Methodology Decisions in Research Design
Three slides carry the whole of this decision: four inputs, two process requirements, three capability tests and one instruction that cancels itself. Here is how to work with them, and where the material stops.
The four inputs to the decision
The supplied teaching source gives this decision three consecutive slides, numbered by the source itself. The first opens with the principle that governs every later choice and then names what the decision is developed from.
Note the verbs. Focusing, considering, assessing, considering — the source describes an activity for each input rather than a test with an outcome. What follows in the middle column of the table below is the commitment each input makes if you take it seriously; the source states the input, not the commitment.
THE FOUR INPUTS AND WHAT EACH ONE SETTLES
| Input, as the source states it | What it settles | What the source does not supply |
|---|---|---|
| Focusing on the aims of the research | Whether the project is aiming to describe, explain, evaluate, compare or change something — which narrows the methodology before anything else does | No taxonomy of aims and no test for whether an aim is well formed |
| Considering the research question or statement | The form of answer that would count as an answer, and therefore the kind of evidence needed | No guidance on question types, and elsewhere the week assumes every project has a hypothesis |
| Assessing the type of data required | Whether you need numbers, words, documents or observed behaviour, which constrains both methodology and instrument | No data typology on this slide. The wider material treats data types separately |
| Considering location and accessibility of data | Whether the evidence is reachable at all — the input most likely to kill a design outright | No access-negotiation guidance, no permissions process, no fallback when access is refused |
Column one is the source. Columns two and three are synthesis, offered so the four inputs can be used as a working sequence.
The slide closes on pace, and the pacing statement matters because it is contradicted two slides later.
Two process requirements and three capability tests
The second slide sets a floor under the decision — you have to know something about the field of methodologies before choosing within it — and then states three properties the chosen methodology must have.
What the process must include
- "some study of research methodology possibilities"
- "some knowledge of the different research methodologies."
- Both are hedged with "some". No depth, reading list or completion test is attached to either.
- The slide's own lead-in contains a grammatical error in the supplied text — "The decision-making process needs to be include:" — which is worth knowing if you are quoting it.
What the methodology must be capable of
- "supporting the research"
- "accomplishing the aim of the research and"
- "can be completed during the study period."
- The third is the only hard constraint in the set, and it is the one the source leaves unquantified.
The first two capability tests are worth more than they look. "Supporting the research" and "accomplishing the aim" are different tests: a methodology can be entirely serviceable for gathering evidence and still not deliver the aim, which is the usual failure in a project-delivery setting where the aim is a decision and the evidence is a description.
Four inputs or two key issues — the week says both
The second slide closes with a sentence that quietly demotes half of the previous slide's list.
The key issues in determining the appropriate methodology are the focus and the aim of the research.
In practice, treat the four inputs as the working list and the two key issues as an emphasis rather than a replacement. That is a reading, not a resolution — the material provides no basis for preferring one list, and an honest methodology chapter says which criteria it actually applied.
Decide quickly, but take your time
The third slide opens with an instruction that cancels itself inside a single sentence pair.
There is no tie-breaker. Speed and care are each asserted twice, no deadline is given, and the instruction sits against the earlier statement that a beginner researcher should expect the process to be slower. One slide normalises slowness; the next penalises it.
When the speed-versus-care conflict actually bites
The catalogue you are meant to choose from is not in this week
The third slide ends by naming the options, and immediately sends you away for them.
Two further cautions attach to that one-line list. The word "included" signals a non-exhaustive set, so you are told neither how many methodologies exist nor whether these seven are all of the ones on offer. And five slides later the week introduces a different, ten-item list of data-gathering techniques with no statement of how the two lists relate — whether they are alternative names, a hierarchy, or overlapping sets. Two catalogues, presented close together, never reconciled. The ten-item list is set out on The Method Catalogue.
Justifying the choice, with no criteria supplied
"You need to justify the choice of research methodology" is stated as a requirement. No criteria, structure, length or worked example of an acceptable justification appears anywhere in the week. What follows is assembled from the week's own statements and is offered as synthesis, not as the source's procedure.
A justification built only from criteria the week states
State the aim, then the question
Both are named as inputs, and aim is one of the two key issues. Open with them so every later sentence has something to be appropriate to.
Name the type of data the question requires
The third input. Say what evidence would answer the question, and say it before you name a methodology, so the methodology reads as a consequence rather than a preference.
Show the data is reachable
The fourth input is location and accessibility. Name the site, the archive or the population, and state what access you have or are seeking. This is the paragraph that most often has to be written twice.
Name the methodology and cite where you took it from
The week defers its own catalogue, so your definition of the methodology will come from a text you cite. Cite it explicitly rather than describing the methodology in your own words as though it were common knowledge.
Apply the three capability tests
State how the methodology supports the research, how it accomplishes the aim, and how it fits inside the study period. The third needs a duration and a rough sequence, not a promise.
Record what you rejected and why
Not asked for by the source. It is the fastest way to demonstrate that a choice was made rather than defaulted to, and it usually answers a supervisor's or reviewer's first question before it is put.
What to carry forward
- Use the four inputs as the working list: aim, question, type of data required, and location and accessibility of data.
- Treat "focus" as an undefined term. Do not use it in your own write-up without a definition you can cite.
- Put a duration on the study period yourself. The completion requirement is real and the material never quantifies it.
- The seven methodologies are named and not taught here. Take their definitions from the earlier topic's material or from a cited text.
- Write the justification against the criteria the source does give, and record what you rejected — the source asks for the justification and never says what one looks like.
Frequently asked questions
What actually drives the methodology decision in this material?
Two answers are given one slide apart. The first names four inputs: the aims, the research question or statement, the type of data required, and the location and accessibility of data. The second says the key issues are the focus and the aim. The material never reconciles them, so state in your own write-up which criteria you applied.
What does "focus" mean here?
The material does not say. It is raised to one of the two key issues in determining the appropriate methodology, is never defined, is never distinguished from aim, and never appears again in the week. Treat it as an undefined term and use a definition from a text you can cite if you need the word.
How long should choosing a methodology take?
The source gives no duration. It says some researchers decide relatively quickly, that beginners should expect the process to be slower, and then instructs the reader to decide as quickly as possible while also taking time to get it right. No deadline, no tie-breaker and no week count appear anywhere.
What must the chosen methodology be capable of?
Three things, stated as capability tests: supporting the research, accomplishing the aim of the research, and being completable during the study period. The third is a hard requirement, and the length of the study period is never stated in the material, so you have to supply it from your own programme or contract.
How do I justify my methodology if the source gives no criteria?
Build the justification from the criteria the source does state elsewhere — aim, question, data type required, accessibility, and the three capability tests — and cite an external methods text for the definition of the methodology itself. The requirement to justify is explicit in the material; the standard for a justification is not given, so make your reasoning visible rather than assumed.
Which methodologies can I choose from?
The week names seven — historical, comparative, descriptive, correlation, experimental, evaluation and action — and defers all description of them to an earlier topic. The wording "included" also signals the list is not exhaustive, so you are told neither what each one is nor whether these are all the options.
References and source attribution
- O'Leary, Z. 2010, The essential guide to doing your research project, Sage Publications. (The only work listed by the week's slide deck.)
- Clarke, R. J. 2005, Research methods and methodologies. (The source adapted for the methodologies table in the earlier topic to which this week defers.)
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing.
- Veal, A. J. 2005, Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach, Longman.
- The supplied teaching source: consolidated weekly slide material and study notes on research design, used here as the basis for every statement attributed to "the source", "the week" or "the material".
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Draft a methodology justification for my project using only the criteria this material states.
- My study period is fixed — help me test whether my proposed methodology can be completed inside it.
- Which of the four inputs to the methodology decision is weakest in my current plan?
- Compare the seven methodologies named in this week using the library's pages on each.
- My aim and my research question do not quite match. Show me where they diverge.