The Five Basic Elements of a Research Project
Get these five straight and a research plan largely designs itself. Get them tangled — most often by choosing an instrument before a strategy — and no quantity of data will rescue the study.
The five elements as the source states them
The supplied teaching source gives the elements in a two-column table: the element, and a one-line definition. The definitions are terse, and two of them contain the structural claim that makes the set coherent.
THE FIVE BASIC ELEMENTS, AS DEFINED IN THE SUPPLIED SOURCE
| Element | Source definition |
|---|---|
| Epistemology | The theory of knowing; embedded in the theoretical perspective and thus in the methodology. |
| Methodology | The strategy used to carry out the study; the design of the study. |
| Methods | The way in which the data to be used in the study is gathered. |
| Ontology | Assumptions about the nature of being: embedded in the theoretical perspective and thus in the methodology. |
| Theoretical perspective | The philosophical framework informing the methodology. |
Reproduced from the supplied teaching source. The order is the source's; it is alphabetical rather than logical, which is part of why the set is so often misread.
The order they actually sit in
Read alphabetically, the table looks like a glossary. Read structurally, it is a chain of dependency, and the source states the chain elsewhere: epistemological and ontological assumptions are embedded in the theoretical perspective deployed in the research, and this is embedded in the research methodology used in the study.
- Ontological and epistemological assumptions
- Theoretical perspective
- Methodology
- Methods
- Data as evidence
The same dependency is what the methodological pyramid draws as three tiers. The five-element table and the pyramid are two views of one argument: philosophy underneath, strategy in the middle, instruments on top.
The practical consequence is directional. Changing a method is cheap. Changing a methodology means revisiting whether the new design still fits the perspective. Changing your ontological position invalidates everything above it, which is why it is worth an hour early rather than a rewrite late.
Where the source defines two of them a second time
A few pages after the five-element table, the same teaching material gives a second, shorter table covering three terms. It is not a restatement. Two of the definitions are materially different, and the scope of a third has quietly widened.
THE SAME TERMS, DEFINED TWICE IN THE SAME SUPPLIED SOURCE
| Term | First table (five elements) | Second table (three terms) |
|---|---|---|
| Ontology | Assumptions about the nature of being: embedded in the theoretical perspective and thus in the methodology. | Ways of looking at work. Associated terms: paradigm, philosophy. |
| Epistemology | The theory of knowing; embedded in the theoretical perspective and thus in the methodology. | Relationship between researcher and topic being researched. |
| Methods / Method | The way in which the data to be used in the study is gathered. | Ways of gathering and analysing data. Associated term: techniques. |
The second table also omits methodology and theoretical perspective altogether, and uses the singular “method”.
Neither gloss is disposable. The first table's wording is the one that supports the nested structure; the second table's wording is closer to how the terms get used in conversation, and its associated terms — paradigm, philosophy, techniques — tell you what other words you will meet standing in for the same ideas. The working glossary keeps both on record.
What each element actually decides
Definitions do not tell you what an element is for. Each one settles a different question, and settling them in the wrong order is the most common structural fault in a first research proposal.
The decision each element settles
Ontology
Settles what kind of thing you are studying: an entity that exists independently of the accounts people give of it, or something constituted by those accounts. It decides whether two people describing the same event differently is an error to resolve or data to analyse. Full treatment on the ontology page.
Epistemology
Settles how knowledge about that thing can be created, and what will count as justification. The source ties it directly to obligation: you must be able to explain and justify the methodology and methods you used. Full treatment on the epistemology page.
Theoretical perspective
Settles the philosophical framework informing the methodology. This is the element most often absent from a practitioner's plan, because it is the only one with no visible deliverable attached to it. Its absence is what allows a study's assumptions and its design to drift apart.
Methodology
Settles the strategy for the whole study — the design, not the tools. If you cannot name a methodology without naming an instrument, you have not chosen one yet. See the overview of research methodologies the source defines.
Methods
Settles how the data will be gathered. Methods are the most visible element and the most substitutable: two competent studies can share methods and share nothing else. See data collection methods.
A worked pass through the five elements
Take a question a delivery organisation might genuinely have: the business runs lessons-learned reviews at the close of every project, and almost nothing from them appears in the next project's plan. Why not?
Working the five elements in order
Ontology — what kind of thing is “use of lessons learned”?
Is it a property the organisation has, countable from documents whether or not anyone talks about it? Or is it a practice constituted by what people do and say? Choosing the second means that when two managers describe the same review differently, both accounts are data rather than one being wrong.
Epistemology — how will knowledge of it be created?
If the phenomenon lives in practice and accounts of practice, then knowledge here is created by collecting how practitioners explain their own behaviour. That commitment rules out designs that only count artefacts, and it must be stated rather than assumed.
Theoretical perspective — which framework informs the design?
An interpretive framing, in the source's terms: people provide their own accounts or explanations of situations and behaviours. Naming it forces the rest of the design to be consistent with it.
Methodology — what is the strategy for the whole study?
A descriptive methodology, as the source defines it: it relies on observations recorded so they can be analysed subsequently, it depends on human responses and observation, and the source classes it as qualitative. The source also warns that it can be distorted by selective observation and biased interviews, which tells you what your safeguards have to address.
Methods — how will the data be gathered?
Interviews with the people who ran and attended the reviews, and the review documents themselves. Note that these are now consequences of four earlier decisions, not the starting point.
Read the sequence backwards and you can see how the usual failure happens. Somebody proposes interviews, the interviews imply a qualitative design, the design implies an interpretive perspective — and none of those implications were ever examined, so nothing in the study can be defended when a sponsor pushes on it.
Diagnosing a plan that does not hang together
Symptom and where to look
Vocabulary traps in this five-word set
- Methodology and methods used as synonyms. Methodology is the strategy for the study; methods are how data is gathered. A sentence such as “our methodology was interviews” names no strategy at all.
- The singular “method” of the second table quietly extends to analysis, while the plural “methods” of the first table stops at gathering. If your write-up depends on that boundary, say which you mean.
- Ontology and epistemology used interchangeably. They answer different questions, and treating them as one word is how a study ends up asserting a position it never argued.
- Paradigm and philosophy offered as associated terms for ontology in the second table. Useful for recognising the words in other people's writing; risky if you conclude that all three are the same thing.
- Theoretical perspective dropped altogether. It has no deliverable, so it disappears first — and it is the element that keeps the other four consistent.
A pre-flight check on the five elements
Answer all five before you start collecting anything
- You can state your ontological position in one sentence, in your own words.
- You can say how knowledge will be created in this study, and what will justify the claim you end up making.
- You can name the theoretical perspective and show that your methodology follows from it.
- Your methodology is a strategy for the whole study and is defined by a citable work, not by a table you half-remember.
- Your methods follow from the methodology, and you can say what each one can and cannot show.
- You have stated which of the source's two definitions of epistemology and ontology you are using.
What to carry forward
- Five elements: epistemology, methodology, methods, ontology and theoretical perspective — nested, not parallel.
- The source repeats one clause deliberately: assumptions are embedded in the theoretical perspective and thus in the methodology.
- The supplied material defines ontology and epistemology two different ways. Present both, declare which you are using, and stay with it.
- Decide in order — ontology, epistemology, perspective, methodology, methods — and your instruments become consequences rather than starting points.
- The theoretical perspective is the element with no deliverable, which is why it goes missing and why its absence is expensive.
Frequently asked questions
What are the five basic elements of a research project?
Epistemology, methodology, methods, ontology and theoretical perspective. The supplied source lists them alphabetically with a one-line definition each, but the definitions themselves show that the elements are nested: ontological and epistemological assumptions sit inside the theoretical perspective, which sits inside the methodology.
What is the difference between methodology and methods?
Methodology is the strategy used to carry out the study — the design. Methods are the way the data to be used in the study is gathered. The distinction matters because two studies with identical methods can have entirely different designs, and it is the design that determines what the data can support.
Why does the source define epistemology twice?
The supplied material contains two tables. The first defines epistemology as the theory of knowing; the second defines it as the relationship between researcher and topic being researched. Both wordings are in the source, so this site presents both. When you write, state which sense you are using.
Which element should I decide first?
Ontology, then epistemology, then theoretical perspective, then methodology, then methods. Deciding in that order makes each later choice a consequence of an earlier one, which is what allows you to justify it. Deciding methods first inverts the dependency and leaves the rest of the study unable to explain itself.
Do I really need a theoretical perspective in a practitioner project?
The source treats it as one of the five elements and defines it as the philosophical framework informing the methodology. In practice it is the element that keeps the assumptions and the design aligned; skipping it is how a study ends up with a design that quietly contradicts its own stated position.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: master's-level teaching notes and slides introducing research methods, including the five-element table and the second, three-term table that redefines two of the same words.
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing. Chapter 1, p. 50 — the methodological pyramid, which draws the same dependency the five elements describe.
- Clarke, R. J. 2005, Research methods and methodologies, pp. 35–45 — the work the supplied source adapts for its methodology definitions, including the descriptive methodology used in the worked example.
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford. (Listed in the supplied source's reading list.)
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Walk my project research idea through the five elements in order.
- Is what I have written a methodology or just a list of methods?
- Which of the two source definitions of epistemology should I use in my methodology chapter?
- Show me the difference between the five-element table and the methodological pyramid.
- What goes wrong when a research plan has no stated theoretical perspective?