phd methodology chapter length

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

How to Write the Methodology Chapter: The Complete Guide

by  Antony W

April 20, 2022

In this lesson, you’ll learn how to write the methodology chapter of a thesis, dissertation, or a research paper, step-by-step. So if you’ve reached this section in your assignment and you simply no idea how to proceed, this article will point you in the right direction.

You’ll learn what the methodology chapter is about and how you can go about writing one by following a systematic approach guaranteed to help you complete the project faster.

By definition, the methodology chapter of a thesis, dissertation, or research paper is the section where you explain about the specific research design options used in your research. It’s in the methodology chapter that you explain the process you used to design your research and give a justification for the research design.

In other words, the methodology section should clearly demonstrate:

• Whether you conducted quantitative or qualitative research
• The approach you used to collect the data
• What your approach to analyzing the data was and
• The kind of sampling that you did

With that said, let’s get into more details on dealing with the methodology chapter of your research work.

What is the Methodology Chapter for a Research Paper and Dissertation?

In your methodology chapter, you’ll explain the conceptual foundations of your study as well as the specific research design decisions you’ve made. The purpose of this chapter is to explain how you designed your research. 

There are two reasons why your research paper, thesis, and dissertation should have a methodology section:

• It shows that you understand the concept of research design theory, that you understand what you’re doing in research, and that the results you’ll present have a high degree of credibility.
• Because it outlines the steps you took to do and analyze your research, the methodology chapter is what sets your study apart from the others. It also allows you to identify and describe any methodological concerns or problems that you ran into, as well as explain how you dealt with them.

How to Write The Methodology Chapter – Step-by-Step

It’s worth mentioning that the methodology chapter’s specific format and contents will differ based on the study topic and the university. We strongly recommend that you check with your professor to find out what structure they would like you to use.

More often than not, they will allow you to use the standard structure for your paper, which should make the writing process easier for you. Ideally, the methodology chapter of your research paper, thesis, or dissertation should have the following sections:

• Introduction
• Research design
• Methodological limitation
• A concluding summary

Let’s look at each section in more details below:

The Introduction

The methodology chapter should contain a brief introduction of your dissertation or thesis. You should remind your readers about the emphasis of your study, particularly the research objectives.

Your research design must correspond with your research aims, objectives, and research questions, so include this up front to remind the reader what you intend to accomplish with your research design.

We strongly recommend that you explain how you’ve organized the chapter. Doing so will make it easy for the reader to have a clear roadmap of what to expect from reading the rest of the section of your methodology chapter.

Research Design

We like to refer to research design as the heart of the methodology chapter because it presents your research design in great depth to the reader. The information you provide here should be good enough to justify the design choices you made for your paper.

Here’s how to approach it: 

1. Describe Your Methodological Approach

Start by explaining the research subject or problem you looked into. It could be that you wanted to methodically define something’s qualities, investigate a little-studied issue, or prove a cause-and-effect relationship. Whatever it is, write it down because it will guide your reader throughout the other section of the research design.

Some questions to think about when working on your methodological approach include:

• Did you require quantitative or qualitative data?
• Was it necessary for you to obtain primary data personally, or did you rely on secondary data gathered by others?
• Did you collect descriptive data by gathering observations without intervening, or did you collect experimental data by altering variables?
• Were there any ethical factors involved in your decision-making?

2. Explain Your Methods of Data Collection

Next step in research design is to explain the data collection method you used to gather information for your research project.

The following table is a summary of the data collection methods as used in research writing:

3. Explain Your Data Analysis Methods

The next step is to describe how you processed and analyzed the data.

• Quantitative analysis: Your analysis in quantitative research will be on numbers. You may include how you prepared the data for analysis, the computer software you used, and the statistical you employed.
• Qualitative analysis:   Your analysis in qualitative research will be based on language, visuals, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis).

4. Methodological Limitations 

You can admit to the approach’s limits or flaws, but explain why the advantages exceeded the disadvantages. Explain why prior strategies were ineffective in achieving your goals, and how this strategy adds new information or insight.

Your methodology should be a well-structured, unambiguous document that argues for your approach rather than a collection of technical information and processes.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

Library Guides

Dissertations 4: methodology: start.

• Introduction & Philosophy
• Methodology

The Methodology Chapter

The methodology chapter flows organically from the literature review. This means that at this stage you should have reviewed the literature in your field of study, analysed research that has been conducted and highlighted how it was conducted. In turn, this should reflect the foundation of your own project as you will have to link it to your chosen research method.  

The methodology chapter also involves describing your method in detail and justifying the approach you are going to adopt, taking into consideration the limitations and ethical implications of your model. Your description should be detailed enough that someone reading your methodology can recreate your approach. 

Therefore, the methodology requires you to:

• describe your methods
• demonstrate a clear connection between your research question (or hypothesis) and the means by which you will reach your conclusions 
• present justification (strengths) and limitations (weaknesses) of your methods  

What are Methods & Methodology?

Methods 

In order to appreciate what methods are, let us remember what research is about. Research can be summarised into three points (Cottrell, 2014, p9): 

A question 

Methods of arriving at an answer 

The answer 

Thus, methods are the means to research and answer the research question, or test the hypothesis. Methods include techniques and procedures used to obtain and analyse data (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2015, p4). Your methods can consist of primary and secondary sources, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, as illustrated in this guide.  

Methodology 

Methodology is sometimes used interchangeably with methods, or as the set of methods used in a research. More specifically, as the name would suggest, methodo-logy is the logos, the reasoning, on the methods. It is also referred to as the theory of how research should be undertaken (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2015, p4). This is why you normally would have a methodology, rather than methods, chapter in a dissertation.  

First Key Tip

We hope this guide will be helpful, but it is of fundamental importance that you also use a  research methods book  (or other authoritative source) for your discipline . The book will guide you on best methods for your research, give you practical guidance, and present critical insights and limitations of the methods.

• Next: Structure >>
• Last Updated: Sep 14, 2022 12:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations

CONNECT WITH US

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: Apr 19, 2024 12:38 PM
• URL: https://library.soton.ac.uk/writing_the_dissertation

• Best of LSE Impact blog on data and figures
• Best of LSE Impact blog on doing PhD work
• Best of LSE Impact blog on impacts and careers
• Best of LSE Impact blog on planning and style
• Best of LSE Impact blog on reviews and citations in the digital era
• Best of LSE Impact blog on upgrading text
• Best of LSE Impact blog on writing articles
• Best of LSE Impact blog on writing blogs
• Best of LSE Impact blog on writing research books and PhD theses
• Cookie Policy
• Recent Posts
• Writing, planning and style
• Academic impacts and careers
• Data, Figures and Attention points

February 6th, 2014

In a phd or academic book, do you really need a methodology chapter early on.

0 comments | 3 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Or would a Research Methods Annex be better?

Image credit: CC0 Public Domain .

It is axiomatic that any doctorate (and any serious academic book) must be based on sound methods, systematically applied. PhD examiners especially (but also critical readers of academic work more generally) must never be left in any doubt about exactly how findings and results have been generated, their precise provenance and meaning. That much is common ground.

But how should this requirement best be implemented? The near-universal answer across academia at present is that any ‘big book’ PhD thesis must include a separate Methodology chapter, usually positioned immediately after the theory and literature review — normally either at Chapter 2 (where both these other functions are combined in the first chapter) or at Chapter 3 (where the other two functions get a chapter each).

The costs of a ‘Methodology’ chapter

What can go wrong with the standard approach?

• Advance chapters explaining methods are often some of the dullest pieces of text ever written. In routine cases the chapter says little more than: ‘I used this perfectly well known method and implemented it in the pretty well standard way, barring a couple of difficulties on the way’. Yet, because it is a whole chapter, authors often feel they have to inflate this message to 6,000+ words and ‘engage with the literature’ to explain why they used a perfectly legitimate and uncontroversial approach. Cue long discussions of method ‘isms’ and perhaps epistemological/philosophical macro-perspectives that are really light years removed from the actual problem in hand. If you are good at this kind of thing, the damage may not be too great: you’re ‘waving not drowning’. But if you are really an empiricist ‘coming up for air’ at this level of discussion, then it is all too easy to get you out of your depth, creating potential oral exam (viva) time-bombs with more neurotic thesis examiners. And even if nothing here is a liability, still in terms of the ‘ Build, Blur, Corrode ’ criteria, a whole chapter of ‘blur’ is a dead weight you could do without.
• The other great theme of many a methodology chapter is the pre-emptive defensive move: ‘I did the best I feasibly could, given the limitations of the available data’. This may well be perfectly true. But at this stage readers have not seen even a single page of substantive analysis showing what you actually accomplished. So reading in isolation about all the smallish potential problems you faced makes for depressing reading. At the start of a thesis or book your status and competence as a researcher also remains to be established for readers, because they just don’t know if the methods choices you made worked out well, or not.
• Focusing on Methodology in a whole-chapter format also creates a common dilemma for authors. On one fork they stay rather high-level and vague. They keep the text more consistent with the high theory impetus of the opening chapter(s) and the launch into substantive analysis that comes next, by writing only a short chapter (6,000 words or less), devoid of quite a lot of needed detail. On the other fork of the dilemma authors cram in lots of specific information alongside the major-method themes, so that it’s all in one place — but often not in an understandable form. For instance, you may tell us how you recoded variables x and y in an abstract way, before we know how the data on these variables are patterned. The progression of ideas and arguments in your thesis or book stalls in the mud of a hundred detailed battles we have not even seen fought yet.
• All these problems often create a low-energy (and often not very relevant) zone in your thesis, dashing the readers’ high hopes built up in your carefully-crafted and motivating first chapter. For experienced (=jaded) PhD examiners a ‘standard’ method Chapter simply prolongs the pages of text that they have to wade through before they see one original thing they did not know already. Count the pages involved in the theory introduction, literature review and methods chapters. If it’s more than 50 the examiners are yawning. If it’s getting towards 100 pages they’re pretty impatient.
• And if you send your PhD to a publisher as a possible monograph, the inclusion of a low energy Methods chapter at 2 or 3 on the Contents page shouts ‘dull PhD’ at them. They dig out the well-used reject letter that explains that current profit margins being so low in academic publishing (i.e only 35%), they really cannot take on the risk of publishing your eminently serious work, much to their regret.

But, you say, it’s my duty to inform colleagues of exactly what I did in my study. This is true, but does it have to be at chapter length, in chapter style and located in the main run of chapters at this early stage of the argument? The key tests here are these questions: Are your methods innovative? Do they solve a problem that previously stymied science or scholarship? Are methodology changes or variations or innovations part of the core value-added of your PhD or scholarly book? If you can put your hand on your heart and say Yes to any of these, then your thesis needs a methods chapter. Stick to the standard approach, because for you methods innovation and originality is so central and integral to the work done. But if not, there is an alternative, with many practical advantages for most authors.

The alternative: focused methods information and a Research Methods Annex

Doing without a Methodology chapter does not mean leaving your methods obscure, but presenting this essential information in a different way. Again it bears repeating that PhD examiners and readers of any serious academic work must feel fully informed about what you did and why. In this approach that means they learn what you did at three key points:

• In your opening, theory and problem-framing chapter you need to cover any major methods issues briefly in the last section of your first chapter. This is natural progression since in academia methodological approaches are often integral to major theory controversies or differences. Here you make clear where you stand and what broad approach you have followed.
• More specific methods information (but still focusing on important issues) is given in subsequent chapters, very close to the presentation of substantive findings. Readers and examiners cannot normally assess the viability of a methodological approach until they see what results it produces — the findings themselves are the essential cue we need to see what might have gone right or wrong. Equally it’s much easier for you to make a plausible case that your methods choices were correct by discussing substantive evidence, showing that you have undertaken sensitivity analyses or that different ways of tackling problems produce convergent solutions. These things you can only assert in an early-on Methodology chapter, but here you can demonstrate them. Note too that this approach is what you have to do in publishing thesis chapters as journal articles (‘paperizing’ them). And if you are not doing a ‘big book’ PhD but a ‘papers model’ doctorate then you will have to do this anyway.
• At the end of the main chapter sequence, at Annex 1, is a comprehensive and carefully written Research Methods Annex. This does not have to be written in chapter style, nor is it constrained in terms of length or the level of detail included. Instead it aims to give an extremely detailed information to any other scholar or scientist following in your footsteps, going as long as needed to provide exact guidance on the methods you used and the various decisions on how to proceed that taken at each stage of analysis. A well done Annex will normally be far more detailed and directly useful than a discursive methods chapter placed early in the main sequence. And because it is located at the end of the analysis, when readers have already seen your findings in detail, you save time and have additional authority as a researcher to draw on.

Producing a detailed, step-by-step Research Methods Annex fits well with the modern recognition of the powerful role played by ‘tacit knowledge’ in scientific and scholarly work. It invites you to try and set out everything that a reader needs to know in order to replicate your approach. You will not succeed in making everything explicit, according to philosophers of science. But you will get a lot further down the road than just writing an introductory Methodology chapter. Undertaking this Annex can take some time that you may begrudge in the last, rushed months of your doctorate or book. But doing so will also meet the increasing demands from journals that you provide a replicable data set to back up your paper.

A Research Method Annex also chimes with the open science drive to publish datasets as free-standing entities, attracting scholarly credit in their right. Of course, if datasets are to be reused, and to voyage alone in the world, then how variables are coded and indices are constructed and re-codings are accomplished needs to be crystal clear.

Heresy, supervisors and examiners

Yet, you are probably thinking, academics are conservative folk. This may all sound very well in theory, but in my discipline and university people are ultra-conventional. My supervisor, my department and any conceivable set of examiners all make completely clear that Ch.2 or 3 must cover Methodology. Oftentimes that assumption is built into the reporting forms that departments use. Older supervisors did it this way when they were doing PhDs, and perhaps they’re resistant to changes. Not having a Methodology chapter to them may seem like a heresy, for which I’d still get burnt at the stake.

Well, this is a factor and I don’t want to deny it’s there, especially in disciplines that adhere a lot to conventional macro-structures for the chapter sequence in PhD theses in more quantitative social sciences and many STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines. My advice here is to discuss the ideas in this post with your supervisors and colleagues, and see what they think in relation to your topic.

Meanwhile, across most of the humanities and the ‘soft’ social sciences I think resistance to doing creative writing better has now weakened a lot. Most academics now accept that PhD theses and books should be written with subject-specific structures optimizing argumentative development, and written well for maximum academic impact. And when it comes to publishing your successful thesis as book — yes, this is an eminently realizable goal in these disciplines — you don’t have to do anything like as much work. Your Research Methods Annex is deposited in your university’s e-publications depository, and URL referenced in the book at all key points, allowing the text to be focus consistently on the main arguments and to strike and maintain a constant developmental tempo throughout.

So, if you think this approach can work for your thesis or book, good luck in breaking the (old, stale) mold.

To put these ideas in a wider context, you might find it helpful to read parts of my book: Patrick Dunleavy, ‘ Authoring a PhD ’ (Palgrave, 2003), especially the chapter on the macro-structure of a thesis. See also useful material on the LSE’s Impact blog and on Twitter: @Write4Research .

About the author

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Related Posts

Top Ten questions to ask about your chapter start

January 29th, 2014.

In a book or PhD, start each chapter cleanly. Never link back

January 24th, 2014.

Why do academics and PhDers carefully choose useless titles for articles and chapters?

January 31st, 2014.

LSE Impact Blog

Tips for writing a PhD dissertation: FAQs answered

From how to choose a topic to writing the abstract and managing work-life balance through the years it takes to complete a doctorate, here we collect expert advice to get you through the PhD writing process

Campus team

Additional links.

• More on this topic

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} A framework to teach library research skills

The trouble with bloom’s taxonomy in an age of ai, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, playing the promotion game: how to navigate upshifting, using the snowflake method to build belonging on campus.

Embarking on a PhD is “probably the most challenging task that a young scholar attempts to do”, write Mark Stephan Felix and Ian Smith in their practical guide to dissertation and thesis writing. After years of reading and research to answer a specific question or proposition, the candidate will submit about 80,000 words that explain their methods and results and demonstrate their unique contribution to knowledge. Here are the answers to frequently asked questions about writing a doctoral thesis or dissertation.

What’s the difference between a dissertation and a thesis?

Whatever the genre of the doctorate, a PhD must offer an original contribution to knowledge. The terms “dissertation” and “thesis” both refer to the long-form piece of work produced at the end of a research project and are often used interchangeably. Which one is used might depend on the country, discipline or university. In the UK, “thesis” is generally used for the work done for a PhD, while a “dissertation” is written for a master’s degree. The US did the same until the 1960s, says Oxbridge Essays, when the convention switched, and references appeared to a “master’s thesis” and “doctoral dissertation”. To complicate matters further, undergraduate long essays are also sometimes referred to as a thesis or dissertation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “thesis” as “a dissertation, especially by a candidate for a degree” and “dissertation” as “a detailed discourse on a subject, especially one submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma”.

• Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors
• Fostering freedom in PhD students: how supervisors can shape accessible paths for doctoral research
• Lessons from students on effective research supervision

The title “doctor of philosophy”, incidentally, comes from the degree’s origins, write Dr Felix, an associate professor at Mahidol University in Thailand, and Dr Smith, retired associate professor of education at the University of Sydney , whose co-authored guide focuses on the social sciences. The PhD was first awarded in the 19th century by the philosophy departments of German universities, which at that time taught science, social science and liberal arts.

How long should a PhD thesis be?

A PhD thesis (or dissertation) is typically 60,000 to 120,000 words ( 100 to 300 pages in length ) organised into chapters, divisions and subdivisions (with roughly 10,000 words per chapter) – from introduction (with clear aims and objectives) to conclusion.

The structure of a dissertation will vary depending on discipline (humanities, social sciences and STEM all have their own conventions), location and institution. Examples and guides to structure proliferate online. The University of Salford , for example, lists: title page, declaration, acknowledgements, abstract, table of contents, lists of figures, tables and abbreviations (where needed), chapters, appendices and references.

A scientific-style thesis will likely need: introduction, literature review, materials and methods, results, discussion, bibliography and references.

As well as checking the overall criteria and expectations of your institution for your research, consult your school handbook for the required length and format (font, layout conventions and so on) for your dissertation.

A PhD takes three to four years to complete; this might extend to six to eight years for a part-time doctorate.

What are the steps for completing a PhD?

Before you get started in earnest , you’ll likely have found a potential supervisor, who will guide your PhD journey, and done a research proposal (which outlines what you plan to research and how) as part of your application, as well as a literature review of existing scholarship in the field, which may form part of your final submission.

In the UK, PhD candidates undertake original research and write the results in a thesis or dissertation, says author and vlogger Simon Clark , who posted videos to YouTube throughout his own PhD journey . Then they submit the thesis in hard copy and attend the viva voce (which is Latin for “living voice” and is also called an oral defence or doctoral defence) to convince the examiners that their work is original, understood and all their own. Afterwards, if necessary, they make changes and resubmit. If the changes are approved, the degree is awarded.

The steps are similar in Australia , although candidates are mostly assessed on their thesis only; some universities may include taught courses, and some use a viva voce. A PhD in Australia usually takes three years full time.

In the US, the PhD process begins with taught classes (similar to a taught master’s) and a comprehensive exam (called a “field exam” or “dissertation qualifying exam”) before the candidate embarks on their original research. The whole journey takes four to six years.

A PhD candidate will need three skills and attitudes to get through their doctoral studies, says Tara Brabazon , professor of cultural studies at Flinders University in Australia who has written extensively about the PhD journey :

• master the academic foundational skills (research, writing, ability to navigate different modalities)
• time-management skills and the ability to focus on reading and writing
• determined motivation to do a PhD.

How do I choose the topic for my PhD dissertation or thesis?

It’s important to find a topic that will sustain your interest for the years it will take to complete a PhD. “Finding a sustainable topic is the most important thing you [as a PhD student] would do,” says Dr Brabazon in a video for Times Higher Education . “Write down on a big piece of paper all the topics, all the ideas, all the questions that really interest you, and start to cross out all the ones that might just be a passing interest.” Also, she says, impose the “Who cares? Who gives a damn?” question to decide if the topic will be useful in a future academic career.

The availability of funding and scholarships is also often an important factor in this decision, says veteran PhD supervisor Richard Godwin, from Harper Adams University .

Define a gap in knowledge – and one that can be questioned, explored, researched and written about in the time available to you, says Gina Wisker, head of the Centre for Learning and Teaching at the University of Brighton. “Set some boundaries,” she advises. “Don’t try to ask everything related to your topic in every way.”

James Hartley, research professor in psychology at Keele University, says it can also be useful to think about topics that spark general interest. If you do pick something that taps into the zeitgeist, your findings are more likely to be noticed.

You also need to find someone else who is interested in it, too. For STEM candidates , this will probably be a case of joining a team of people working in a similar area where, ideally, scholarship funding is available. A centre for doctoral training (CDT) or doctoral training partnership (DTP) will advertise research projects. For those in the liberal arts and social sciences, it will be a matter of identifying a suitable supervisor .

Avoid topics that are too broad (hunger across a whole country, for example) or too narrow (hunger in a single street) to yield useful solutions of academic significance, write Mark Stephan Felix and Ian Smith. And ensure that you’re not repeating previous research or trying to solve a problem that has already been answered. A PhD thesis must be original.

What is a thesis proposal?

After you have read widely to refine your topic and ensure that it and your research methods are original, and discussed your project with a (potential) supervisor, you’re ready to write a thesis proposal , a document of 1,500 to 3,000 words that sets out the proposed direction of your research. In the UK, a research proposal is usually part of the application process for admission to a research degree. As with the final dissertation itself, format varies among disciplines, institutions and countries but will usually contain title page, aims, literature review, methodology, timetable and bibliography. Examples of research proposals are available online.

How to write an abstract for a dissertation or thesis

The abstract presents your thesis to the wider world – and as such may be its most important element , says the NUI Galway writing guide. It outlines the why, how, what and so what of the thesis . Unlike the introduction, which provides background but not research findings, the abstract summarises all sections of the dissertation in a concise, thorough, focused way and demonstrates how well the writer understands their material. Check word-length limits with your university – and stick to them. About 300 to 500 words is a rough guide ­– but it can be up to 1,000 words.

The abstract is also important for selection and indexing of your thesis, according to the University of Melbourne guide , so be sure to include searchable keywords.

It is the first thing to be read but the last element you should write. However, Pat Thomson , professor of education at the University of Nottingham , advises that it is not something to be tackled at the last minute.

How to write a stellar conclusion

As well as chapter conclusions, a thesis often has an overall conclusion to draw together the key points covered and to reflect on the unique contribution to knowledge. It can comment on future implications of the research and open up new ideas emanating from the work. It is shorter and more general than the discussion chapter , says online editing site Scribbr, and reiterates how the work answers the main question posed at the beginning of the thesis. The conclusion chapter also often discusses the limitations of the research (time, scope, word limit, access) in a constructive manner.

It can be useful to keep a collection of ideas as you go – in the online forum DoctoralWriting SIG , academic developer Claire Aitchison, of the University of South Australia , suggests using a “conclusions bank” for themes and inspirations, and using free-writing to keep this final section fresh. (Just when you feel you’ve run out of steam.) Avoid aggrandising or exaggerating the impact of your work. It should remind the reader what has been done, and why it matters.

How to format a bibliography (or where to find a reliable model)

Most universities use a preferred style of references , writes THE associate editor Ingrid Curl. Make sure you know what this is and follow it. “One of the most common errors in academic writing is to cite papers in the text that do not then appear in the bibliography. All references in your thesis need to be cross-checked with the bibliography before submission. Using a database during your research can save a great deal of time in the writing-up process.”

A bibliography contains not only works cited explicitly but also those that have informed or contributed to the research – and as such illustrates its scope; works are not limited to written publications but include sources such as film or visual art.

Examiners can start marking from the back of the script, writes Dr Brabazon. “Just as cooks are judged by their ingredients and implements, we judge doctoral students by the calibre of their sources,” she advises. She also says that candidates should be prepared to speak in an oral examination of the PhD about any texts included in their bibliography, especially if there is a disconnect between the thesis and the texts listed.

Can I use informal language in my PhD?

Don’t write like a stereotypical academic , say Kevin Haggerty, professor of sociology at the University of Alberta , and Aaron Doyle, associate professor in sociology at Carleton University , in their tongue-in-cheek guide to the PhD journey. “If you cannot write clearly and persuasively, everything about PhD study becomes harder.” Avoid jargon, exotic words, passive voice and long, convoluted sentences – and work on it consistently. “Writing is like playing guitar; it can improve only through consistent, concerted effort.”

Be deliberate and take care with your writing . “Write your first draft, leave it and then come back to it with a critical eye. Look objectively at the writing and read it closely for style and sense,” advises THE ’s Ms Curl. “Look out for common errors such as dangling modifiers, subject-verb disagreement and inconsistency. If you are too involved with the text to be able to take a step back and do this, then ask a friend or colleague to read it with a critical eye. Remember Hemingway’s advice: ‘Prose is architecture, not interior decoration.’ Clarity is key.”

How often should a PhD candidate meet with their supervisor?

Since the PhD supervisor provides a range of support and advice – including on research techniques, planning and submission – regular formal supervisions are essential, as is establishing a line of contact such as email if the candidate needs help or advice outside arranged times. The frequency varies according to university, discipline and individual scholars.

Once a week is ideal, says Dr Brabazon. She also advocates a two-hour initial meeting to establish the foundations of the candidate-supervisor relationship .

The University of Edinburgh guide to writing a thesis suggests that creating a timetable of supervisor meetings right at the beginning of the research process will allow candidates to ensure that their work stays on track throughout. The meetings are also the place to get regular feedback on draft chapters.

“A clear structure and a solid framework are vital for research,” writes Dr Godwin on THE Campus . Use your supervisor to establish this and provide a realistic view of what can be achieved. “It is vital to help students identify the true scientific merit, the practical significance of their work and its value to society.”

How to proofread your dissertation (what to look for)

Proofreading is the final step before printing and submission. Give yourself time to ensure that your work is the best it can be . Don’t leave proofreading to the last minute; ideally, break it up into a few close-reading sessions. Find a quiet place without distractions. A checklist can help ensure that all aspects are covered.

Proofing is often helped by a change of format – so it can be easier to read a printout rather than working off the screen – or by reading sections out of order. Fresh eyes are better at spotting typographical errors and inconsistencies, so leave time between writing and proofreading. Check with your university’s policies before asking another person to proofread your thesis for you.

As well as close details such as spelling and grammar, check that all sections are complete, all required elements are included , and nothing is repeated or redundant. Don’t forget to check headings and subheadings. Does the text flow from one section to another? Is the structure clear? Is the work a coherent whole with a clear line throughout?

Ensure consistency in, for example, UK v US spellings, capitalisation, format, numbers (digits or words, commas, units of measurement), contractions, italics and hyphenation. Spellchecks and online plagiarism checkers are also your friend.

How do you manage your time to complete a PhD dissertation?

Treat your PhD like a full-time job, that is, with an eight-hour working day. Within that, you’ll need to plan your time in a way that gives a sense of progress . Setbacks and periods where it feels as if you are treading water are all but inevitable, so keeping track of small wins is important, writes A Happy PhD blogger Luis P. Prieto.

Be specific with your goals – use the SMART acronym (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely).

And it’s never too soon to start writing – even if early drafts are overwritten and discarded.

“ Write little and write often . Many of us make the mistake of taking to writing as one would take to a sprint, in other words, with relatively short bursts of intense activity. Whilst this can prove productive, generally speaking it is not sustainable…In addition to sustaining your activity, writing little bits on a frequent basis ensures that you progress with your thinking. The comfort of remaining in abstract thought is common; writing forces us to concretise our thinking,” says Christian Gilliam, AHSS researcher developer at the University of Cambridge ’s Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Make time to write. “If you are more alert early in the day, find times that suit you in the morning; if you are a ‘night person’, block out some writing sessions in the evenings,” advises NUI Galway’s Dermot Burns, a lecturer in English and creative arts. Set targets, keep daily notes of experiment details that you will need in your thesis, don’t confuse writing with editing or revising – and always back up your work.

What work-life balance tips should I follow to complete my dissertation?

During your PhD programme, you may have opportunities to take part in professional development activities, such as teaching, attending academic conferences and publishing your work. Your research may include residencies, field trips or archive visits. This will require time-management skills as well as prioritising where you devote your energy and factoring in rest and relaxation. Organise your routine to suit your needs , and plan for steady and regular progress.

How to deal with setbacks while writing a thesis or dissertation

Have a contingency plan for delays or roadblocks such as unexpected results.

Accept that writing is messy, first drafts are imperfect, and writer’s block is inevitable, says Dr Burns. His tips for breaking it include relaxation to free your mind from clutter, writing a plan and drawing a mind map of key points for clarity. He also advises feedback, reflection and revision: “Progressing from a rough version of your thoughts to a superior and workable text takes time, effort, different perspectives and some expertise.”

“Academia can be a relentlessly brutal merry-go-round of rejection, rebuttal and failure,” writes Lorraine Hope , professor of applied cognitive psychology at the University of Portsmouth, on THE Campus. Resilience is important. Ensure that you and your supervisor have a relationship that supports open, frank, judgement-free communication.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter .

Authoring a PhD Thesis: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Dissertation (2003), by Patrick Dunleavy

Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis (1998), by Joan Balker

Challenges in Writing Your Dissertation: Coping with the Emotional, Interpersonal, and Spiritual Struggles (2015), by Noelle Sterne

A framework to teach library research skills

How hard can it be testing ai detection tools, how to develop cognitive presence in your learning community, student communication: a compassionate approach, improve your college course for students with add and adhd, a diy guide to starting your own journal.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

What’s Included: Methodology Template

This template covers all the core components required in the research methodology chapter or section of a typical dissertation or thesis, including:

• The opening section
• Research philosophy
• Research type
• Research strategy
• Time horizon
• Sampling strategy
• Data collection methods
• Data analysis methods
• Conclusion & summary

The purpose of each section is explained in plain language, followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover. The template also includes practical examples to help you understand exactly what’s required, along with links to additional free resources (articles, videos, etc.) to help you along your research journey.

The cleanly-formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

PS – if you’d like a high-level template for the entire thesis, you can we’ve got that too .

What format is the template (DOC, PDF, PPT, etc.)?

The methodology chapter template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of dissertations/theses can this template be used for?

The methodology template follows the standard format for academic research projects, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of dissertations and theses (especially those within the sciences), whether they adopt a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach. The template is loosely based on Saunders’ research onion , which is recommended as a methodological framework by many universities.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the methodology chapter/section will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalize your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a dissertation, thesis or research project at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the methodology chapter to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

How long should the methodology chapter be?

This can vary a fair deal, depending on the level of study (undergrad, Master or Doctoral), the field of research, as well as your university’s specific requirements. Therefore, it’s best to check with your university or review past dissertations from your program to get an accurate estimate. 

How detailed should my methodology be?

As a rule of thumb, you should provide enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study. This includes clear descriptions of procedures, tools, and techniques you used to collect and analyse your data, as well as your sampling approach.

How technical should my language be in this chapter?

In the methodology chapter, your language should be technical enough to accurately convey your research methods and processes, but also clear and precise to ensure it’s accessible to readers within your field.

Aim for a balance where the technical aspects of your methods are thoroughly explained without overusing jargon or overly complex language.

Should I include a pilot study in my methodology?

If you conducted a pilot study, you can include it in the methodology to demonstrate the feasibility and refinement of your methods. Be sure to obtain the necessary permissions from your research advisor before conducting any pilot studies, though. 

Can I share this template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, we kindly request that you reference this page as your source.

Do you have templates for the other chapters?

Yes, we do. We are constantly developing our collection of free resources to help students complete their dissertations and theses. You can view all of our template resources here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my methodology?

Yes, we can assist with your methodology chapter (or any other chapter) on a coaching basis. If you’re interested, feel free to get in touch to discuss our private coaching services .

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

How Long Should Be PhD Dissertation? Unlocking The Mystery of PhD Thesis Length

Embarking on the journey of a PhD is a scholarly endeavour that demands not only intellectual prowess but also a deep commitment to contributing valuable insights to the academic world. At the heart of this rigorous pursuit lies the dissertation, a magnum opus that serves as the pinnacle of one’s academic achievement. Yet, as aspiring scholars delve into the realms of research and knowledge creation, a pivotal question looms large: How long should a Ph.D. dissertation be?

The optimal length of a Ph.D. dissertation is a strategic equilibrium, determined by the intricate interplay of research complexity, disciplinary norms, and institutional guidelines, emphasizing quality over mere quantity.

In the intricate tapestry of academia, the length of a dissertation is a nuanced consideration, influenced by a myriad of factors ranging from disciplinary norms to the intricacies of research design. In this exploration, we embark on a journey to unravel the complexities surrounding dissertation length, understanding the guiding principles, and offering insights into how aspiring doctoral candidates can strike the delicate balance between depth and brevity.

Join us as we navigate the academic landscape, demystifying the expectations, uncovering the variances across disciplines, and providing practical tips for crafting a dissertation that stands as a testament to scholarly excellence. Whether you’re at the threshold of your doctoral journey or guiding others through its twists and turns, this discourse aims to shed light on the intricacies of dissertation length, empowering you to embark on this intellectual odyssey with confidence and purpose.

Introduction

A. defining the purpose.

• B. The Dissertation's Role in Academic Knowledge

C. Emphasizing Thorough Research and Original Contributions

A. exploring institutional guidelines, b. specific requirements and length expectations, c. the importance of adherence, a. acknowledging disciplinary differences, b. examples of varied expectations, c. emphasizing disciplinary norms, a. research complexity, b. data collection and analysis, c. literature review, d. methodology, a. emphasizing the importance of balance, b. strategies for maintaining focus and relevance, c. encouraging quality over quantity, a. effective time management, b. techniques for concise writing, c. value of feedback from advisors and peers.

Embarking on a PhD journey is akin to setting sail into uncharted waters of knowledge, with the dissertation standing tall as the crowning achievement. It’s not just a document; it’s a testament to years of intellectual toil, research finesse, and a contribution to the vast expanse of human understanding. But as scholars immerse themselves in the sea of research, a question inevitably surfaces: How long should a Ph.D. dissertation be?

Significance Unveiled

A Ph.D. dissertation is more than a lengthy document; it’s a scholarly masterpiece that not only encapsulates an individual’s intellectual prowess but adds a unique brushstroke to the grand canvas of academia. It’s a beacon of knowledge, guiding future researchers and shaping the trajectory of scholarly discourse. Understanding its significance is the first step toward unlocking the secrets of its length.

Navigating Length: A Delicate Balancing Act

Determining the appropriate length for a Ph.D. dissertation is no mere formality. It’s a delicate dance between providing comprehensive insights and maintaining reader engagement. Striking this balance is crucial, as the length not only influences how the research is perceived but also reflects the researcher’s ability to weave a compelling narrative without unnecessary verbosity.

Factors in the Equation

The length of a dissertation is a dynamic variable influenced by a multitude of factors. From the complexity of the research question to the intricacies of data collection, each element plays a role. It’s a symphony where the depth of the literature review, the intricacy of the methodology, and the nature of the chosen discipline all contribute to the final crescendo of the dissertation length.

Purpose of a PhD Dissertation

At the heart of the Ph.D. journey lies the dissertation, a formidable endeavour that goes beyond being a mere academic requirement. It serves as the cornerstone of a scholar’s intellectual legacy, encapsulating years of research, critical thinking, and a commitment to advancing knowledge in a specific field. The purpose of a Ph.D. dissertation extends far beyond a graduation requirement; it is a scholarly rite of passage that marks one’s entry into the ranks of contributing intellectuals.

B. The Dissertation’s Role in Academic Knowledge

The dissertation, in essence, is a torchbearer of academic knowledge. It doesn’t merely regurgitate existing information but actively contributes to the ongoing conversation within a field. Picture it as a puzzle piece that, when seamlessly integrated, enriches the larger mosaic of human understanding. Its role is not just to summarize what is known but to illuminate uncharted territories, challenging established paradigms and paving the way for new insights.

Example: In the field of environmental science, a Ph.D. dissertation might delve into the impact of climate change on a specific ecosystem, offering novel findings that reshape our understanding of ecological resilience. It becomes a pivotal contribution that informs future research and policy decisions.

Thorough research is the bedrock upon which a meaningful dissertation stands. It involves meticulously exploring existing literature, methodologies, and gaps in knowledge. This isn’t a cursory glance but a deep dive into the scholarly ocean, where each wave of information contributes to the construction of a comprehensive understanding.

Original contributions are the soul of a Ph.D. dissertation. It’s not just about rehashing what’s already known but about introducing something new and transformative. This could be a novel research methodology, a groundbreaking theory, or empirical findings that challenge existing theories.

Example: In the realm of psychology, a Ph.D. dissertation might involve the development of a new therapeutic approach for a specific mental health condition, backed by both a comprehensive review of existing literature and empirical evidence from original studies. This not only adds to the academic discourse but also has tangible implications for clinical practice.

University Guidelines PhD Dissertation Length: Navigating the Academic Framework

In academia, each university sets the stage with its own set of guidelines governing the composition and expectations of a Ph.D. dissertation. These guidelines serve as the rulebook, providing a roadmap for aspiring scholars to traverse the challenging terrain of research and writing. Understanding these guidelines is akin to deciphering the code that unlocks the door to doctoral success.

Dive into the particulars, and you’ll find that universities often outline specific requirements and expectations regarding the length of a dissertation. These may range from prescribed word counts for each section to broader expectations for the overall document. Some institutions might emphasize brevity, while others encourage a more expansive exploration. Unravelling these expectations is not just a bureaucratic formality; it’s a strategic move that ensures your work aligns with the academic standards set by your institution.

Example: Imagine a university that places a strong emphasis on concise and focused dissertations. Here, the guidelines may state a maximum word count for each chapter, encouraging a streamlined and impactful presentation of research findings. Adhering to these specifics ensures that your dissertation not only meets the academic standards but also resonates with the evaluators who appreciate clarity and precision.

While the allure of academic freedom may tempt scholars to chart their own course, adherence to institutional guidelines is paramount. It’s not just a matter of compliance; it’s a strategic decision that aligns your work with the expectations of the academic community. Universities set guidelines with a purpose – to maintain standards, ensure consistency, and facilitate fair evaluation. Ignoring these guidelines can inadvertently hinder the reception of your dissertation, potentially overshadowing the brilliance of your research with concerns about adherence to academic norms.

Disciplinary Variances: Navigating the Length Spectrum

In the vast landscape of academia, one size certainly does not fit all, especially when it comes to the length of Ph.D. dissertations. It’s crucial to acknowledge and appreciate the dynamic nature of disciplinary differences, where each field has its own set of expectations, traditions, and scholarly norms. Understanding this diversity is the key to crafting a dissertation that resonates within the specific academic community to which it belongs.

Let’s take a stroll through different academic landscapes to grasp the breadth of expectations. In the sciences, precision and brevity often reign supreme. A molecular biology dissertation, for instance, may prioritize concise methodology and results chapters, with an emphasis on data interpretation. Contrast this with a dissertation in the humanities, where the richness of language and the depth of literary analysis might lead to a more extensive exploration of concepts.

Example: In engineering, a Ph.D. dissertation might lean towards a succinct presentation of methodologies, experimental results, and their implications for the field. Meanwhile, in the realm of philosophy, a dissertation could be characterized by a more expansive engagement with existing literature and a thorough philosophical exploration of the research question.

The beauty of academia lies in its diversity, but this very diversity requires scholars to be attuned to the norms of their specific discipline. What might be considered a concise and impactful dissertation in one field could be seen as lacking depth in another. Recognizing these norms is not just a matter of fitting in; it’s a strategic decision that ensures your work aligns with the expectations of your academic peers.

Understanding disciplinary norms is like speaking the language of your scholarly community. It’s about knowing when to be succinct and when to elaborate, when to prioritize methodology and when to delve deep into theoretical frameworks.

Factors Influencing PhD Dissertation Length

1. Impact of Research Question Complexity

The complexity of your research question is like the compass guiding the depth and breadth of your dissertation. Intricate inquiries often demand more comprehensive exploration, delving into multiple facets and dimensions. For instance, a research question investigating the genetic determinants of a rare disease may necessitate an extensive review of existing literature, detailed methodologies, and intricate analyses to uncover meaningful insights.

2. Examples of Research Topics

Consider the following examples to illustrate the point:

• Less Complex: An analysis of consumer behavior in response to a specific marketing strategy might require a detailed but more straightforward exploration.
• More Complex: On the other hand, a study examining the intersection of artificial intelligence and ethical considerations in healthcare may demand a multifaceted investigation into both technological and ethical dimensions, significantly impacting the length of the dissertation.

1. Influence of Data Nature and Quantity

The nature and amount of data collected cast a profound shadow on dissertation length. A project relying on extensive datasets, intricate statistical analyses, or comprehensive case studies inherently demands a more extended exploration. In contrast, qualitative research might be more concise but equally impactful in unraveling complex phenomena.

2. Role of Statistical Analysis, Case Studies, or Qualitative Research

Consider the following scenarios:

• Statistical Analysis: A dissertation delving into the economic impact of climate change policies might involve sophisticated statistical models and require an in-depth presentation of results and their implications.
• Qualitative Research: Conversely, a dissertation employing qualitative interviews to explore the lived experiences of individuals facing a specific social challenge may present findings in a more narrative form.

1. Significance of a Comprehensive Literature Review

A robust literature review acts as the scaffolding for your dissertation, providing the theoretical foundation and context for your research. The broader and more complex the field, the more extensive the literature review. For instance, exploring a niche area within a rapidly evolving field, like emerging technologies, may demand a more thorough literature review to capture the latest developments and debates.

2. Contribution to Overall Length

Consider this:

• A dissertation in environmental science, investigating the impact of urbanization on biodiversity, might necessitate a detailed exploration of existing literature on ecology, urban planning, and biodiversity conservation.

1. Impact of Detailed Research Methodology

The methodology section is the blueprint of your research, and its level of detail significantly influences the length of your dissertation. A dissertation with a meticulous methodology section is like a well-constructed building, providing a clear roadmap for readers to understand the research process.

2. Need for Clarity and Precision in Research Design

For example:

• A dissertation in public health aiming to assess the effectiveness of a health intervention might require a detailed explanation of the study design, participant recruitment strategies, and data collection methods to ensure the study’s validity and reliability.

Balancing Depth and Brevity: Crafting a Dissertation Masterpiece

In the symphony of scholarly writing, achieving harmony between depth and brevity is a skill that distinguishes a stellar dissertation. While delving deep into the nuances of your research is essential, presenting it with conciseness ensures that your audience remains engaged. The challenge lies in striking the right balance, where the richness of content is not sacrificed on the altar of brevity.

• Clear Research Objectives: Begin with well-defined research objectives that serve as the North Star for your dissertation. This clarity guides your writing, preventing unnecessary tangents and ensuring each section contributes directly to your overarching goals. Example: In a dissertation exploring the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on stress reduction, clear objectives would center around understanding the effectiveness of specific mindfulness techniques and their implications for stress management.
• Thematic Structure: Organize your dissertation thematically, ensuring each chapter has a clear purpose and contributes to building a cohesive narrative. This not only aids readability but also enhances the overall impact of your research. Example: In a literature review, grouping studies thematically—such as by intervention type or outcome measures—provides a structured and focused presentation of existing research, avoiding a scattered and disjointed narrative.
• Rigorous Editing: Approach your writing with a discerning eye during the editing process. Trim unnecessary words, sentences, or sections that do not directly contribute to the core message of your dissertation. Be ruthless in maintaining relevance. Example: In the methodology section, focus on explaining key decisions and processes, omitting redundant details that do not influence the study’s validity or replicability.
• Depth of Analysis: Instead of inundating your dissertation with an abundance of superficial analyses, delve deep into a few key points. Thoroughly explore the significance and implications of your findings, providing a nuanced understanding of your research. Example: In a discussion section, rather than covering multiple tangential points, focus on the most critical aspects of your results, analyzing their theoretical and practical implications in detail.
• Precision in Language: Choose words judiciously to convey your ideas with precision. Aim for clarity without unnecessary embellishments, ensuring that each sentence adds value to your argument. Example: In the introduction, use concise language to clearly articulate the research gap, the significance of the study, and the specific research questions without unnecessary elaboration.
• Selectivity in Citations: While a comprehensive literature review is vital, selectively cite studies that directly contribute to your research context. Avoid an exhaustive list that overwhelms readers with unnecessary details. Example: In a literature review on educational interventions for students with learning disabilities, selectively cite studies that showcase diverse approaches and methodologies, providing a nuanced understanding of the existing landscape.

As we navigate the delicate equilibrium between depth and brevity, remember that a well-crafted dissertation is not measured by its length but by the impact of its scholarly contributions. Join us as we explore the art of balancing substance with succinctness, ensuring your dissertation stands as a masterpiece in the annals of academic inquiry.

Tips for Managing PhD Dissertation Length: Navigating the Dissertation Writing Process

• Setting Realistic Milestones: Break down the dissertation-writing process into manageable milestones. Establish realistic timelines for each section, considering the complexity and time required for research, writing, and revisions. Example: Allocate a specific time frame for conducting literature reviews, data analysis, and drafting each chapter. This ensures steady progress and prevents last-minute rushes.
• Regular Progress Checks: Monitor your progress regularly and adjust your schedule as needed. If a particular section is taking longer than anticipated, evaluate the reasons and recalibrate your timeline accordingly. Example: If data analysis is proving more time-consuming than expected, revisit your research plan and, if necessary, adjust your writing schedule for subsequent chapters.
• Balancing Research and Writing: Strive for a balance between conducting research and writing. While research is crucial, allocate dedicated time for translating findings into written content to avoid a backlog of information. Example: If you’re conducting experiments, allocate specific writing sessions to summarize and interpret the results, ensuring a continuous flow of progress.

Visit my article on ” How to Manage Research Time” for managing PhD time.

• Clarity in Expression: Aim for clarity in your writing. Express complex ideas in straightforward language, avoiding unnecessary jargon or convoluted sentences that can inflate the word count without adding substance. Example: Instead of using complex terminology in a theoretical framework, opt for clear and precise language that conveys the theoretical concepts without unnecessary embellishments.
• Economical Word Choices: Choose words judiciously. Opt for strong, impactful words that convey your message succinctly. Trim redundant phrases and eliminate words that don’t contribute directly to your argument. Example: Instead of saying “due to the fact that,” use the more concise “because” to convey the same meaning with fewer words.
• Strategic Use of Figures and Tables: Incorporate visuals strategically to convey information efficiently. Figures and tables can often replace lengthy textual explanations, providing a visual representation of data or concepts. Example: Instead of describing a complex set of results in paragraphs, present key findings in a well-designed table, allowing readers to grasp the information at a glance.
• Early and Regular Feedback: Share drafts of your work with advisors and peers early in the writing process. Their feedback can identify potential issues and guide revisions, preventing the need for extensive rewrites later. Example: Submit a draft of your literature review to your advisor before completing the entire chapter. Early feedback can help refine your approach and ensure you’re on the right track.
• Objective External Perspectives: Advisors and peers offer valuable external perspectives. They can identify areas where your explanation may be unclear or where additional details may be necessary. Example: If your research methodology is intricate, seek feedback from a peer who is not intimately familiar with your topic. Their questions and comments can reveal where additional clarification is needed for a broader audience.
• Critical Review for Redundancy: Advisors and peers can help identify redundant sections or unnecessary details. A fresh set of eyes can pinpoint areas where content can be streamlined without compromising the depth of your argument. Example: If two sections of your dissertation cover similar ground, feedback from others can highlight the need to merge or eliminate redundant content, improving the overall flow.

Visit my articles related to PhD , Exciting Careers after PhD .

The journey through the complexities of determining the length of a Ph.D. dissertation reveals a delicate interplay of factors crucial to its scholarly impact. From understanding the significance of this academic endeavour to navigating institutional guidelines and disciplinary variances, the pursuit of balance between depth and brevity emerges as a paramount challenge.

As researchers, we must navigate the intricate landscapes of research complexity, data analysis, literature review, and methodology while maintaining a steadfast commitment to quality over quantity. The tips offered for effective time management, concise writing, and the judicious seeking of feedback underscore the strategic nature of dissertation crafting.

Ultimately, the dissertation is not just an academic requirement but a scholarly legacy—a testament to our intellectual contributions and a beacon guiding future inquiry. In this conclusion, let us recognize that the true measure of a dissertation’s success lies not solely in its length but in its enduring impact on the trajectory of knowledge within our respective fields.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• How to Get Off-Cycle Research/Academic Internships
• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• PhD or Industry Job? A Comprehensive Career Guide
• Post Doc Positions in India
• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

© Copyright & Disclaimer 2024

PhD in Research Methodology

Use numbers and data to drive systematic change in education.

A number is not simply a number in our research methodology program. Here, unlike in math or statistics, numbers are not the final answer. With a PhD in Research Methodology, you can work in educational and institutional research, using numbers to tell the story of the human experience and create meaningful change.

Our commitment to you

Upon graduation with a PhD in research methodology from Loyola, you will possess the following knowledge, skills, and professional values necessary to commence a career as an institutional researcher, evaluator, college professor, or researcher at large professional organizations, testing companies, or consulting agencies that provide educational evaluation services.

You will develop expertise in evaluation, statistics, and measurement, and recognize when research findings are being misrepresented or data misused. Our expert faculty will train you in both qualitative and quantitative methodology, including applied statistics and psychometrics. You'll also learn how numbers relate to action, policy, and advocacy.

You will be able to critically evaluate bodies of knowledge from a variety of methodological traditions, use a variety of software programs to implement analyses, and conduct all stages of a research study in applied settings. Plus, you'll participate in a required consulting experience, where you'll conduct a research study and then provide consulting advice to a researcher or organization.

Professional Values

We strive to ensure that our graduates never lose sight of the humanity that number reflect, and become responsible researchers whose conclusions align with their findings. You will engage in ethical, just, and culturally competent research practices.

Program Faculty

Our dedicated Research Methodology Faculty are experts in their fields who will support students throughout each stage of the program.

Program Length

Students typically take up to two or three courses each term and up to two courses during the summer, and completion times for this degree vary with the topic of each student's dissertation. The typical length for this program is five years.

Continuous Enrollment Doctoral students in research methodology are required to maintain continuous enrollment during their program of studies. This means that during each semester of each academic year (excluding Summer Sessions), each student must enroll in at least one course. A formal  leave of absence  may be granted upon request and the approval of the School of Education’s Associate Dean of Student Academic Services.

Admission Requirements

Interested in applying? Check out the  PhD Research Methodology application requirements .

• For  application  related questions,  contact Graduate Enrollment Management . 
• For  program structure and academics  related questions, contact:  Ken Fujimoto , Program Chair

Tuition, Financial Aid and Scholarships

The School of Education and Loyola's Financial Aid Office are committed to helping students secure the necessary financial resources to make their education at Loyola affordable. You can learn more on the  Financial Assistance  page.

How long will it take to finish the program?

Five years is about the average length of time, especially if the student is not full-time. However a full-time student who transfers the maximum 30 credit hours from another university could complete the PhD in as few as three years. Please note that a maximum of six years is allowed to complete your coursework and dissertation.

Much will depend upon how many courses a student is able to take during any given term. Since the minimum is 20 courses, one should count on two or three years of coursework, another year for taking and passing comprehensive exams and developing a proposal, and at least one more year for the dissertation research. 

What can I do with a degree in research methodology?

This degree offers many professional opportunities. Recent graduates work at research firms, testing companies, professional associations or accrediting agencies, nonprofits, and in higher education, including institutional research.

How is the consulting experience structured?

The consulting experience is fulfilled by providing research or statistical consulting. Students, in consultation with their advisor, will determine the form of the consulting. For example, some students have provided statistical analysis assistance to faculty members or other doctoral students at the university, working on a research team with a faculty member in the School of Education. Others have completed a project associated with the student's full-time employment.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught
• Postgraduate examinations
• Writing, submitting and examination
• PhD, EdD, MSc, MLitt
• Cambridge students
• New students overview
• Pre-arrival courses
• Student registration overview
• Information for New Students
• Information for Continuing Students
• Frequently Asked Questions overview
• Who needs to register
• When to register
• Received registration in error/not received registration email
• Problems creating an account
• Problems logging in
• Problems with screen display
• Personal details changed/incorrectly displayed
• Course details changed/incorrectly displayed
• Accessing email and other services
• Miscellaneous questions
• Contact Form
• First few weeks
• Manage your student information overview
• Student record overview
• Camsis overview
• Extended Self-Service (ESS)
• Logging into CamSIS
• What CamSIS can do for you
• Personal information overview
• Changing your name
• Changing Colleges
• Residing outside the University's precincts
• Applying for person(s) to join you in Cambridge
• Postgraduate students overview
• Code of Practice for Master's students
• Code of Practice for Research Students
• Postgraduate student information
• Requirements for research degrees
• Terms of study
• Your progress
• Rules and legal compliance overview
• Freedom of speech
• Public gatherings
• Disclosure and barring service overview
• Cambridge life overview
• Student unions
• Extra-curricular activities overview
• Registering societies
• Military, air, and sea training
• Food and accommodation
• Transport overview
• Bicycles and boats
• Your course overview
• Undergraduate study
• Postgraduate study overview
• Changes to your student status (postgraduates only) overview
• Applying for a change in your student status (postgraduates only)
• Changing your mode of study
• Withdrawing from the University
• Allowance/exemption of research terms
• Withdrawal from Study
• Reinstatement
• Changing your course registration
• Changing your department/faculty
• Changing your supervisor
• Exemption from the University composition fee
• Confirmation of Study: Academic Verification Letters
• Extending your submission date
• Medical intermission (postgraduates)
• Non-medical intermission (postgraduates)
• Returning from medical intermission
• Working away
• Working while you study
• Postgraduate by Research Exam Information
• Research passports
• Engagement and feedback
• Student elections
• Graduation and what next? overview
• Degree Ceremonies overview
• The ceremony
• Academical dress
• Photography
• Degree ceremony dates
• Eligibility
• The Cambridge MA overview
• Degrees Under Statute B II 2
• Degree certificates and transcripts overview
• Academic Transcripts
• Degree Certificates
• After Graduation
• Verification of Cambridge degrees
• After your examination
• Exams overview
• Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught overview
• All students timetable
• Undergraduate exam information overview
• Postgraduate examinations overview
• Examination access arrangements overview
• Research programmes
• Taught programmes
• Writing, submitting and examination overview
• PhD, EdD, MSc, MLitt overview
• Research Best Practice
• Preparing to submit your thesis
• Submitting your thesis
• Word limits
• The oral examination (viva)
• After the viva (oral examination)
• After the examination overview
• Degree approval and conferment overview
• Final thesis submission
• Examination allowances for certain Postgraduate degrees (except PhD, MSc, MLitt and MPhil by thesis degrees)
• Requesting a review of the results of an examination (postgraduate qualifications)
• Higher degrees overview
• Higher doctorates
• Bachelor of divinity
• PhD under Special Regulations
• Faith-provision in University exams
• Publication of Results
• Exam Support
• Postgraduate by Research
• EAMC overview
• Annual Reports of the EAMC
• Dates of meetings
• Frequently asked questions
• Guidance notes and application forms
• Resources overview
• Build your skills
• Research students
• Fees and financial assistance overview
• Financial assistance overview
• General eligibility principles and guidance
• Cambridge Bursary Scheme funding overview
• What you could get
• Scottish students
• EU students
• Clinical medics and vets
• Independent students
• Extra scholarships and awards
• Undergraduate Financial Assistance Fund
• Postgraduate Financial Assistance Fund
• Realise Financial Assistance Fund
• The Crane Fund
• Loan Fund I
• External Support 
• Support from your Funding Sponsor
• Guidance for Academic Supervisors and College Tutors
• Fees overview
• Funding overview
• Mosley, Worts, and Frere Travel Funds
• Support for UKRI Studentship Holders overview
• Student loans overview
• US loans overview
• Application procedure
• Entrance and Exit Counselling
• Cost of attendance
• What type of loan and how much you can borrow
• Interest rates for federal student loans
• Proof of funding for visa purposes
• Disbursement
• Satisfactory academic progress policy
• In-School Deferment Forms
• Leave of absence
• Withdrawing and return to Title IV policy
• Rights and Responsibilities as a Borrower
• Managing Repayment
• Consumer information
• Submitting a thesis — information for PhD students
• Private loans
• Veteran affairs benefits
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Student support
• Complaints and appeals

Word limits and requirements of your Degree Committee

Candidates should write as concisely as is possible, with clear and adequate exposition. Each Degree Committee has prescribed the limits of length and stylistic requirements as given below. On submission of the thesis you must include a statement of length confirming that it does not exceed the word limit for your Degree Committee.

These limits and requirements are strictly observed by the Postgraduate Committee and the Degree Committees and, unless approval to exceed the prescribed limit has been obtained beforehand (see: Extending the Word Limit below), a thesis that exceeds the limit may not be examined until its length complies with the prescribed limit.

Extending the Word Limit

Thesis word limits are set by Degree Committees. If candidates need to increase their word limits they will need to apply for permission.

Information on how to apply (via self-service account) is available on the ‘ Applying for a change in your student status’  page. If following your viva, you are required to make corrections to your thesis which will mean you need to increase your word-limit, you need to apply for permission in the same way.

Requirements of the Degree Committees

Archaeology and anthropology, architecture and history of art, asian and middle eastern studies, business and management, clinical medicine and clinical veterinary medicine, computer laboratory, earth sciences and geography, scott polar institute, engineering, history and philosophy of science, land economy, mathematics, modern and medieval languages and linguistics, physics and chemistry, politics and international studies, archaeology and social anthropology.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words (approx. 350 pages) for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MSc or MLitt degree. These limits include all text, figures, tables and photographs, but exclude the bibliography, cited references and appendices. More detailed specifications should be obtained from the Division concerned. Permission to exceed these limits will be granted only after a special application to the Degree Committee. The application must explain in detail the reasons why an extension is being sought and the nature of the additional material, and must be supported by a reasoned case from the supervisor containing a recommendation that a candidate should be allowed to exceed the word limit by a specified number of words. Such permission will be granted only under exceptional circumstances. If candidates need to apply for permission to exceed the word limit, they should do so in good time before the date on which a candidate proposes to submit the thesis, by application made to the Graduate Committee.

Biological Anthropology:

Students may choose between two alternative thesis formats for their work:

either in the form of a thesis of not more than 80,000 words in length for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MSc or MLitt degree. The limits include all text, in-text citations, figures, tables, captions and footnotes but exclude bibliography and appendices; or

in the form of a collection of at least three research articles for the PhD degree and two research articles for the MSc or MLitt degree, formatted as an integrated piece of research, with a table of contents, one or more chapters that outline the scope and provide an in-depth review of the subject of study, a concluding chapter discussing the findings and contribution to the field, and a consolidated bibliography. The articles may be in preparation, submitted for publication or already published, and the combined work should not exceed 80,000 words in length for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MSc or MLitt degree. The word limits include all text, in-text citations, figures, tables, captions, and footnotes but exclude bibliography and appendices containing supplementary information associated with the articles. More information on the inclusion of material published, in press or in preparation in a PhD thesis may be found in the Department’s PhD submission guidelines.

Architecture:

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words for the PhD and 60,000 words for the MSc or MLitt degree. Footnotes, references and text within tables are to be counted within the word-limit, but captions, appendices and bibliographies are excluded. Appendices should be confined to such items as catalogues, original texts, translations of texts, transcriptions of interview, or tables.

History of Art:

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words for the PhD and 60,000 words for the MLitt degree. To include: footnotes, table of contents and list of illustrations, but excluding acknowledgements and the bibliography. Appendices (of no determined word length) may be permitted subject to the approval of the candidate's Supervisor (in consultation with the Degree Committee); for example, where a catalogue of works or the transcription of extensive primary source material is germane to the work. Permission to include such appendices must be requested from the candidate's Supervisor well in advance of the submission of the final thesis. NB: Permission for extensions to the word limit for most other purposes is likely to be refused.

The thesis is for the PhD degree not to exceed 80,000 words exclusive of footnotes, appendices and bibliography but subject to an overall word limit of 100,000 words exclusive of bibliography. For the MLitt degree not to exceed 60,000 words inclusive of footnotes but exclusive of bibliography and appendices.

The thesis for the PhD is not to exceed 60,000 words in length (80,000 by special permission), exclusive of tables, footnotes, bibliography, and appendices. Double-spaced or one-and-a-half spaced. Single or double-sided printing.

The thesis for the MPhil in Biological Science is not to exceed 20,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, footnotes, bibliography, and appendices. Double-spaced or one-and-a-half spaced. Single or double-sided printing.

For the PhD Degree the thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words, EXCLUDING bibliography, but including tables, tables of contents, footnotes and appendices. It is normally expected to exceed 40,000 words unless prior permission is obtained from the Degree Committee. Each page of statistical tables, charts or diagrams shall be regarded as equivalent to a page of text of the same size. The Degree Committee do not consider applications to extend this word limit.

For the Doctor of Business (BusD) the thesis will be approximately 200 pages (a maximum length of 80,000 words, EXCLUDING bibliography, but including tables, tables of contents, footnotes and appendices).

For the MSc Degree the thesis is not to exceed 40,000 words, EXCLUDING bibliography, but including tables, tables of contents, footnotes and appendices.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words including footnotes, references, and appendices but excluding bibliography; a page of statistics shall be regarded as the equivalent of 150 words. Only under exceptional circumstances will permission be granted to exceed this limit. Candidates must submit with the thesis a signed statement giving the length of the thesis.

For the PhD degree, not to exceed 60,000 words (or 80,000 by special permission of the Degree Committee), and for the MSc degree, not to exceed 40,000 words. These limits exclude figures, photographs, tables, appendices and bibliography. Lines to be double or one-and-a-half spaced; pages to be double or single sided.

The thesis is not to exceed, without the prior permission of the Degree Committee, 60,000 words including tables, footnotes and equations, but excluding appendices, bibliography, photographs and diagrams. Any thesis which without prior permission of the Degree Committee exceeds the permitted limit will be referred back to the candidate before being forwarded to the examiners.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words for the PhD degree and the MLitt degree, including footnotes, references and appendices but excluding bibliography. Candidates must submit with the thesis a signed statement giving the length of the thesis. Only under exceptional circumstances will permission be granted to exceed this limit for the inclusion of an appendix of a substantial quantity of text which is necessary for the understanding of the thesis (e.g. texts in translation, transcription of extensive primary source material). Permission must be sought at least three months before submission of the thesis and be supported by a letter from the supervisor certifying that such exemption from the prescribed limit of length is absolutely necessary.

The thesis is not to exceed, without the prior permission of the Degree Committee, 80,000 words for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MSc or MLitt degree, including the summary/abstract.  The table of contents, photographs, diagrams, figure captions, appendices, bibliography and acknowledgements to not count towards the word limit. Footnotes are not included in the word limit where they are a necessary part of the referencing system used.

Earth Sciences:

The thesis is not to exceed, without the prior permission of the Degree Committee, 275 numbered pages of which not more than 225 pages are text, appendices, illustrations and bibliography. A page of text is A4 one-and-a-half-spaced normal size type. The additional 50 pages may comprise tables of data and/or computer programmes reduced in size.

If a candidate's work falls within the social sciences, candidates are expected to observe the limit described in the Department of Geography above; if, however, a candidate's work falls within the natural sciences, a candidate should observe the limit described in the Department of Earth Sciences.

Applications for the limit of length of the thesis to be exceeded must be early — certainly no later than the time when the application for the appointment of examiners and the approval of the title of the thesis is made. Any thesis which, without the prior permission of the Degree Committee, exceeds the permitted limit of length will be referred back to the candidate before being forwarded to the examiners.

The thesis is not to exceed, without the prior permission of the Degree Committee, 60,000 words including tables, footnotes, bibliography and appendices. The Degree Committee points out that some of the best thesis extend to only half this length. Each page of statistical tables, charts or diagrams shall be regarded as equivalent to a page of text of the same size.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words for the PhD and EdD degrees and 60,000 words for the MSc and MLitt degrees, in all cases excluding appendices, footnotes, reference list or bibliography. Only in the most exceptional circumstances will permission be given to exceed the stated limits. In such cases, you must make an application to the Degree Committee as early as possible -and no later than three months before it is proposed to submit the thesis, having regard to the dates of the Degree Committee meetings. Your application should (a) explain in detail the reasons why you are seeking the extension and (b) be accompanied by a full supporting statement from your supervisor showing that the extension is absolutely necessary in the interests of the total presentation of the subject.

For the PhD degree, not to exceed, without prior permission of the Degree Committee, 65,000 words, including appendices, footnotes, tables and equations not to contain more than 150 figures, but excluding the bibliography. A candidate must submit with their thesis a statement signed by the candidate themself giving the length of the thesis and the number of figures. Any thesis which, without the prior permission of the Degree Committee, exceeds the permitted limit will be referred back to the candidate before being forwarded to the examiners.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words or go below 60,000 words for the PhD degree and not to exceed 60,000 words or go below 45,000 words for the MLitt degree, both including all notes and appendices but excluding the bibliography. A candidate must add to the preface of the thesis the following signed statement: 'The thesis does not exceed the regulation length, including footnotes, references and appendices but excluding the bibliography.'

In exceptional cases (when, for example, a candidate's thesis largely consists of an edition of a text) the Degree Committee may grant permission to exceed these limits but in such instances (a) a candidate must apply to exceed the length at least three months before the date on which a candidate proposes to submit their thesis and (b) the application must be supported by a letter from a candidate's supervisor certifying that such exemption from the prescribed limit of length is absolutely necessary.

It is a requirement of the Degree Committee for the Faculty of English that thesis must conform to either the MHRA Style Book or the MLA Handbook for the Writers of Research papers, available from major bookshops. There is one proviso, however, to the use of these manuals: the Faculty does not normally recommend that students use the author/date form of citation and recommends that footnotes rather than endnotes be used. Bibliographies and references in thesis presented by candidates in ASNaC should conform with either of the above or to the practice specified in Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England.

Thesis presented by candidates in the Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics must follow as closely as possible the printed style of the journal Applied Linguistics and referencing and spelling conventions should be consistent.

A signed declaration of the style-sheet used (and the edition, if relevant) must be made in the preliminary pages of the thesis.

PhD theses MUST NOT exceed 80,000 words, and will normally be near that length.

A minimum word length exists for PhD theses: 70,000 words (50,000 for MLitt theses)

The word limit includes appendices and the contents page but excludes the abstract, acknowledgments, footnotes, references, notes on transliteration, bibliography, abbreviations and glossary.  The Contents Page should be included in the word limit. Statistical tables should be counted as 150 words per table. Maps, illustrations and other pictorial images count as 0 words. Graphs, if they are the only representation of the data being presented, are to be counted as 150 words. However, if graphs are used as an illustration of statistical data that is also presented elsewhere within the thesis (as a table for instance), then the graphs count as 0 words.

Only under exceptional circumstances will permission be granted to exceed this limit. Applications for permission are made via CamSIS self-service pages. Applications must be made at least four months before the thesis is bound. Exceptions are granted when a compelling intellectual case is made.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MLitt degree, in all cases including footnotes and appendices but excluding bibliography. Permission to submit a thesis falling outside these limits, or to submit an appendix which does not count towards the word limit, must be obtained in advance from the Degree Committee.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MSc or MLitt degree, both including footnotes, references and appendices but excluding bibliographies. One A4 page consisting largely of statistics, symbols or figures shall be regarded as the equivalent of 250 words. A candidate must add to the preface of their thesis the following signed statement: 'This thesis does not exceed the regulation length, including footnotes, references and appendices.'

For the PhD degree the thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words (exclusive of footnotes, appendices and bibliography) but subject to an overall word limit of 100,000 words (exclusive of bibliography, table of contents and any other preliminary matter). Figures, tables, images etc should be counted as the equivalent of 200 words for each A4 page, or part of an A4 page, that they occupy. For the MLitt degree the thesis is not to exceed 60,000 words inclusive of footnotes but exclusive of bibliography, appendices, table of contents and any other preliminary matter. Figures, tables, images etc should be counted as the equivalent of 200 words for each A4 page, or part of an A4 page, that they occupy.

Criminology:

For the PhD degree submission of a thesis between 55,000 and 80,000 words (exclusive of footnotes, appendices and bibliography) but subject to an overall word limit of 100,000 words (exclusive of bibliography, table of contents and any other preliminary matter). Figures, tables, images etc should be counted as the equivalent of 200 words for each A4 page, or part of an A4 page, that they occupy. For the MLitt degree the thesis is not to exceed 60,000 words inclusive of footnotes but exclusive of bibliography, appendices, table of contents and any other preliminary matter. Figures, tables, images etc should be counted as the equivalent of 200 words for each A4 page, or part of an A4 page, that they occupy.

There is no standard format for the thesis in Mathematics.  Candidates should discuss the format appropriate to their topic with their supervisor.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MLitt degree, including footnotes and appendices but excluding the abstract, any acknowledgements, contents page(s), abbreviations, notes on transliteration, figures, tables and bibliography. Brief labels accompanying illustrations, figures and tables are also excluded from the word count. The Degree Committee point out that some very successful doctoral theses have been submitted which extend to no more than three-quarters of the maximum permitted length.

In linguistics, where examples are cited in a language other than Modern English, only the examples themselves will be taken into account for the purposes of the word limit. Any English translations and associated linguistic glosses will be excluded from the word count.

In theses written under the aegis of any of the language sections, all sources in the language(s) of the primary area(s) of research of the thesis will normally be in the original language. An English translation should be provided only where reading the original language is likely to fall outside the expertise of the examiners. Where such an English translation is given it will not be included in the word count. In fields where the normal practice is to quote in English in the main text, candidates should follow that practice. If the original text needs to be supplied, it should be placed in a footnote. These fields include, but are not limited to, general linguistics and film and screen studies.

Since appendices are included in the word limit, in some fields it may be necessary to apply to exceed the limit in order to include primary data or other materials which should be available to the examiners. Only under the most exceptional circumstances will permission be granted to exceed the limit in other cases. In all cases (a) a candidate must apply to exceed the prescribed maximum length at least three months before the date on which a candidate proposes to submit their thesis and (b) the application must be accompanied by a full supporting statement from the candidate's supervisor showing that such exemption from the prescribed limit of length is absolutely necessary.

It is a requirement within all language sections of MMLL, and also for Film, that dissertations must conform with the advice concerning abbreviations, quotations, footnotes, references etc published in the Style Book of the Modern Humanities Research Association (Notes for Authors and Editors). For linguistics, dissertations must conform with one of the widely accepted style formats in their field of research, for example the style format of the Journal of Linguistics (Linguistic Association of Great Britain), or of Language Linguistic Society of America) or the APA format (American Psychology Association). If in doubt, linguistics students should discuss this with their supervisor and the PhD Coordinator.

The thesis is not to exceed 80,000 words for the PhD degree and 60,000 words for the MLitt degree, both excluding notes, appendices, and bibliographies, musical transcriptions and examples, unless a candidate make a special case for greater length to the satisfaction of the Degree Committee. Candidates whose work is practice-based may include as part of the doctoral submission either a portfolio of substantial musical compositions, or one or more recordings of their own musical performance(s).

PhD (MLitt) theses in Philosophy must not be more than 80,000 (60,000) words, including appendices and footnotes but excluding bibliography.

Institute of Astronomy, Department of Materials Science & Metallurgy, Department of Physics:

The thesis is not to exceed, without prior permission of the Degree Committee, 60,000 words, including summary/abstract, tables, footnotes and appendices, but excluding table of contents, photographs, diagrams, figure captions, list of figures/diagrams, list of abbreviations/acronyms, bibliography and acknowledgements.

Department of Chemistry:

The thesis is not to exceed, without prior permission of the Degree Committee, 60,000 words, including summary/abstract, tables, and footnotes, but excluding table of contents, photographs, diagrams, figure captions, list of figures/diagrams, list of abbreviations/acronyms, bibliography, appendices and acknowledgements. Appendices are relevant to the material contained within the thesis but do not form part of the connected argument. Specifically, they may include derivations, code and spectra, as well as experimental information (compound name, structure, method of formation and data) for non-key molecules made during the PhD studies.

Applicable to the PhDs in Politics & International Studies, Latin American Studies, Multi-disciplinary Studies and Development Studies for all submissions from candidates admitted prior to and including October 2017.

A PhD thesis must not exceed 80,000 words, and will normally be near that length. The word limit includes appendices but excludes footnotes, references and bibliography. Footnotes should not exceed 20% of the thesis. Discursive footnotes are generally discouraged, and under no circumstances should footnotes be used to include material that would normally be in the main text, and thus to circumvent the word limits. Statistical tables should be counted as 150 words per table. Only under exceptional circumstances, and after prior application, will the Degree Committee allow a student to exceed these limits. A candidate must submit, with the thesis, a statement signed by her or himself attesting to the length of the thesis. Any thesis that exceeds the limit will be referred back to candidate for revision before being forwarded to the examiners.

Applicable to the PhDs in Politics & International Studies, Latin American Studies, Multi-disciplinary Studies and Development Studies for all submissions from candidates admitted after October 2017.

A PhD thesis must not exceed 80,000 words, including footnotes. The word limit includes appendices but excludes the bibliography. Discursive footnotes are generally discouraged, and under no circumstances should footnotes be used to include material that would normally be in the main text. Statistical tables should be counted as 150 words per table. Only under exceptional circumstances, and after prior application, will the Degree Committee allow a student to exceed these limits. A candidate must submit, with the thesis, a statement signed by her or himself attesting to the length of the thesis. Any thesis that exceeds the limit will be referred back to candidate for revision before being forwarded to the examiners.

Only applicable to students registered for the degree prior to 1 August 2012; all other students should consult the guidance of the Faculty of Biological Sciences.

Applicable to the PhD in Psychology (former SDP students only) for all submissions made before 30 November 2013

A PhD thesis must not exceed 80,000 words, and will normally be near that length. The word limit includes appendices but excludes footnotes, references and bibliography. Footnotes should not exceed 20% of the thesis. Discursive footnotes are generally discouraged, and under no circumstances should footnotes be used to include material that would normally be in the main text, and thus to circumvent the word limits. Statistical tables should be counted as 150 words per table. Only under exceptional circumstances, and after prior application, will the Degree Committee allow a student to exceed these limits. A candidate must submit, with the thesis, a statement signed by her or himself attesting to the length of the thesis. Any thesis that exceeds the limit will be referred back to candidate for revision before being forwarded to the examiners.

Applicable to the PhD in Psychology (former SDP students only) for all submissions from 30 November 2013

A PhD thesis must not exceed 80,000 words, and will normally be near that length. The word limit includes appendices but excludes footnotes, references and bibliography. Footnotes should not exceed 20% of the thesis. Discursive footnotes are generally discouraged, and under no circumstances should footnotes be used to include material that would normally be in the main text, and thus to circumvent the word limits. Statistical tables should be counted as 150 words per table. Only under exceptional circumstances, and after prior application, will the Degree Committee allow a student to exceed these limits. Applications should be made in good time before the date on which a candidate proposes to submit the thesis, made to the Graduate Committee. A candidate must submit, with the thesis, a statement signed by her or himself attesting to the length of the thesis. Any thesis that exceeds the limit will be referred back to candidate for revision before being forwarded to the examiners.

A PhD thesis must not exceed 80,000 words, and will normally be over 60,000 words. This word limit includes footnotes and endnotes, but excludes appendices and reference list / bibliography. Figures, tables, images etc should be counted as the equivalent of 150 words for each page, or part of a page, that they occupy. Other media may form part of the thesis by prior arrangement with the Degree Committee. Students may apply to the Degree Committee for permission to exceed the word limit, but such applications are granted only rarely. Candidates must submit, with the thesis, a signed statement attesting to the length of the thesis.

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Fri. May 3rd, 2024

Dissertation Center

A General Guide to PhD Dissertation Word Count And Structure

Related Post

5 tools that are most useful in phd dissertation, leave a reply 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.

What Are Elements of a Good Thesis Statement for a Research Paper?

How students can adopt the best research methodology for phd thesis writing, a review on “research proposal: academic writing guide for graduate students”, how education can bring social change in community.

Sample PhD Research Methodology Chapter

1.0 introduction.

This chapter designs a comprehensive research methodology tailored to the aim and objectives of the study. Specifically, the research methodology chapter is responsible for explaining the philosophical underpinnings, as well as explaining their role in examining the selected research phenomenon. Second, the researcher’s philosophical orientation is explained and the rationale for the chosen methods is provided. Finally, this chapter defends the selected data collection instruments and analysis procedures, paying close attention to their advantages and limitations. Ethical issues and methodological limitations are covered in the end.

2.0 Ontological Perspective

The process of designing a research methodology starts with the branch of ontology, which is primarily concerned with what exists in the human world and what knowledge could be acquired about this world (Anfara & Mertz, 2014). With the help of ontology, researchers can recognise the extent to which the objects they are researching are ‘real’ and what ‘truth claims’ can be made about these objects (Chawla & Sodhi, 2011). The spectrum of ontological stances ranges from naïve realism to relativism; the former assumes that there is a single reality, which could be understood using appropriate research methods, whereas the latter implies that realities exist as multiple mental constructions that change depending on the subject and context in which they exist (Crotty, 2020).

This study follows a bounded relativist position, according to which there is one shared reality within a bounded group (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). This choice has been made because organisational culture is a context-specific phenomenon, meaning each organisation has its own culture that is manifested in its values, artefacts, stories, and symbols (Kumar, 2014). The existing literature shows that organisational culture is something that is shared by all employees, suggesting there is a single reality within this group (Crotty, 2020). Although there may be outliers, organisational culture is often viewed as the glue that connects the employees of the same organisation and communicates the reality in which they exist.

3.0 Epistemological Perspective

Having identified how ‘things’ are, it is relevant to identify how the researcher creates knowledge by selecting and justifying an epistemological stance. The methodology literature distinguishes between three major epistemological positions, depending on the relationship between the object and the subject (Anfara & Mertz, 2014). Objectivism implies that meaning exists within an object and there is an objective reality that exists independently of the subject (Dew & Foreman, 2020). On the other end of the spectrum lies subjectivism, according to which it is the subject that creates meaning and imposes it on an object (Saunders & Lewis, 2014). Finally, constructionism is a more balanced epistemological position, where the interplay between the subject and the object creates meaning but the reality of the object is still constructed by the subject (Kumar, 2008).

Since the phenomenon of organisational culture exists independently from the researcher, this study is in keeping with the constructionist stance, which allows for generating a contextual understanding of organisational culture and its role in employees’ well-being perception in the selected company. On the one hand, each employee has their views, values, and beliefs, which inevitably affect their perception of well-being (Pruzan, 2016). This fact implies that multiple realities are likely to exist, which are shaped and formed by the company’s employees, as well as the meanings they attach to the world in general and their employer’s organisational culture, in particular (Dew & Foreman, 2020). Still, since the researcher attempts to establish the relationship between organisational culture and employees’ perceptions of well-being and achieve an adequate level of generalisation, the adoption of subjectivist epistemology seems counterproductive. In turn, objectivism fully excludes the possibility of the existence of multiple sources of meaning, which explains why this epistemology has not been adopted either (Chawla & Sodhi, 2011).

4.0 Theoretical Perspective

The next step in designing a comprehensive research methodology would be to have a look at the researcher’s philosophical orientation that guides their action (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Per Singh and Nath (2010), all theoretical perspectives could be broadly divided into two groups, namely those that are applied to predict the phenomenon in question and those that help in getting a better understanding of this phenomenon. Since this study is focused on the establishment of the relationship between organisational culture and employees’ well-being perceptions, using more than one method to identify the valid and logical truth seems reasonable. Therefore, the theoretical perspective of post-positivism, according to which a valid belief could be properly identified only using multiple methods because all methods are imperfect, has been selected (Anfara & Mertz, 2014). The research design of this study, including its ontological and epistemological standpoints, is presented as follows.

Figure 1: Research Design

Source: Constructed for this study

Post-positivism can be viewed as a natural evolution of the positivist theoretical stance, primarily driven by the growing complexity of the social sciences, which requires examining social phenomena from multiple vantage points to make relevant and accurate predictions (Khan, 2011). As previously noted, employees’ values, attitudes, and beliefs, which form their realities and affect their perceptions of well-being in the organisational context, make this social phenomenon multifaceted and complex (Bryman & Bell, 2015). That is why using several methods is expected to help the researcher decipher this relationship and possibly extrapolate the produced findings to different contexts (Daniel & Sam, 2011). While post-positivism is less rigorous and ‘scientific’ as compared to positivism, some scholars argue that the social world is too complex to be explained by applying natural science methods. Interpretations of reality cannot be isolated from the cultural and social context, in which the research phenomenon is taking place (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). Still, the application of natural science methods enables the researcher to identify certain patterns, allowing for examining the relationship between organisational culture and employees’ well-being perceptions in more detail.

5.0 Methodology

Based on the above explanation and justification, this doctoral project follows a mixed-method approach, which implies the collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Singh & Nath, 2010). A mixed-method research design enables the researcher to obtain data using multiple data collection instruments, adding to the breadth of this investigation and allowing for assessing the relationship between organisational culture and employees’ perceptions of well-being more comprehensively (Cohen et al., 2017). With that being stated, following a mono method can ensure a much higher level of detalisation as compared to a mixed-method approach (Howell, 2012). Still, within the organisational context, different truths are likely to exist among different stakeholder groups, which substantiates the need to examine and compare these truths in order to identify how they are similar or different (Daniel & Sam, 2011).

This project follows the research strategy of a case study, which enables the researcher to develop an in-depth description of the target organisation and its culture. One of the main advantages of this strategy is that it implies using multiple data collection techniques, which goes in keeping with the selected research design (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Although the case study strategy does not represent the world, it focuses on a single case in relation to the selected research problem and illustrates the contextualised case of the relationship between corporate culture and employee perceptions (Singh & Nath, 2010). Although some scholars believe that case studies have limited generalisation because they are primarily focused on a single object or case, it is still possible to compare the case study findings to existing theory and, hence, provide broader implications to similar contexts outside the selected case (Yin, 2014). Since this project not only draws on existing theory but also attempts to come up with a new theory linking organisational culture to employee well-being in the workplace, it incorporates certain aspects of both inductive and deductive approaches (Pruzan, 2016).

6.0 Data and Methods of Collection

Two primary data collection methods, namely self-administered questionnaires and semi-structured interviews have been selected for this study. The former method implies collecting primary quantitative data from individuals who self-report their perceptions of and attitudes towards the research phenomenon (Singh, 2010). In turn, in semi-structured interviews, a researcher asks questions within a predetermined thematic framework but the questions are not set in order or phrasing (Billups, 2019). Self-administered questionnaires have been selected because they not only enable the researcher to obtain a large amount of primary data in a short period. They also generate primary data that could easily be quantified and processed graphically and statistically, which goes in keeping with the post-positivist nature of this study (Saunders & Lewis, 2014). In turn, semi-structured interviews allow for generating highly detailed data that answers the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions, leading to more comprehensive and detailed research findings (Cohen et al., 2017).

The decision to incorporate both self-administered questionnaires and semi-structured interviews in the research design allows for offsetting the drawbacks of each of these data collection instruments. For example, in questionnaire surveys, respondents’ answers are usually limited to a set of predefined, concise response options, which may not necessarily reflect how they feel about certain things (Novikov & Novikov, 2013). Concurrently, during interviews, interviewees can provide whatever responses they want, regardless of their length or content. At the same time, interviews are commonly considered a time-consuming data collection procedure (Carson et al., 2001). Due to this reason, as well as potential access issues, it is problematic to engage a relatively large number of individuals in interviews. Alternatively, questionnaires can be distributed among a sizeable population of social actors in a fraction of the time needed to conduct an interview (Daniel & Sam, 2011). Therefore, by utilising both self-administered questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, it is possible to make the most of these instruments while overcoming their drawbacks.

7.0 Sampling

For this study, two samples were drawn to approach the relationship between corporate culture and employees’ perceptions of well-being from different vantage points. First, judgemental sampling, a non-probability sampling technique where units to be sampled are selected by the researcher based on their professional judgement, was chosen to approach the most knowledgeable and experienced managers of the target company (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). While the researcher was not intended to cap the number of interviewees included in the sample, a total of 14 top managers agreed to participate. The selection of this sampling strategy is explained by its ability to ensure a deep focus on the researched phenomenon because the interviewees exist in the same context and share similar opinions and values. In turn, managers were selected because they are expected to have a more profound knowledge of the selected company’s organisational culture and its nuances than their subordinates. Interviews were conducted online using Zoom.

Second, the researcher followed the strategy of convenience sampling, which allows for collecting research data from the most easily accessed respondents, to draw a questionnaire survey sample (Gray, 2017). At this point, around 760 employees of the target multinational company were contacted via social media platforms and asked to participate. According to the existing methodology literature, the sample size plays a crucial role when it comes to data validity and reliability, which explains why the researcher intended to include as many employees in the sample as possible (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). 549 questionnaires were returned to the researcher, out of which 32 were excluded due to missing values. Therefore, the questionnaire survey sample consisted of 517 participants. This sample size should be enough to ensure an adequate level of validity and reliability and make sure the produced findings are generalisable to a certain extent (Dew & Foreman, 2020). All questionnaires were distributed online using Google Forms.

8.0 Analysis Strategy

As previously noted, post-positivist studies tend to use multiple methods, which translates into employing several analysis instruments within the same research project (Novikov & Novikov, 2013). This study is not the exception to this rule. The primary data obtained using self-administered questionnaires was processed both graphically and statistically. This data was quantified by assigning a code (e.g., ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, etc.) to each response and inserting the constructed set of raw data in Microsoft Excel, which was also used to design charts and graphs. The quantified data was then inserted into an SPSS spreadsheet to make it suitable for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to analyse the primary quantitative data and establish the relationship between organisational culture and employees’ perceptions of well-being and test the Null Hypothesis and Hypothesis 1 presented in Chapter 2. In addition, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test Hypothesis 2 and identify whether those employees who belonged to an older generation perceived the role of organisational culture in their well-being differently than their young colleagues. The key methodological choices, including analysis methods, are presented as follows.

Figure 2: Methodological Choices

The researcher also used a content analysis technique to process the primary data generated by the interviewees. Unlike graphical or statistical analyses, the content analysis does not demonstrate cause-and-effect links between variables but rather enables the researcher to get a deeper understanding of interviewees’ perceptions, feelings, and lived experiences (Carson et al., 2001). The recorded interviews were first converted into text transcripts using word processing software. Afterwards, the transcribed data was processed by NVivo to create codes and nodes according to the main themes of this project, such as ‘organisational culture’, ‘employee well-being’, ‘work-life balance’, ‘employee recognition’, and ‘job satisfaction’. This software was also used to identify the frequency of the aforementioned themes and other tendencies in the interviewees’ responses.

9.0 Ethical Issues

Before obtaining primary data from the participants, they were provided with an information sheet that covered all the important aspects of this project, including its aim and objectives, anticipated outcomes, and research procedure (Saunders & Lewis, 2014). Informed consent was obtained from each potential interviewee and survey participant to make sure their participation was voluntary. They were explicitly communicated both verbally and in writing that they were able to withdraw from the data collection process at will. Moreover, this process was made fully anonymous to prevent the potential leakage of personal data and contribute to the participants’ intention to take part (Singh, 2010).

10.0 Methodological Limitations

Although the designed research methodology is characterised by a relatively high level of replicability, it could be argued that the adoption of bounded relativism does not add to the generalisability of the produced empirical outcomes (Daniel & Sam, 2011). The point is that the mental constructions of reality held by those managers and employees who participated in this project may not necessarily match one another, leading to multiple interpretations of how their well-being is affected by the employer’s organisational culture (Saunders & Lewis, 2014). Another limitation is that self-administered questionnaires significantly limit the researcher’s ability to decipher hidden meaning that exists in organisational practices and events, which makes this study biased towards making predictions rather than deepening our understanding of the research phenomenon (Novikov & Novikov, 2013).

11.0 Chapter Summary

Ontologically, this study is framed within bounded relativism, which implies that reality constructions exist within a boundary of a peculiar group. In turn, from an epistemological viewpoint, this project adopts constructionism and the post-positivist theoretical perspective. Since this study follows a mixed-method approach, the researcher obtained primary qualitative and quantitative data from 14 top managers and 517 employees of the target business entity by means of semi-structured interviews and self-administered questionnaires, respectively. The collected data was processed, thematically, graphically, and statistically using NVivo, Microsoft Excel, and SPSS.

Anfara, V., & Mertz, N. (2014). Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research . SAGE.

Billups, F. (2019). Qualitative Data Collection Tools: Design, Development, and Applications . SAGE.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods . OUP.

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research . SAGE.

Chawla, D., & Sodhi, N. (2011). Research Methodology: Concepts and Cases . Vicas Publishing House.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education . Routledge.

Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches . SAGE.

Crotty, M. (2020). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process . Routledge.

Daniel, S., & Sam, A. (2011). Research methodology . Gyan Publishing House.

Dew, J., & Foreman, M. (2020). How Do We Know?: An Introduction to Epistemology . InterVarsity Press.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management Research . SAGE.

Gray, D. (2017). Doing Research in the Real World . SAGE.

Howell, K. (2012). An introduction to the philosophy of methodology . SAGE.

Khan, J. (2011). Research methodology . APH Publishing.

Kumar, R. (2008). Research methodology . APH Publishing.

Kumar, R. (2014). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners . SAGE.

Novikov, A., & Novikov, D. (2013). Research methodology: From philosophy of science to research design . CRC Press.

Pruzan, P. (2016). Research Methodology: The Aims, Practices and Ethics of Science . Springer.

Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2014). Doing Research in Business and Management: An Essential Guide to Planning Your Project . Pearson Education.

Singh, Y. (2010). Research methodology . APH Publishing.

Singh, Y., & Nath, R. (2010). Research methodology . APH Publishing.

Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods . SAGE.