline of the qualification you are studying for and the question your dissertation will seek to answer. In most cases, you will use quantitative or qualitative research methods, although some projects will benefit from using a combination of both.

Quantitative research methods are used to gather numerical information. This research method is particularly useful if you are seeking to count, categorise, measure or identify patterns in data. To collect quantitative data, you might choose to conduct experiments, tests or surveys.

Qualitative research methods are used to gather non-statistical data. Instead of using numbers to create charts or graphs, you will need to categorise the information according to identifiers. This research method is most useful if you are seeking to develop a hypothesis. To collect qualitative data, you might choose to conduct focus groups, interviews or observations.

What to Include in Your Dissertation Methodology

Below is a dissertation methodology example to show you what information to include:

You will need to reiterate your research topic or question and give an overview of how you plan to investigate this. If there were any ethical or philosophical considerations to be made, give details.

For example, you may have sought informed consent from the people taking part in interviews or surveys.

Outline of the Methods Chosen

Confirm whether you have chosen to use quantitative research, qualitative research or a combination of both.

When choosing between qualitative and quantitative research methods, you will need to carry out initial literature and textbook research to establish the standard research methods that are normally used within your chosen area of research.

If you are not sure where to start, you could visit the library at your college or university and ask one of the librarians to help you to identify the most relevant texts.

Explanation of the Methods Chosen

Explain your rationale for selecting your chosen research methods. You should also give an overview of why these were more appropriate than using another research method.

Think about where and when the research took place and who was involved. For example, this might include information on the venue used for interviews or focus groups, dates and timescales, and whether participants were part of a particular demographic group.

Here are some examples of the type of information you may wish to include:

Qualitative Research Methods

Personal observations – Where and when did you conduct the observations? Who did you observe? Were they part of a particular community or group? How long did each observation take? How did you record your findings – did you collect audio recordings, video footage or written observations?

Focus groups – Where and when did the focus group take place? Who was involved? How were they selected? How many people took part? Were the questions asked structured, unstructured or semi-structured? Remember to include a copy of the questions that were used as an appendix.

Interviews – Where and when did the interviews take place? Who took part? How did you select the participants? What type of questions did you ask? How did you record your findings? Remember to include a copy of the questions that were used as an appendix.

The researcher’s objective was to find out customer perceptions on improving the product range currently offered by Company Y. Semi-structured interviews were held with 15 returning customers from the key target demographic for Company Y (18- to 35-year-olds). For research purposes, a returning customer was defined as somebody who purchased products from Company Y at least two times per week during the past three months. The interviews were held in an office in the staff area of the retail premises. Each interview lasted approximately 25 minutes. Responses were recorded through note-taking as none of the respondents wished to give their consent to be filmed.

Quantitative Research Methods

Existing information or data – What were the sources of the material used? How did you select material? Did you only use data published within a particular time frame?

Experiments – What tools or equipment did you use? What techniques were required? Note that when conducting experiments, it is particularly important to provide enough information to allow another researcher to conduct the experiment and obtain the same results.

Surveys – Were respondents asked to answer multiple-choice questions or complete free-text fields? How many questions were used? How long were people given to answer all of the questions? What were the demographics of the participants? Remember to include a copy of the survey in the appendices.

The survey was made up of 10 multiple-choice questions and 5 questions to be rated using a 5-point Lickert scale. The objective was to have 250 customers of Company Z complete the survey at the Company Z HQ between 1st and 5th February 2019, between the hours of 12 p.m. and 5 p.m. For research purposes, a customer was defined as any person who had purchased a product from Company Z during 2018. Customers completing the survey were allowed a maximum of 10 minutes to answer all of the questions. 200 customers responded, however not all of the surveys were completed in full, so only 150 survey results were able to be used in the data analysis.

How Was the Data Analysed?

If you have chosen to use quantitative research methods, you will need to prepare the data before analysing it – for example, you will need to check for variables, missing data and outliers. If you have used computer software to aid with analysis, information on this should also be included.

For qualitative data, you will need to categorise and code the ideas and themes that are identified from the raw data. You may also need to use techniques such as narrative analysis or discourse analysis to interpret the meaning behind responses given.

What Materials and Equipment Were Used During the Research?

This could include anything from laboratory equipment used in a scientific experiment to computer software used to analyse the results.

Were There Any Hurdles or Difficulties Faced During the Research?

If so, what were they and how did you manage to overcome them? This could be anything from difficulties in finding participants, problems obtaining consent or a shortage of the required resources needed to conduct a scientific experiment.

This paragraph should be used to evaluate the research you have conducted and justify your reasons for choosing this approach.

You do not need to go into great detail, as you will present and discuss your results in-depth within your dissertation’s ‘Results’ section.

You will need to briefly explain whether your results were conclusive, whether there were any variables and whether your choice of methodology was effective in practice.

Tips for Writing Your Dissertation Methodology

The objective for the methodology is not only to describe the methods that you used for your research. You will also need to demonstrate why you chose to use them and how you applied them.

The key point is to show that your research was conducted meticulously.

Try to keep your writing style concise and clear; this will ensure that it is easy for the reader to understand and digest.

Here are five top tips to consider when writing your dissertation methodology:

1. Look at Other Methodology Sections

Ask your supervisor to provide you with a few different examples of previously written dissertations. Reading through methodologies that have been written by past students will give you a good idea of what your finished methodology section should look like.

2. Plan Your Structure

Whichever research methods you have chosen to use, your dissertation methodology should be a clearly structured, well written section that gives a strong and justified argument for your chosen research methods.

You may wish to use headings such as:

• Research methods
• Explanation of research methods chosen
• Data analysis and references

Once you have drafted an outline, ask your supervisor for advice on whether there is anything you have missed and whether your structure looks logical.

3. Consider Your Audience

When writing your methodology, have regard for the people who are likely to be reading it. For example, if you have chosen to use research methods that are commonly chosen within your area of research or discipline, there is no need to give a great deal of justification or background information.

If you decide to use a less popular approach, it is advisable to give much more detailed information on how and why you chose to use this method.

4. Remain Focused on Your Aims and Research Questions

Your dissertation methodology should give a clear indication as to why the research methods you have chosen are suitable for the aims of your research.

When writing your dissertation methodology, ensure that you link your research choices back to the overall aims and objectives of your dissertation. To help you to remain focused, it can be helpful to include a clear definition of the question you are aiming to answer at the start of your methodology section.

5. Refer to Any Obstacles or Difficulties That You Dealt With

If you faced any problems during the data collection or analysis phases, use the methodology section to talk about what you did to address these issues and minimise the impact.

Whether you are completing a PhD or master's degree, writing your thesis or dissertation methodology is often considered to be the most difficult and time-consuming part of completing your major research project.

The key to success when writing a methodology section is to have a clear structure. Remember, the purpose of the methodology section of your research project is to ensure that the reader has a full understanding of the methods you have chosen.

You should use your methodology section to provide clear justification as to why you have chosen a particular research method instead of other potential methods. Avoid referring to your personal opinions, thoughts or interests within your methodology; keep the information that you include factual and ensure that everything is backed up by appropriate academic references.

You might also be interested in these other Wikijob articles:

Or explore the Postgraduate / PHD sections.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Thesis and Dissertation: Getting Started

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The resources in this section are designed to provide guidance for the first steps of the thesis or dissertation writing process. They offer tools to support the planning and managing of your project, including writing out your weekly schedule, outlining your goals, and organzing the various working elements of your project.

Weekly Goals Sheet (a.k.a. Life Map) [Word Doc]

This editable handout provides a place for you to fill in available time blocks on a weekly chart that will help you visualize the amount of time you have available to write. By using this chart, you will be able to work your writing goals into your schedule and put these goals into perspective with your day-to-day plans and responsibilities each week. This handout also contains a formula to help you determine the minimum number of pages you would need to write per day in order to complete your writing on time.

Setting a Production Schedule (Word Doc)

This editable handout can help you make sense of the various steps involved in the production of your thesis or dissertation and determine how long each step might take. A large part of this process involves (1) seeking out the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding specific document formatting requirements, (2) understanding research protocol limitations, (3) making note of deadlines, and (4) understanding your personal writing habits.

Creating a Roadmap (PDF)

Part of organizing your writing involves having a clear sense of how the different working parts relate to one another. Creating a roadmap for your dissertation early on can help you determine what the final document will include and how all the pieces are connected. This resource offers guidance on several approaches to creating a roadmap, including creating lists, maps, nut-shells, visuals, and different methods for outlining. It is important to remember that you can create more than one roadmap (or more than one type of roadmap) depending on how the different approaches discussed here meet your needs.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• How to Paraphrase | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

How to Paraphrase | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on April 8, 2022 by Courtney Gahan and Jack Caulfield. Revised on June 1, 2023.

Paraphrasing means putting someone else’s ideas into your own words. Paraphrasing a source involves changing the wording while preserving the original meaning.

Paraphrasing is an alternative to  quoting (copying someone’s exact words and putting them in quotation marks ). In academic writing, it’s usually better to integrate sources by paraphrasing instead of quoting. It shows that you have understood the source, reads more smoothly, and keeps your own voice front and center.

Every time you paraphrase, it’s important to cite the source . Also take care not to use wording that is too similar to the original. Otherwise, you could be at risk of committing plagiarism .

What is your plagiarism score?

Compare your paper with 99.3 billion webpages and 8 million publications.

• Best plagiarism checker of 2021
• Plagiarism report & percentage
• Largest plagiarism database

Scribbr Plagiarism Checker

Table of contents

How to paraphrase in five easy steps, how to paraphrase correctly, examples of paraphrasing, how to cite a paraphrase, paraphrasing vs. quoting, paraphrasing vs. summarizing, avoiding plagiarism when you paraphrase, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about paraphrasing.

If you’re struggling to get to grips with the process of paraphrasing, check out our easy step-by-step guide in the video below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Putting an idea into your own words can be easier said than done. Let’s say you want to paraphrase the text below, about population decline in a particular species of sea snails.

Incorrect paraphrasing

You might make a first attempt to paraphrase it by swapping out a few words for  synonyms .

Like other sea creatures inhabiting the vicinity of highly populated coasts, horse conchs have lost substantial territory to advancement and contamination , including preferred breeding grounds along mud flats and seagrass beds. Their Gulf home is also heating up due to global warming , which scientists think further puts pressure on the creatures , predicated upon the harmful effects extra warmth has on other large mollusks (Barnett, 2022).

This attempt at paraphrasing doesn’t change the sentence structure or order of information, only some of the word choices. And the synonyms chosen are poor:

• “Advancement and contamination” doesn’t really convey the same meaning as “development and pollution.”
• Sometimes the changes make the tone less academic: “home” for “habitat” and “sea creatures” for “marine animals.”
• Adding phrases like “inhabiting the vicinity of” and “puts pressure on” makes the text needlessly long-winded.
• Global warming is related to climate change, but they don’t mean exactly the same thing.

Because of this, the text reads awkwardly, is longer than it needs to be, and remains too close to the original phrasing. This means you risk being accused of plagiarism .

Correct paraphrasing

Let’s look at a more effective way of paraphrasing the same text.

Here, we’ve:

• Only included the information that’s relevant to our argument (note that the paraphrase is shorter than the original)
• Introduced the information with the signal phrase “Scientists believe that …”
• Retained key terms like “development and pollution,” since changing them could alter the meaning
• Structured sentences in our own way instead of copying the structure of the original
• Started from a different point, presenting information in a different order

Because of this, we’re able to clearly convey the relevant information from the source without sticking too close to the original phrasing.

Explore the tabs below to see examples of paraphrasing in action.

• Journal article
• Newspaper article
• Magazine article

Once you have your perfectly paraphrased text, you need to ensure you credit the original author. You’ll always paraphrase sources in the same way, but you’ll have to use a different type of in-text citation depending on what citation style you follow.

Generate accurate citations with Scribbr

Scribbr citation checker new.

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

It’s a good idea to paraphrase instead of quoting in most cases because:

• Paraphrasing shows that you fully understand the meaning of a text
• Your own voice remains dominant throughout your paper
• Quotes reduce the readability of your text

But that doesn’t mean you should never quote. Quotes are appropriate when:

• Giving a precise definition
• Saying something about the author’s language or style (e.g., in a literary analysis paper)
• Providing evidence in support of an argument
• Critiquing or analyzing a specific claim

A paraphrase puts a specific passage into your own words. It’s typically a similar length to the original text, or slightly shorter.

When you boil a longer piece of writing down to the key points, so that the result is a lot shorter than the original, this is called summarizing .

Paraphrasing and quoting are important tools for presenting specific information from sources. But if the information you want to include is more general (e.g., the overarching argument of a whole article), summarizing is more appropriate.

When paraphrasing, you have to be careful to avoid accidental plagiarism .

This can happen if the paraphrase is too similar to the original quote, with phrases or whole sentences that are identical (and should therefore be in quotation marks). It can also happen if you fail to properly cite the source.

Paraphrasing tools are widely used by students, and can be especially useful for non-native speakers who may find academic writing particularly challenging. While these can be helpful for a bit of extra inspiration, use these tools sparingly, keeping academic integrity in mind.

To make sure you’ve properly paraphrased and cited all your sources, you could elect to run a plagiarism check before submitting your paper. And of course, always be sure to read your source material yourself and take the first stab at paraphrasing on your own.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Critical thinking

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

To paraphrase effectively, don’t just take the original sentence and swap out some of the words for synonyms. Instead, try:

• Reformulating the sentence (e.g., change active to passive , or start from a different point)
• Combining information from multiple sentences into one
• Leaving out information from the original that isn’t relevant to your point
• Using synonyms where they don’t distort the meaning

The main point is to ensure you don’t just copy the structure of the original text, but instead reformulate the idea in your own words.

Paraphrasing without crediting the original author is a form of plagiarism , because you’re presenting someone else’s ideas as if they were your own.

However, paraphrasing is not plagiarism if you correctly cite the source . This means including an in-text citation and a full reference, formatted according to your required citation style .

As well as citing, make sure that any paraphrased text is completely rewritten in your own words.

Plagiarism means using someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off as your own. Paraphrasing means putting someone else’s ideas in your own words.

So when does paraphrasing count as plagiarism?

• Paraphrasing is plagiarism if you don’t properly credit the original author.
• Paraphrasing is plagiarism if your text is too close to the original wording (even if you cite the source). If you directly copy a sentence or phrase, you should quote it instead.
• Paraphrasing  is not plagiarism if you put the author’s ideas completely in your own words and properly cite the source .

Try our services

To present information from other sources in academic writing , it’s best to paraphrase in most cases. This shows that you’ve understood the ideas you’re discussing and incorporates them into your text smoothly.

It’s appropriate to quote when:

• Changing the phrasing would distort the meaning of the original text
• You want to discuss the author’s language choices (e.g., in literary analysis )
• You’re presenting a precise definition
• You’re looking in depth at a specific claim

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.

Gahan, C. & Caulfield, J. (2023, June 01). How to Paraphrase | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/how-to-paraphrase/

Is this article helpful?

Courtney Gahan

Other students also liked, how to write a summary | guide & examples, how to quote | citing quotes in apa, mla & chicago, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Search Cornell

Class Roster

Section menu.

• Toggle Navigation
• Summer 2024
• Spring 2024
• Winter 2024
• Archived Rosters

Last Updated

• Schedule of Classes - April 10, 2024 7:31PM EDT
• Course Catalog - April 10, 2024 7:07PM EDT

HIST 4000 Introduction to Historical Research

Course description.

Course information provided by the Courses of Study 2023-2024 . Courses of Study 2024-2025 is scheduled to publish mid-June.

This seminar is an introduction to the theory, practice, and art of historical research and writing. One key purpose of this course is to prepare students to work on longer research projects—especially an Honors Thesis. We will analyze the relationship between evidence and argument in historical writing; assess the methods and possible biases in various examples of historical writing; identify debates and sources relevant to research problems; think about how to use sources creatively; and discuss the various methodological issues associated with historical inquiry, analysis, and presentation.  This course is required for all students wishing to write an Honors Thesis in their senior year.  It should be taken in either semester of the junior year, or in spring of the sophomore year if you are planning to be abroad in your junior year.  NOTE: you do NOT need to be enrolled in the Honors Program in order to sign up for this course.

When Offered Fall, Spring.

Distribution Category (ALC-AS, HST-AS)

Comments This course is required for all students wishing to write an Honors Thesis in their senior year.

View Enrollment Information

  Regular Academic Session.   Choose one seminar and one independent study.

Credits and Grading Basis

4 Credits Graded (Letter grades only)

Class Number & Section Details

 3313 HIST 4000   SEM 101

Meeting Pattern

• W 2:00pm - 4:30pm To Be Assigned
• Aug 26 - Dec 9, 2024

Instructors

To be determined. There are currently no textbooks/materials listed, or no textbooks/materials required, for this section. Additional information may be found on the syllabus provided by your professor.

For the most current information about textbooks, including the timing and options for purchase, see the Cornell Store .

Additional Information

Instruction Mode: In Person Enrollment limited to: History majors.

10658 HIST 4000   IND 601

Instruction Mode: Independent Studies

Or send this URL:

Available Syllabi

About the class roster.

The schedule of classes is maintained by the Office of the University Registrar . Current and future academic terms are updated daily . Additional detail on Cornell University's diverse academic programs and resources can be found in the Courses of Study . Visit The Cornell Store for textbook information .

Please contact [email protected] with questions or feedback.

If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an alternate format, contact [email protected] for assistance.

Cornell University ©2024

• Open access
• Published: 10 April 2024

Development of an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff: a modified Delphi study in China

• Shuyu Liang 2   na1 ,
• Ziyan Zhai 2   na1 ,
• Xingmiao Feng 2 ,
• Xiaozhi Sun 1 ,
• Jingxuan Jiao 1 ,
• Yuan Gao 1   na2 &
• Kai Meng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1467-7904 2 , 3   na2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  397 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Scientific research activity in hospitals is important for promoting the development of clinical medicine, and the scientific literacy of medical staff plays an important role in improving the quality and competitiveness of hospital research. To date, no index system applicable to the scientific literacy of medical staff in China has been developed that can effectively evaluate and guide scientific literacy. This study aimed to establish an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff in China and provide a reference for improving the evaluation of this system.

In this study, a preliminary indicator pool for the scientific literacy of medical staff was constructed through the nominal group technique ( n  = 16) with medical staff. Then, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation surveys ( n  = 20) were conducted with clinicians, and the indicators were screened, revised and supplemented using the boundary value method and expert opinions. Next, the hierarchical analysis method was utilized to determine the weights of the indicators and ultimately establish a scientific literacy indicator system for medical staff.

Following expert opinion, the index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff featuring 2 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 38 third-level indicators was ultimately established, and the weights of the indicators were calculated. The two first-level indicators were research literacy and research ability, and the second-level indicators were research attitude (0.375), ability to identify problems (0.2038), basic literacy (0.1250), ability to implement projects (0.0843), research output capacity (0.0747), professional capacity (0.0735), data-processing capacity (0.0239), thesis-writing skills (0.0217), and ability to use literature (0.0181).

Conclusions

This study constructed a comprehensive scientific literacy index system that can assess medical staff's scientific literacy and serve as a reference for evaluating and improving their scientific literacy.

Peer Review reports

Due to the accelerated aging of the population and the growing global demand for healthcare in the wake of epidemics, there is an urgent need for medicine to provide greater support and protection. Medical scientific research is a critical element in promoting medical science and technological innovation, as well as improving clinical diagnosis and treatment techniques. It is the main driving force for the development of healthcare [ 1 ].

Medical personnel are highly compatible with clinical research. Due to their close interaction with patients, medical staff are better equipped to identify pertinent clinical research issues and actually implement clinical research projects [ 2 ]. Countries have created favorable conditions for the research and development of medical personnel by providing financial support, developing policies, and offering training courses [ 3 , 4 ]. However, some clinical studies have shown that the ability of most medical staff does not match current health needs and cannot meet the challenges posed by the twenty-first century [ 5 ]. It is clear that highly skilled professionals with scientific literacy are essential for national and social development [ 6 ]. Given the importance of scientific research in countries and hospitals, it is crucial to determine the level of scientific research literacy that medical personnel should possess and how to train them to acquire the necessary scientific research skills. These issues have significant practical implications.

Scientific literacy refers to an individual's ability to engage in science-related activities [ 7 ]. Some scholars suggest that the scientific literacy of medical personnel encompasses the fundamental qualities required for scientific research work, encompassing three facets: academic moral accomplishment, scientific research theory accomplishment, and scientific research ability accomplishment [ 8 ]. The existing research has focused primarily on the research capabilities of medical staff. According to Rillero, problem-solving skills, critical thinking, communication skills, and the ability to interpret data are the four core components of scientific literacy [ 9 ]. The ability to perform scientific research in nursing encompasses a range of abilities, including identifying problems, conducting literature reviews, designing and conducting scientific research, practicing scientific research, processing data, and writing papers [ 10 ]. Moule and Goodman proposed a framework of skills that research-literate nurses should possess, such as critical thinking capacity, analytical skills, searching skills, research critique skills, the ability to read and critically appraise research, and an awareness of ethical issues [ 11 ]. Several researchers have developed self-evaluation questionnaires to assess young researchers' scientific research and innovative abilities in the context of university-affiliated hospitals (UHAs) [ 12 ]. The relevant indicators include sensitivity to problems, sensitivity to cutting-edge knowledge, critical thinking, and other aspects. While these indicators cover many factors, they do not consider the issue of scientific research integrity in the medical field. The lack of detailed and targeted indicators, such as clinical resource collection ability and interdisciplinary cooperation ability, hinders the effective measurement of the current status of scientific literacy among medical staff [ 12 ]. In conclusion, the current research on the evaluation indicators of scientific literacy among medical personnel is incomplete, overlooking crucial humanistic characteristics, attitudes, and other moral literacy factors. Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish a comprehensive and systematic evaluation index to effectively assess the scientific literacy of medical staff.

Therefore, this study utilized a literature search and nominal group technique to screen the initial evaluation index and subsequently constructed an evaluation index system for medical staff's scientific research literacy utilizing the Delphi method. This index system would serve as a valuable tool for hospital managers, aiding them in the selection, evaluation, and training of scientific research talent. Additionally, this approach would enable medical personnel to identify their own areas of weakness and implement targeted improvement strategies.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in this research.

Study design and participants

In this study, an initial evaluation index system was developed through a literature review and nominal group technique. Subsequently, a more comprehensive and scientific index system was constructed by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis utilizing the Delphi method to consult with experts. Finally, the hierarchical analysis method and the percentage weight method were employed to empower the index system.

The program used for this study is shown in Fig.  1 .

Study design. AHP, analytic hierarchy process

Establishing the preliminary indicator pool

Search process.

A literature search was performed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases to collect the initial evaluation indicators. The time span ranged from the establishment of the database to July 2022. We used a combination of several MeSH terms in our searches:(("Medical Staff"[Mesh] OR "Nurses"[Mesh] OR "Physicians"[Mesh])) AND (("Literacy"[Mesh]) OR "Aptitude"[Mesh]). We also used several Title/Abstract searches, including keywords such as: Evaluation, scientific literacy, research ability.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1)The subjects were nurses, medicial staff and other personnel engaged in the medical industry; (2) Explore topics related to scientific literacy, such as research ability, and literature that can clarify the structure or dependency between indicators of scientific literacy; (3) Select articles published in countries such as China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada; (4) Research published in English or Chinese is considered to be eligible. The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) indicators not applicable to medical staff; (2) Conference abstracts, case reports or review papers; (3) Articles with repeated descriptions; (4) There are no full-text articles or grey literature. A total of 78 articles were retrieved and 60 were retained after screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The research was conducted by two graduate students and two undergraduate students who participated in the literature search and screening. The entire research process was supervised and guided by one professor. All five members were from the fields of social medicine and health management. The professor was engaged in hospital management and health policy research for many years.

Nominal group technique

The nominal group technique was introduced at Hospital H in Beijing in July 2022. This hospital, with over 2,500 beds and 3,000 doctors, is a leading comprehensive medical center also known for its educational and research achievements, including numerous national research projects and awards.

The interview questions were based on the research question: What research literacy should medical staff have? 16 clinicians and nurses from Hospital H were divided into 2 equal groups and asked to provide their opinions on important aspects of research literacy based on their positions and experiences. Once all participants had shared their thoughts, similar responses were merged and polished. If anyone had further inputs after this, a second round of interviews was held until no new inputs were given. The entire meeting, including both rounds, was documented by researchers with audio recordings on a tape recorder.

Scientific literacy dimensions

Based on the search process, the research group extracted 58 tertiary indicators. To ensure the practicality and comprehensiveness of the indicators, the Nominal group technique was used on the basis of the literature search. Panelists summarized the entries shown in the interviews and merged similar content to obtain 32 third-level indicators. The indicators obtained from the literature search were compared. Several indicators with similar meanings, such as capture information ability, language expression ability, communication ability, and scientific research integrity, were merged. Additionally, the indicators obtained from the literature search, such as scientific research ethics, database use ability, feasibility and analysis ability, were added to the 15 indicators. A total of 47 third-level indicators were identified.

Fengling Dai and colleagues developed an innovation ability index system with six dimensions covering problem discovery, information retrieval, research design, practice, data analysis, and report writing, which represents the whole of innovative activity. Additionally, the system includes an innovation spirit index focusing on motivation, thinking, emotion, and will, reflecting the core of the innovation process in terms of competence [ 13 ]. Liao et al. evaluated the following five dimensions in their study on scientific research competence: literature processing, experimental manipulation, statistical analysis, manuscript production, and innovative project design [ 14 ]. Mohan claimed that scientific literacy consists of four core components: problem solving, critical thinking, communication skills, and the ability to interpret data [ 15 ].

This study structured scientific literacy into 2 primary indicators (research literacy and research competence) and 9 secondary indicators (basic qualifications, research ethics, research attitude, problem identification, literature use, professional capacity, subject implementation, data processing, thesis writing, and research output).

Using the Delphi method to develop an index system

Expert selection.

This study used the Delphi method to distribute expert consultation questionnaires online, allowing experts to exchange opinions anonymously to ensure that the findings were more desirable and scientific. No fixed number of experts is required for a Delphi study, but the more experts involved, the more stable the results will be [ 16 ]; this method generally includes 15 to 50 experts [ 17 ]. We selected clinicians from several tertiary hospitals in the Beijing area to serve as Delphi study consultants based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) they had a title of senior associate or above; (2) they had more than 10 years of work experience in the field of clinical scientific research, and (3) they were presiding over national scientific research projects. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) full-time scientific researchers, and (2) personnel in hospitals who were engaged only in management. To ensure that the selected experts were representative, this study selected 20 experts from 14 tertiary hospitals affiliated with Capital Medical University, Peking University, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine according to the inclusion criteria; the hospitals featured an average of 1,231 beds each, and 9 hospitals were included among the 77 hospitals in the domestic comprehensive hospital ranking (Fudan Hospital Management Institute ranking). The experts represented various specialties and roles from different hospitals, including cardiology, neurosurgery, neurology, ear and throat surgery, head and neck surgery, radiology, imaging, infection, vascular interventional oncology, pediatrics, general practice, hematology, stomatology, nephrology, urology, and other related fields. This diverse group included physicians, nurses, managers, and vice presidents. The selected experts had extensive clinical experience, achieved numerous scientific research accomplishments and possessed profound knowledge and experience in clinical scientific research. This ensured the reliability of the consultation outcomes.

Design of the expert consultation questionnaire

The Delphi survey for experts included sections on their background, familiarity with the indicator system, system evaluation, and opinions. Experts rated indicators on importance, feasibility, and sensitivity using a 1–10 scale and their own familiarity with the indicators on a 1–5 scale. They also scored their judgment basis and impact on a 1–3 scale, considering theoretical analysis, work experience, peer understanding, and intuition. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were carried out via email with 20 experts to evaluate and suggest changes to the indicators. Statistical coefficients were calculated to validate the Delphi process. Feedback from the first round led to modifications and the inclusion of an AHP questionnaire for the second round. After the second round, indicators deemed less important were removed, and expert discussion finalized the indicator weights based on their relative importance scores. This resulted in the development of an index system for medical staff scientific literacy. The questionnaire is included in Additional file 1 (first round) and Additional file 2 (second round).

Using the boundary value method to screen the indicators

In this study, the boundary value method was utilized to screen the indicators of medical staff's scientific literacy, and the importance, feasibility, and sensitivity of each indicator were measured using the frequency of perfect scores, the arithmetic mean, and the coefficient of variation, respectively. When calculating the frequency of perfect scores and arithmetic means, the boundary value was set as "mean-SD," and indicators with scores higher than this value were retained. When calculating the coefficient of variation, the cutoff value was set to "mean + SD," and indicators with values below this threshold were retained.

The principles of indicator screening are as follows:

To evaluate the importance of the indicators, if none of the boundary values of the three statistics met the requirements, the indicators were deleted.

If an indicator has two aspects, importance, feasibility, or sensitivity, and each aspect has two or more boundary values that do not meet the requirements, then the indicator is deleted.

If all three boundary values for an indicator meet the requirements, the research group discusses the modification feedback from the experts and determines whether the indicator should be used.

The results of the two rounds of boundary values are shown in Table  1 .

Using the AHP to assign weights

After the second round of Delphi expert consultations, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to determine the weights of the two first-level indicators and the nine second-level indicators. The weights of the 37 third-level indicators were subsequently calculated via the percentage weight method. The AHP, developed by Saaty in the 1980s, is used to determine the priority and importance of elements constituting the decision-making hierarchy. It is based on multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) and determines the importance of decision-makers' judgments based on weights derived from pairwise comparisons between elements. In the AHP, pairwise comparisons are based on a comparative evaluation in which each element's weight in the lower tier is compared with that of other lower elements based on the element in the upper tier [ 18 ].

AHP analysis involves the following steps:

Step 1: Establish a final goal and list related elements to construct a hierarchy based on interrelated criteria.

Step 2: Perform a pairwise comparison for each layer to compare the weights of each element. Using a score from 1 to 9, which is the basic scale of the AHP, each pair is compared according to the expert’s judgment, and the importance is judged [ 19 , 20 ].

Yaahp software was employed to analyze data by creating a judgment matrix based on the experts' scores and hierarchical model. The index system weights were obtained by combining the experts' scores. The percentage weight method used experts' importance ratings from the second round to calculate weights, ranking indicators by importance, calculating their scores based on frequency of ranking, and determining weighting coefficients by dividing these scores by the total of all third-level indicators' scores. The third-level indicator weighting coefficients were then calculated by multiplying the coefficients [ 21 ].

Data analysis

Expert positivity coefficient.

The expert positivity coefficient is indicated by the effective recovery rate of the expert consultation questionnaire, which represents the level of expert positivity toward this consultation and determines the credibility and scientific validity of the questionnaire results. Generally, a questionnaire with an effective recovery rate of 70% is considered very good [ 22 ].

In this study, 20 questionnaires were distributed in both rounds of Delphi expert counseling, and all 20 were effectively recovered, resulting in a 100% effective recovery rate. Consequently, the experts provided positive feedback on the Delphi counseling.

Expert authority coefficient (CR)

The expert authority coefficient (Cr) is the arithmetic mean of the judgment coefficient (Ca) and the familiarity coefficient (Cs), namely, Cr =  \(\frac{({\text{Ca}}+{\text{Cs}})}{2}\) . The higher the degree of expert authority is, the greater the predictive accuracy of the indicator. A Cr ≥ 0.70 was considered to indicate an acceptable level of confidence [ 23 ]. Ca represents the basis on which the expert makes a judgment about the scenario in question, while Cs represents the expert's familiarity with the relevant problem [ 24 ].

Ca is calculated on the basis of experts' judgments of each indicator and the magnitude of its influence. In this study, experts used "practical experience (0.4), "theoretical analysis (0.3), "domestic and foreign peers (0.2)" and "intuition (0.1)" as the basis for judgment and assigned points according to the influence of each basis for judgment on the experts' judgment. Ca = 1 when the basis for judgment has a large influence on the experts, and Ca = 0.5 when the influence of the experts' judgment is at a medium level. When no influence on expert judgment was evident, Ca = 0 [ 25 ] (Table  2 ).

Cs refers to the degree to which the expert was familiar with the question. This study used the Likert scale method to score experts’ familiarity with the question on a scale ranging from 0 to 1 (1 = very familiar, 0.75 = more familiar, 0.5 = moderately familiar, 0.25 = less familiar, 0 = unfamiliar). The familiarity coefficient for each expert (the average familiarity for each indicator) was calculated. The average familiarity coefficient was subsequently computed [ 26 ].

The Cr value of the primary indicator in this study was 0.83, and the Cr value of the secondary indicator was 0.82 (> 0.7); hence, the results of the expert consultation were credible and accurate, as shown in Table  3 .

The degree of expert coordination is an important indicator used to judge the consistency among various experts regarding indicator scores. This study used the Kendall W coordination coefficient test to determine the degree of expert coordination. A higher Kendall W coefficient indicates a greater degree of expert coordination and greater consistency in expert opinion, and P  <  0.05 indicates that the difference is significant [ 26 ]. The results of the three-dimensional harmonization coefficient test for each indicator in the two rounds of the expert consultation questionnaire were valid ( p  <  0.01 ), emphasizing the consistency of the experts' scores. The values of the Kendall W coordination coefficients for both rounds are shown in Table  4 .

Basic information regarding the participants

The 20 Delphi experts who participated in this study were predominantly male (80.0%) rather than female (20.0%). In addition, the participants’ ages were mainly concentrated in the range of 41–50 years old (60.0%). The majority of the experts were doctors by profession (85.0%), and their education and titles were mainly doctoral degree (90.0%) and full senior level (17.0%). The experts also exhibited high academic achievement in their respective fields and had many years of working experience, with the majority having between 21 and 25 years of experience (40.0%) (Table  5 ).

Index screening

The boundary value method was applied to eliminate indicators, leading to the removal of 6 third-level indicators in the first round. One of these, the ability to use statistical software, was associated with a more significant second-level indicator involving data processing, which was kept after expert review. Six indicators were merged into three indicators due to duplication, and 5 third-level indicators were added, resulting in 2 primary indicators, 10 secondary indicators, and 43 third-level indicators.

In the second round of Delphi expert consultation, 5 third-level indicators were deleted, as shown in Additional file 3 , and only one third-level indicator, "Scientific spirit", remained under the secondary indicator "research attitude". The secondary indicator "Research attitude" was combined with "Research ethics" and the third-level indicator "Scientific spirit" was also considered part of "Research ethics". After expert discussion, these were merged into a new secondary indicator "Research attitude" with three third-level indicators: "Research ethics", "Research integrity", and "Scientific spirit". The final index system included two primary indicators, nine secondary indicators, and thirty-eight third-level indicators, as shown in Additional File 3 .

Final index system with weights

The weights of the two primary indexes, research literacy and research ability, were equal. This was determined using the hierarchical analysis method and the percentage weight method based on the results of the second round of Delphi expert consultation (Table  6 ). The primary indicator of research literacy encompasses the fundamental qualities and attitudes medical staff develop over time, including basic qualifications and approach to research. The primary indicator of research ability refers to medical professionals' capacity to conduct scientific research in new areas using suitable methods, as well as their skills needed for successful research using scientific methods.

In this study, the Delphi method was employed, and after two rounds of expert consultation, in accordance with the characteristics and scientific research requirements of medical staff in China, an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff in China was constructed. The index system for medical staff's scientific literacy in this study consists of 2 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 38 third-level indicators. Medical institutions at all levels can use this index system to scientifically assess medical staff's scientific literacy.

In 2014, the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTF) published its Core Competency Framework [ 27 ]. The Framework focuses more on the capacity to conduct clinical research. These include principles such as clinical research and quality practices for drug clinical trials. However, this framework does not apply to the current evaluation of scientific literacy in hospitals. Because these indicators do not apply to all staff members, there is a lack of practical scientific research, such as information about the final paper output. Therefore, the experts who constructed the index system in this study came from different specialties, and the indicators can be better applied to scientific researchers in all fields. This approach not only addresses clinical researchers but also addresses the concerns of hospital managers, and the indicators are more applicable.

The weighted analysis showed that the primary indicators "research literacy" and "research ability" had the same weight (0.50) and were two important components of scientific literacy. Research ability is a direct reflection of scientific literacy and includes the ability to identify problems, the ability to use literature, professional capacity, subject implementation capacity, data-processing capacity, thesis-writing skills, and research output capacity. Only by mastering these skills can medical staff carry out scientific research activities more efficiently and smoothly. The ability to identify problems refers to the ability of medical staff to obtain insights into the frontiers of their discipline and to identify and ask insightful questions. Ratten claimed that only with keen insight and sufficient sensitivity to major scientific issues can we exploit the opportunities for innovation that may lead to breakthroughs [ 28 ]. Therefore, it is suggested that in the process of cultivating the scientific literacy of medical staff, the ability to identify problems, including divergent thinking, innovative sensitivity, and the ability to produce various solutions, should be improved. Furthermore, this study included three subentries of the secondary indicator "research attitude", namely, research ethics, research integrity, and scientific spirit. This is likely because improper scientific research behavior is still prevalent. A study conducted in the United States and Europe showed that the rate of scientific research misconduct was 2% [ 13 ]. A small survey conducted in Indian medical schools and hospitals revealed that 57% of the respondents knew that someone had modified or fabricated data for publication [ 28 ]. The weight of this index ranked first in the secondary indicators, indicating that scientific attitude is an important condition for improving research quality, relevance, and reliability. Countries and hospitals should develop, implement, and optimize policies and disciplinary measures to combat academic misconduct.

In addition, the third-level indicator "scheduling ability" under the second-level indicator "basic qualification" has a high weight, indicating that medical staff attach importance to management and distribution ability in the context of scientific research. Currently, hospitals face several problems, such as a shortage of medical personnel, excessive workload, and an increase in the number of management-related documents [ 29 , 30 ]. These factors result in time conflicts between daily responsibilities and scientific research tasks, thereby presenting significant obstacles to the allocation of sufficient time for scientific inquiry [ 31 ]. Effectively arranging clinical work and scientific research time is crucial to improving the overall efficiency of scientific research. In the earlier expert interviews, most medical staff believed that scientific research work must be combined with clinical work rather than focused only on scientific research. Having the ability to make overall arrangements is essential to solving these problems. The high weight given to the second-level index of 'subject implementation capacity', along with its associated third-level indicators, highlights the challenges faced by young medical staff in obtaining research subjects. Before implementing a project, researchers must thoroughly investigate, analyze, and compare various aspects of the research project, including its technical, economic, and engineering aspects. Moreover, potential financial and economic benefits, as well as social impacts, need to be predicted to determine the feasibility of the project and develop a research plan [ 32 ]. However, for most young medical staff in medical institutions, executing such a project can be challenging due to their limited scientific research experience [ 33 ]. A researcher who possesses these skills can truly carry out independent scientific research.

The weights of the second-level index "research output capacity" cannot be ignored. In Chinese hospitals, the ability to produce scientific research output plays a certain role in employees’ ability to obtain rewards such as high pay, and this ability is also used as a reference for performance appraisals [ 34 ]. The general scientific research performance evaluation includes the number of projects, scientific papers and monographs, scientific and technological achievements, and patents. In particular, the publication of papers is viewed as an indispensable aspect of performance appraisal by Chinese hospitals [ 35 ]. Specifically, scientific research papers are the carriers of scientific research achievements and academic research and thus constitute an important symbol of the level of medical development exhibited by medical research institutions; they are thus used as recognized and important indicators of scientific research output [ 36 ]. This situation is consistent with the weight evaluation results revealed by this study.

The results of this study are important for the training and management of the scientific research ability of medical personnel. First, the index system focuses not only on external characteristics such as scientific knowledge and skills but also on internal characteristics such as individual traits, motivation, and attitudes. Therefore, when building a research team and selecting and employing researchers, hospital managers can use the index system to comprehensively and systematically evaluate the situation of researchers, which is helpful for optimizing the allocation of a research team, learning from each other's strengths, and strengthening the strength of the research team. Second, this study integrates the content of existing research to obtain useful information through in-depth interviews with medical staff and constructs an evaluation index system based on Delphi expert consultation science, which comprehensively includes the evaluation of the whole process of scientific research activities. These findings can provide a basis for medical institutions to formulate scientific research training programs, help medical personnel master and improve scientific research knowledge and skills, and improve their working ability and quality. Moreover, the effectiveness of the training can also be evaluated according to the system.

In China, with the emergence of STEM rankings, hospitals pay more and more attention to the scientific research performance of medical personnel. Scientific literacy not only covers the abilities of medical personnel engaged in scientific research, but also reflects their professional quality in this field. Having high quality medical personnel often means that they have excellent scientific research ability, and their scientific research performance will naturally rise. In view of this,,medical institutions can define the meaning of third-level indicators and create Likert scales to survey medical staff. Based on the weights assigned to each indicator, comprehensive scores can be calculated to evaluate the level of scientific literacy among medical staff. Through detailed data analysis, they can not only reveal their shortcomings in scientific research ability and quality, but also provide a strong basis for subsequent training and promotion. Through targeted inspection, we can not only promote the comprehensive improvement of the ability of medical staff, but also promote the steady improvement of their scientific research performance, and inject new vitality into the scientific research cause of hospitals.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that need to be considered. First, the participants were only recruited from Beijing (a city in China), potentially lacking geographical diversity. We plan to select more outstanding experts from across the country to participate. Second, the index system may be more suitable for countries with medical systems similar to those of China. When applying this system in other countries, some modifications may be necessary based on the local context. Last, While this study has employed scientific methods to establish the indicator system, the index system has yet to be implemented on a large sample of medical staff. Therefore, the reliability and validity of the index system must be confirmed through further research. In conclusion, it is crucial to conduct further detailed exploration of the effectiveness and practical application of the index system in the future.

This study developed an evaluation index system using the Delphi method to assess the scientific literacy of medical staff in China. The system comprises two primary indicators, nine secondary indicators, and thirty-eight third-level indicators, with each index assigned a specific weight. The index system emphasizes the importance of both attitudes and abilities in the scientific research process for medical staff and incorporates more comprehensive evaluation indicators. In the current era of medical innovation, enhancing the scientific literacy of medical staff is crucial for enhancing the competitiveness of individuals, hospitals, and overall medical services in society. This evaluation index system is universally applicable and beneficial for countries with healthcare systems similar to those of China. This study can serve as a valuable reference for cultivating highly qualified and capable research personnel and enhancing the competitiveness of medical research.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Coloma J, Harris E. From construction workers to architects: developing scientific research capacity in low-income countries. PLoS Biol. 2009;7(7):e1000156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000156 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Brauer SG, Haines TP, Bew PG. Fostering clinician-led research. Aust J Physiother. 2007;53(3):143–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-9514(07)70020-x .

The L. China’s research renaissance. Lancet. 2019;393(10179):1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30797-4 .

Hannay DR. Evaluation of a primary care research network in rural Scotland. Prim Health Care ResDevelop. 2006;7(3):194–200. https://doi.org/10.1191/1463423606pc296oa .

Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–58.

Xie Y, Wang J, Li S, Zheng Y. Research on the Influence Path of Metacognitive Reading Strategies on Scientific Literacy. J Intell. 2023;11(5):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11050078 . PMID: 37233327; PMCID: PMC10218841.

Pang YH, Cheng JL. Revise of scientific research ability self-evaluation rating scales of nursing staff. Chin Nurs Res. 2011;13:1205–8. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2011.13.040 .

Zhang J, Jianshan MAO, Gu Y. On the cultivation of scientific research literacy of medical graduate students. Continu Med Educ China. 2023;15(3):179–82. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-9308.2023.03.043 .

Rillero P. Process skills and content knowledge. Sci Act. 1998;3:3–4.

Google Scholar  

Liu RS. Study on reliability and validity of self rating scale for scientific research ability of nursing staff. Chinese J Pract Nurs. 2004;9:8–10. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1672-7088.2004.09.005 .

Moule P, Goodman M. Nursing research: An introduction. London, UK: Sage; 2013.

Xue J, Chen X, Zhang Z, et al. Survey on status quo and development needs of research and innovation capabilities of young researchers at university-affiliated hospitals in China: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(18):964. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-3692 .

Fanelli D, Costas R, Fang FC, et al. Testing hypotheses on risk factors for scientific misconduct via matched-control analysis of papers containing problematic image duplications. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019;25(3):771–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7 .

Liao Y, Zhou H, Wang F, et al. The Impact of Undergraduate Tutor System in Chinese 8-Year Medical Students in Scientific Research. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:854132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.854132 .

Mohan L, Singh Y, Kathrotia R, et al. Scientific literacy and the medical student: A cross-sectional study. Natl Med J India. 2020;33(1):35–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-258X.308242 .

Jorm AF. Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(10):887–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415600891 .

Xinran S, Heping W, Yule H, et al. Defining the scope and weights of services of a family doctor service project for the functional community using Delphi technique and analytic hierarchy process. Chinese Gen Pract. 2021;24(34):4386–91.

Park S, Kim HK, Lee M. An analytic hierarchy process analysis for reinforcing doctor-patient communication. BMC Prim Care. 2023;24(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-01972-3 . Published 2023 Jan 21.

Zhou MLY, Yin H, et al. New screening tool for neonatal nutritional risk in China: a validation study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e042467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042467 .

Wang K, Wang Z, Deng J, et al. Study on the evaluation of emergency management capacity of resilient communities by the AHP-TOPSIS method. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):16201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316201 .

Yuwei Z, Chuanhui Y, Junlong Z, et al. Application of analytic Hierarchy Process and percentage weight method to determine the weight of traditional Chinese medicine appropriate technology evaluation index system. Chin J Tradit Chinese Med. 2017;32(07):3054–6.

Babbie E. The practice of social research. 10th Chinese language edition. Huaxia Publisher, 2005: 253–4.

Liu W, Hu M, Chen W. Identifying the Service Capability of Long-Term Care Facilities in China: an e-Delphi study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:884514. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.884514 .

Zeng G. Modern epidemiological methods and application. Pecking Union Medical College Union Press, 1996.

Geng Y, Zhao L, Wang Y, et al. Competency model for dentists in China: Results of a Delphi study. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194411 .

Cong C, Liu Y, Wang R. Kendall coordination coefficient W test and its SPSS implementation. Journal of Taishan Medical College. 2010;31(7):487–490. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-7115.2010.07.002 .

Sonstein S, Seltzer J, Li R, et al. Moving from compliance to competency: a harmonized core competency framework for the clinical research professional. Clin Res. 2014;28(3):17–23.

Madan C, Kruger E, Tennant M. 30 Years of dental research in Australia and India: a comparative analysis of published peer review literature. Indian J Dent Res. 2012;23(2):293–4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.100447 .

Siemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-4 .

Solomon SS, Tom SC, Pichert J, Wasserman D, Powers AC. Impact of medical student research in the development of physician-scientists. J Investig Med. 2003;51(3):149–56. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-51-03-17 .

Misztal-Okonska P, Goniewicz K, Hertelendy AJ, et al. How Medical Studies in Poland Prepare Future Healthcare Managers for Crises and Disasters: Results of a Pilot Study. Healthcare (Basel). 2020;8(3):202. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8030202 .

Xu G. On the declaration of educational scientific research topics. Journal of Henan Radio & TV University. 2013;26(01):98–101.

Ju Y, Zhao X. Top three hospitals clinical nurse scientific research ability present situation and influence factors analysis. J Health Vocational Educ. 2022;40(17):125–8.

Zhu Q, Li T, Li X, et al. Industry gain public hospital medical staff performance distribution mode of integration, exploring. J Health Econ Res. 2022;33(11):6-82–6.

Sun YLL. Analysis of hospital papers published based on performance appraisal. China Contemp Med. 2015;22(31):161–3.

Jian Y, Wu J, Liu Y. Citation analysis of seven tertiary hospitals in Yunnan province from 2008 to 2012. Yunnan Medicine. 2014;(6):700–704.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all who participated in the nominal group technique and two rounds of the Delphi study.

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72074160) and the Natural Science Foundation Project of Beijing (9222004).

Author information

Shuyu Liang and Ziyan Zhai contributed equally to this work and joint first authors.

Kai Meng and Yuan Gao contributed equally to this work and share corresponding author.

Authors and Affiliations

Aerospace Center Hospital, No. 15 Yuquan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100049, China

Xiaozhi Sun, Jingxuan Jiao & Yuan Gao

School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China

Shuyu Liang, Ziyan Zhai, Xingmiao Feng & Kai Meng

Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 119 South Fourth Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.L. and Z.Z. contributed equally to this paper. S.L. took charge of the nominal group technique, data analysis, writing the first draft and revising the manuscript; Z.Z. was responsible for the Delphi survey, data analysis, and writing of the first draft of the manuscript; XF was responsible for the rigorous revision of Delphi methods; X.S. and J.J. were responsible for the questionnaire survey and data collection; Y.G. contributed to the questionnaire survey, organization of the nominal group interview, supervision, project administration and resources; and K.M. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, writing—review; editing, supervision, and project administration. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yuan Gao or Kai Meng .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study involved human participants and was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the Capital Medical University (No. Z2022SY089). Participation in the survey was completely voluntary, and written informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liang, S., Zhai, Z., Feng, X. et al. Development of an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff: a modified Delphi study in China. BMC Med Educ 24 , 397 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05350-0

Download citation

Received : 25 October 2023

Accepted : 26 March 2024

Published : 10 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05350-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical staff
• Scientific literacy
• Evaluation indicators

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]