Methodology in Qualitative Research: 7 things to understand before writing your PhD methodology chapter
Writing the methodology chapter of a qualitative PhD often feels heavier than it should.
Not because you are incapable or because you have chosen the wrong research design.
But because methodology in qualitative research is frequently presented as something technical, abstract, or philosophically intimidating.
In reality, a strong PhD methodology chapter is not about performance. It is about coherence.
Before you write, there are several things worth clarifying. They will not give you a shortcut. But they will give you structure, and structure reduces unnecessary doubt.
(1) Methodology is not the same as methods
One of the most persistent sources of confusion in qualitative research is the conflation of methodology and methods.
Methods are what you do:
Interviews
Focus groups
Observations
Document analysis
Thematic analysis
Coding procedures
Methodology is the logic that explains why those methods make sense.
It connects your research questions, assumptions about knowledge, understanding of the research problem, and the kind of claims you intend to make.
If your methodology chapter reads like a sequence of technical steps, something is missing.
A methodology chapter is not a procedural report. It is an explanation of how your research design allows you to address your questions in a coherent, defensible way.
When students struggle here, it is usually because they are trying to justify techniques rather than articulate reasoning. These are two different things.
(2) You are not being examined on philosophical purity
Qualitative research methodology inevitably involves reference to paradigms, ontology, and epistemology. But doctoral assessment is rarely about philosophical allegiance.
Examiners are typically asking:
Does this study make sense?
Are the research questions aligned with the design?
Are the claims proportionate to the data?
Has the researcher demonstrated judgement?
There is no prize for sounding theoretically ornate. There is value in clarity.
A methodology chapter demonstrates intellectual responsibility. It shows that you understand what your research can and cannot do. That is far more important than naming a paradigm with confidence.
(3) Paradigms are leanings, not identities
In qualitative research, paradigms are often introduced as if they were rigid categories: interpretivism, critical realism, constructivism, and so on.
In practice, paradigms are better understood as leanings.
They describe how you are already thinking about:
What counts as knowledge
What constitutes meaningful data
What kinds of explanations feel legitimate
For example:
A study exploring how first-generation university students make sense of belonging is likely leaning toward interpretive approaches. Meaning, context, and perspective are central.
A study examining institutional patterns of attrition across departments, identifying structural relationships and mechanisms, may lean more toward critical realist approaches.
Neither orientation is inherently superior. They simply imply different methodological logics.
When you recognise your leanings, you stop trying to force your study into a philosophical box and begin articulating what you are actually doing.
That is the point at which methodology becomes clearer.
(4) Your research questions do most of the work
When qualitative PhD students feel stuck choosing methods, the issue is often upstream.
The research questions are not yet doing enough work.
Consider the difference between:
“What factors predict doctoral attrition in social science disciplines?”
and
“How do doctoral students describe their experiences of academic belonging?”
Both are about PhD progression but they demand different forms of evidence.
Research questions signal:
Whether you require depth or comparison
Whether you are explaining or interpreting
Whether you are exploring processes, meanings, or relationships
If your methods feel arbitrary, revisit your questions. Often clarity begins there.
(5) Methods are tools, not permanent commitments
There is a persistent anxiety in doctoral research that once a method is chosen, it must remain unchanged.
This is rarely true.
Methodological reasoning often sharpens through:
Further reading
Pilot interviews
Early data engagement
Analytical reflection
Qualitative research design is iterative. Adjustments do not signal failure. They signal development.
What matters is not that your approach remained static, but that you can explain why you made particular decisions, what those decisions allowed you to see, and what they constrained,
Feasibility is also part of methodological judgement. A method that is theoretically appealing but practically unmanageable is not intellectually superior. Sound research design balances ambition with realism.
(6) Writing the methodology chapter is an act of clarification
Doing qualitative research is iterative and often messy.
Writing the methodology chapter is not.
When you write, you are constructing a clear, retrospective account of your research design.
This involves:
Explaining why your qualitative research methodology fits your questions
Articulating your paradigm leanings without overstatement
Describing your data collection methods in context
Outlining your analytic approach coherently
You do not need to narrate every doubt you experienced.
You need to demonstrate intellectual coherence.
Confidence in writing does not require certainty during the process. It requires clarity in hindsight.
(7) Intellectual confidence over certainty
Many anxieties around methodology stem from comparison and premature self-judgement.
It is common to assume others are more decisive and wonder whether your design is “correct.”
Doctoral research is not about certainty. It is about reasoned judgement and the confidence that grows from that.
Methodology in qualitative research is demanding because it requires alignment: between questions, assumptions, design, and interpretation.
But alignment develops through steady engagement, not sudden revelation.
If you are thinking carefully about your design, refining your questions, and remaining attentive to coherence, you are doing doctoral work properly.
If you’re ready to go deeper
If you would like structured, detailed guidance on methodology in qualitative research - including research design, data collection, analysis, and writing - my Methodology, Data Collection & Analysis PhD Survival Guide exists for that purpose.
It is not a shortcut. It is a framework.
It walks through:
Aligning research questions with methodological logic
Thinking about paradigms without philosophical overwhelm
Making defensible methodological decisions
Writing methodology and findings chapters clearly
It is designed for researchers who are willing to invest in doing this well.
You can explore it here.
If you are serious about finishing your PhD thoughtfully and coherently, you might also want to join my email list. Each week I write about research thinking, qualitative methodology, and doctoral judgement - without noise or urgency.
Methodology does not need to feel chaotic.
It requires structure, reflection, and intellectual confidence. And those can be developed.
