The methodology chapter is where a dissertation shows how its research was done and argues that this was the right way to answer the question. A marker who doubts the method doubts every finding built on it. This is the methodology chapter guide of How to write a dissertation, published by EdCitation.
Every rule below was read on 26 September 2026 at universities' own pages: Southampton, Westminster and Hull in the UK, the University of Southern California (USC) and Capella in the US, Queensland in Australia, and a University of Toronto course document in Canada. Where they disagree, we say so. None gives the chapter a length, and neither do we.
EdCitation never writes any part of a dissertation. It finds the methods literature with Find sources, builds each methods book and article into a reference with Cite a source, and reads your handbook's requirements into a checklist with Check your paper, free.
What is a methodology chapter for?
A methodology chapter lets a reader judge whether your findings can be trusted, by showing what you did and why each choice suited the question. University of Southampton Library (2026) says markers look for the reasons behind decisions, not only the decisions.
It must also be repeatable in principle. The University of Queensland (n.d.) asks for enough detail that another expert could repeat the work, without spelling out techniques standard in the field; University of Westminster Library (2025c) sets the same test.
Methodology or methods: what is the difference?
Methods are the techniques you used, such as interviews or a regression; methodology is the reasoning that ties them to the question and to your assumptions about knowledge. Westminster (2025c) reads the difference in the word itself: the "-logy" is the reasoning about the methods, which is why a dissertation usually has a methodology chapter.
Methodology even shapes vocabulary: Gastaldo (2015), in a Toronto guide for doctoral students writing up qualitative studies, prefers data generation, because data collection comes from positivist thinking that treats data as lying ready to be gathered.
What goes in a methodology chapter?
The parts below, roughly in this order; your department's list overrides it, and the last column shows where universities differ.
| Part | What it says | Where the universities differ |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | The question restated, the design in a sentence, the chapter's plan | Westminster keeps it to one paragraph |
| Research philosophy | The paradigm: assumptions about reality (ontology) and knowledge (epistemology) | Southampton and Westminster: only if expected; Queensland's outline has none |
| Design | Qualitative, quantitative or mixed, and the research design | Westminster also asks whether sources are primary or secondary |
| Sample | Who or what, how chosen, how many and why (purposive sampling, sample size justification) | Toronto adds inclusion and exclusion criteria |
| Data collection | Instruments and procedure, the questionnaire or interview guide in an appendix | Queensland splits it into materials and procedures |
| Analysis | How raw data became findings: tests or coding, and the software | USC asks for more detail in qualitative work |
| Quality | Validity and reliability, or trustworthiness | Southampton allows a section of its own or a thread through every decision |
| Ethics | Ethical approval, informed consent, withdrawal, confidentiality, data storage | Toronto puts the approval letter and consent form in appendices |
| Limitations | Limitations and delimitations, and their effect | Westminster separates the two |
Westminster's outline (University of Westminster Library, 2025d) adds sections reflecting on and justifying the methods.
Is a research philosophy section needed?
Only where your department expects one: Southampton (2026) advises it only where that is your discipline's convention, and University of Westminster Library (2025a) says not every supervisor asks. Southampton models its chapter on the research onion from Saunders and colleagues' textbook for business students, working inward from philosophy to data collection and analysis. Queensland's sub-sections (design, participants, materials, procedures) name no philosophy; Gastaldo (2015) expects a qualitative doctoral thesis to connect its ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions.
Limitations and delimitations
Westminster (2025b) keeps them apart: a delimitation is a boundary you chose, such as one region; a limitation is a constraint outside your control that affects how far the findings hold. Southampton (2026) warns against hiding limitations, which markers expect you to discuss, and against dwelling on them until the results lose credibility.
How much justification and citation does a methodology chapter need?
A reason for every choice that shaped the findings, and a citation for every reason that rests on someone else's work. University of Southern California Libraries (2026) asks for citations to whatever informed a method's choice and use, such as the works used to build a survey, and a fuller defence for a method unusual in your field.
Southampton (2026) names the citations that belong: a methods handbook that supplies a rationale, and a few studies in your field that used the same test; not a review of how others worked, nor long passages on roads not taken. Westminster (2025b) still wants rejected alternatives named briefly, with the reason for each.
A justified choice can be one sentence, as in our example: twelve ward managers were interviewed, a number judged by information power (Malterud et al., 2016), since the aim was narrow and every participant held the role studied.
No fixed number of references applies, as how many references do I need explains. Instruments, software and datasets are cited by their own records with versions: see managing dissertation references from proposal to submission.
How does the chapter change for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods projects?
In what it must prove: how the researcher shaped the data, that the measures were sound, or why two methods were combined.
Qualitative: reflexivity and trustworthiness
Qualitative work needs the longer description, because the researcher is the main instrument (University of Southern California Libraries, 2026). Gastaldo (2015) asks for:
- the researcher's positionality, limited to how it shaped the study, not a life story;
- a log of decisions kept throughout, reporting only the consequential ones, as reflexivity in practice;
- how interviews were transcribed and turned into results, with the codes in an appendix;
- how far findings may be transferable to other settings.
For interview and focus-group studies, COREQ (Tong et al., 2007) is a 32-item checklist in three domains: the research team and reflexivity, the study design, and data analysis and reporting. Though written for journal papers, it lists what a qualitative chapter should cover. Sample size is argued, not calculated: information power (Malterud et al., 2016) weighs the aim, how specific the sample is, the theory used, the quality of the dialogue and the analysis strategy.
Quantitative: validity, reliability and the tests
A quantitative chapter shows that the measures and the analysis were sound. Southampton (2026) asks for internal validity, external validity or generalisability, and reliability, with the statistical tests and the software. Say how the sample size was reached: a power analysis if one was run, otherwise the constraint that set it. For observational designs such as a cross-sectional study, the EQUATOR Network (n.d.) lists STROBE as the reporting guideline, and CONSORT for randomised trials.
Mixed methods: the design and the integration
A mixed-methods chapter must name its design and show where the strands met. O'Cathain et al. (2008) examined 75 mixed-methods health services studies funded in England: researchers mostly described the two components separately, seldom justified the design and rarely integrated data or findings. The qualitative component's data collection and analysis were unclear in 42% of proposals (19 of 45), against 18% (8 of 45) for the quantitative. The paper is paywalled, so these figures are from its abstract; EQUATOR lists it as the GRAMMS guideline.
So name the design, convergent, explanatory sequential or exploratory sequential, say why one method alone could not answer the question, and show where integration happened.
Secondary data and literature-based projects
A project with no new data still explains how it found and treated its material. For secondary data analysis, USC (2026) asks who gathered the data, how, and why older data still suit the question. Southampton (2026) lets a text-based project explain its approach in the introduction instead of a chapter, and University of Hull Library (2026a) puts a literature-based project's method there too: where you searched, your keywords, and your inclusion and exclusion criteria, with reasons. A systematic review goes further, and EQUATOR lists PRISMA for it.
What tense and voice should a methodology chapter use?
The past tense for what you did, the present for reasons that still hold. Southampton (2026), Westminster (2025b), USC (2026) and University of Hull Library (2026b) all ask for the past tense, the research being finished; Hull allows the present for a justification that remains true.
Capella University (2016) says its Chapter 3 has no single tense, but is firm on one change: from proposal to dissertation, the future tense and every mention of the proposed study go.
| In the proposal | In the final chapter |
|---|---|
| Participants will be recruited through two clinics. | Participants were recruited through two clinics. |
| Transcripts will be coded in NVivo. | Transcripts were coded in NVivo. |
| This design suits a question about lived experience. | Unchanged: the reason still holds. |
On voice, Southampton (2026) asks for consistency and calls the third person more common, though some disciplines accept "I"; Westminster (2025b) says ask your supervisor. University of Hull Library (2026c) prefers the active voice but keeps the passive where you are plainly the one acting, and notes that the hard sciences mostly resist the first person.
What faults do markers name in methodology chapters?
Faults of judgement more than format, as university pages name them:
| Fault | Named by | The fix |
|---|---|---|
| What was done, never why | Southampton | A reason for each choice, cited where it rests on others' work; Find sources finds the methods literature |
| A how-to guide to a standard method | USC | Say how you applied it; explain mechanics only for an unusual method |
| A review of other people's methods | Southampton | Cite others only in support of your decisions |
| Background or interpretation | Westminster, USC | Background in the introduction, interpretation in the discussion |
| Problems left out, limitations hidden | USC, Southampton | Say what went wrong and how you handled it |
| Future tense left from the proposal | Capella | The past tense for everything done |
| Two strands, never combined | O'Cathain et al. | Name the design and show the integration |
How do I write the methodology chapter, step by step?
- Read the handbook for what the chapter must contain. Check your paper reads those requirements into a checklist, free, each rule shown with the sentence it came from.
- List every decision the research involved, from the log Gastaldo (2015) advises keeping from the start.
- Beside each, write the reason, the rejected alternative and the supporting source. Find sources looks for that support among about 300 million published works, searching a topic or the exact claim.
- Build each methods book and article into a reference from its ISBN or DOI in Cite a source.
- Draft in your department's order, in the past tense.
- Write the ethics from your approval documents and the limitations from what went wrong.
- Put instruments, interview guides and approval letters in appendices.
- Check the list in Verify references, then the whole draft in References from a file, before your supervisor sees it.
How EdCitation helps with a methodology chapter
EdCitation is the best tool for a methodology chapter's sources, because every reference it gives is looked up in the publisher's record and never written, which no chatbot can promise. Here the citations are the evidence: USC asks you to cite whatever informed each choice of method, so an invented reference undermines the chapter's own argument.
We ran Find sources on 26 September 2026 for "sample size saturation qualitative interviews", sorted by citations. It found 137,970 works, led by Malterud, Siersma and Guassora's article on information power in Qualitative Health Research, cited 12,490 times, and Hennink and Kaiser's review of empirical tests of saturation in Social Science & Medicine, cited 6,225 times.
Cite a source built the first from its DOI. The results list showed 2015; the entry, from the publisher's record, has 2016, the year of the journal issue:
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
The title comes in sentence case, as APA 7 asks. From the ISBN 9781071817940 it built:
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
The record names no edition; the publisher's page lists the ISBN as the sixth, so add "(6th ed.)" after the title. Once the edition is in, Verify references compares the year with that edition's.
Verify references takes the list or the whole draft, free, with no account. Each entry returns as verified, doubtful ("check this") or not found, with any retraction flagged; where an index did not answer, it says could not check, never not found. References from a file stores each uploaded draft in My papers, and each new run shows what changed; a free account gets three runs a month, and Pro ($8 a month) lifts the limit. On Max ($24 a month, see pricing), Theoretics QA judges the draft against the handbook's instructions, quoting it. None of these tools writes a sentence of your methodology or can promise a mark.
Quick questions
What is the difference between methodology and methods?
Methods are the techniques that gather and analyse data, such as interviews. Methodology is the reasoning that ties them to the research question.
Does a methodology chapter need a research philosophy section?
Only if your department expects one. Southampton includes it only where the discipline's conventions call for it, and Westminster notes that not every supervisor asks.
What tense is a methodology chapter written in?
The past tense for what was done, the present for justifications that still hold. A proposal's "participants will be recruited" becomes "participants were recruited" in the dissertation.
Can I use "I" in a methodology chapter?
It depends on the discipline. Hull notes that the sciences resist the first person more than the humanities; Westminster says ask your supervisor.
Can a tool check my methodology chapter?
Its sources and its fit to the brief, yes. EdCitation's Verify references checks every reference free, Check your paper lists the handbook's requirements, and Theoretics QA (Max) judges the draft against them, rewriting nothing.
References
- Capella University. (2016, July 8). What verb tense should I use in Chapter 3? Capella FAQs. https://capella.libanswers.com/doctoralsupport/faq/132981
- EQUATOR Network. (n.d.). Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. https://www.equator-network.org/
- Gastaldo, D. (2015). Elements for writing up a qualitative methodology chapter in a doctoral dissertation [PDF]. Centre for Critical Qualitative Health Research, University of Toronto. https://ccqhr.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Elements-for-a-qualitative-methodology-chapter-2015_final_0.pdf
- Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
- O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
- Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
- University of Hull Library. (2026a, August 17). Literature-based projects. Dissertations & projects. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/dissertations/literaturebased
- University of Hull Library. (2026b, August 17). Tenses. Dissertations & projects. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/dissertations/tenses
- University of Hull Library. (2026c, August 17). Voice. Dissertations & projects. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/dissertations/voice
- University of Queensland. (n.d.). Structuring your thesis. my.UQ. https://my.uq.edu.au/information-and-services/higher-degree-research/hdr-candidature-support/how-write-thesis/structuring-your-thesis
- University of Southampton Library. (2026, June 18). Methodology. Writing the Dissertation. https://library.soton.ac.uk/writing_the_dissertation/methodology
- University of Southern California Libraries. (2026, September 8). 6. The methodology. Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper. https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/methodology
- University of Westminster Library. (2025a, January 2). Introduction & philosophy. Dissertations 4: Methodology. https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations/introduction
- University of Westminster Library. (2025b, January 2). Methodology. Dissertations 4: Methodology. https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations/methodology
- University of Westminster Library. (2025c, January 2). Start. Dissertations 4: Methodology. https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations/start
- University of Westminster Library. (2025d, January 2). Structure. Dissertations 4: Methodology. https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations/structure