Research Methodology Examples

Most students can describe their methodology. Far fewer can defend it, and that’s where the marks are. A chapter that says what you did without saying why reads like a lab notebook, however sound the study behind it may be.

Having coached 10,000+ students, we’ve found that seeing real-world examples teaches this faster than any checklist. So here I’ll walk you through extracts from three real Master’s theses, one quantitative, one qualitative and one mixed methods, annotated with our comments. Each one is a complete, openly licensed thesis you can download and read in full. We’ve added paragraph breaks to the longer extracts to make them easier to read; the wording is exactly as submitted.

---

Methodology example 1: Quantitative

In an experiment, the methodology has one big job: to convince the reader that the only thing that differed between groups was the thing being tested. This Master’s thesis in marketing compared how shoppers responded to a traditional luxury store and a “phygital” one, a physical store with digital product displays. Participants saw a store the author designed from scratch, and this is how the chapter describes building it.

This section is doing serious work. Let’s break down each move it makes.

The move	Where it happens
Gives each choice its reason in the same sentence	“gender-neutral… to avoid any effects of gender bias”; “no brand logos to avoid any biasing effects of brand associations”. The reader never has to hunt for why.
Ties every reason to one logic	Each choice removes something that could explain the results other than store type. That’s the logic of a controlled experiment, applied to a room.
Borrows evidence for the choices that need it	Color and layout aren’t judgment calls here: “Previous research has shown that color impacts store perception… (Baek et al., 2018)”, and Alawadhi and Yoon (2016) on symmetrical layouts.
Gets an outside check	“Two professional interior designers validated the luxurious appearance of the store.” The author doesn’t simply assert the store looks luxurious.

The first move is the one to copy. Put the reason in the same sentence as the choice. A justification that sits three paragraphs away from the decision it defends is one your examiner may never connect to it. It’s clear in your mind, of course, but you have to make it clear in theirs too.

Methodology example 2: Qualitative

The feedback we see so many students receive is “justify your choices”. So here’s a qualitative example shown twice. It comes from a Master’s thesis in development sociology, based on 60 interviews with smallholder farmers in Malawi, run with a local partner organization, Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC). The section explains who was interviewed.

The first version is what most drafts look like. I produced it by deleting the reasons from the real section. Nothing was added.

Two clear sentences, and an examiner reading them has to take both choices on trust. Why women? Why two seasons? Now the section as it was submitted, with clear justification for each choice.

The description was 26 words; the justification was everything else. Here’s what those extra words do:

The move	Where it happens
Ties the sample to the instrument	“because of the interview guide’s focus on decision-making about food sourcing”. Who you interview follows from what you need to ask.
Backs the claim, then draws the inference out loud	“(Bezner Kerr, 2005). For this reason, we felt women would be knowledgeable”. The source supports a fact; the next sentence says what the fact means for the study.
Adds a data-quality reason	“the woman might be more likely to honestly answer questions about division of labor”. Not just who knows, but who will answer honestly.
Admits a weakness, and says who judged it acceptable	“While farmers had adopted practices more recently than in previous studies, SFHC staff judged that two growing seasons was enough time”.

That last move is worth stealing. Naming the weakness yourself, along with whoever judged it acceptable, takes the objection away from your examiner before they raise it. As we’ve harped on about in many other posts, discussing your study’s limitations transparently is critically important.

When you can’t think of a reason for a choice, and everyone gets stuck here, ask yourself these five questions:

• Question: What does your research question need from this choice?
• Access: Which data or participants could you actually reach?
• Participants: What about the people you’re studying shapes this?
• Constraints: What did time, money or ethics rule out?
• Literature: What do methodologists or similar studies recommend? Cite them.

Most choices will give you an answer to at least two, and those answers are your justification.

Madsen’s thesis justifies its analysis just as carefully. The section below describes how two coders worked through the interview transcripts. Watch for the framework that didn’t survive contact with the data.

Three things to notice. It gives the purpose of each rigor step, not just the step: calibration happened “in order to ensure that both team members were applying codes to the same types of data”. It names its coding methods, descriptive and values coding among them, and says why interpretation waited.

And it admits that the framework it brought from the literature “inaccurately represented farmers’ stories”, then shows how the replacement was built and tested. If your framework changed during analysis, say so: examiners know plans change, and what they penalize is a change they discover for themselves.

---

Methodology example 3: Mixed methods

A mixed-methods chapter has two things to justify: why mix methods at all, and why each strand looks the way it does. This Master’s thesis in environmental science studied farming communities in Nepal, combining a questionnaire, short-answer questions and field observation with 41 participants. First, the case for mixing.

One section, eight sources cited, three distinct moves. Let’s unpack each of them:

The move	Where it happens
Defines the term before defending it	“Mixed Methodology Research (MMR) involves the collection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data within one research study”, with two sources.
States when the approach fits	“When addressing interdisciplinary research questions, or research which involves many stakeholders”. A condition the study then has to meet.
Gives two separate advantages, each attributed	Uncovering “findings that might not have been apparent with the use of a singular method”, and amplifying “the positive traits of both”, each credited to named methodologists.

On its own, this section argues for mixed methods in general. The passage just before it in the thesis does the study-specific work, describing research questions that “encompass interdisciplinary concepts and embrace participatory methods”. You need both halves: the general case for the approach, and the evidence that your study is the kind it suits.

The second extract (below) shows a plan that changed. Hughes set out to run long interviews, piloted the plan, and changed course. SESR, in the last sentence, is social-ecological systems resilience, the thesis’s central concept.

Notice how it admits the original plan, names the evidence that changed it (the pilots), and justifies the replacement by the participants’ time rather than the researcher’s convenience. Then it claims the change cost nothing essential. That last claim is the one an examiner will probe, since short answers trade depth for coverage. If you make a change like this, say what it cost you as well as what it saved.

---

How to test your own draft

Reading strong examples is useful, but the real question is whether your own chapter does the same. This quick check shows whether a section justifies its choices or only describes them. It takes about two minutes, one section of your methodology, and no software:

1. Take one section, start to finish. Sampling is a good place to start.
2. Highlight every sentence or clause that says why: a reason, a constraint, a source, a trade-off.
3. Look at what’s left unhighlighted.

In the qualitative example above, 134 of the section’s 160 words were reasons. Yours doesn’t need to match that, but a section with nothing highlighted is a description, and that’s the section your examiner will question first.

The other tell takes ten seconds: look at where your highlights sit. If they’re clustered in one “justification” paragraph at the end, move each reason next to the choice it explains.

Where to find more methodology examples

The examples on this page are excerpts. To see a whole chapter, open the full thesis: each one is linked under its extract. At Master’s level, the methodology is often Chapter 2 or Chapter 3, and in all three theses here it’s the chapter that comes right before the results.

• Dissertation and thesis examples. Our collection of complete, openly licensed dissertations and theses across twelve disciplines, including all three quoted here. Pick one in your field and read its methodology chapter alongside your own.
• The Grad Coach Research Toolkit. Our free collection of templates and resources, including the methodology chapter template linked above.
• CORE. A search engine for open access research gathered from university repositories worldwide, including a large number of full theses.
• Your own university’s repository. Requirements vary between programs more than students expect, so a methodology chapter your own department accepted is the most useful benchmark there is. Ask your advisor for two theses they rated.

When you open one, don’t read the methodology end to end. Pick one section and run the two-minute test above on it. You’ll quickly notice the key patterns in successful research methodology chapters.

Still have questions?

Are these research methodology examples real?

Yes. All three are extracts from complete Master’s theses accepted at Cornell University: one quantitative (marketing), one qualitative (development sociology) and one mixed methods (environmental science). Each is openly licensed, and each extract links to the full thesis so you can read it in context.

Can I copy a methodology from an example?

No, and you wouldn’t want to. Every methodology has to fit its own research question, data and constraints, so borrowed choices tend to misalign with the rest of a study. Use real examples to see how choices are justified, then make and justify your own.

How long should a methodology chapter be?

There’s no fixed length. Start with your dissertation handbook, which will often specify the expected word count for each chapter. Beyond that, the best benchmark is two or three recent theses from your own department, because expectations vary widely between programs and between quantitative and qualitative work. Wherever you land, spend the words on justifying choices rather than defining textbook terms.

Should limitations go in the methodology chapter?

Often, yes. Many methodology chapters close with a limitations section, and some programs ask for limitations in the final chapter instead, or in both places. Check your handbook, and if it’s silent, discussing each limitation alongside the choice that caused it is a safe default.

What’s the difference between methodology and methods?

These terms are used fairly loosely in many textbooks. Broadly speaking, though, your methods are the specific tools you used, such as a survey, interviews or a statistical test. Your methodology is the reasoning behind them: why that approach, that sample and those tools suit your research question. A methodology chapter covers both, and the reasoning is where the marks are.

Is the methodology chapter template free?

Yes. Our methodology chapter template is free to download and use, and it follows the standard section order of a methodology chapter.

Can’t find your answer here? Ask a Grad Coach directly – the initial chat is free.

Speak with a friendly coach →