Methodology

You will write a methods section that lets a reader judge, and where appropriate repeat, exactly what you did and why.

Do this first

List every decision you made between your research question and your data: who or what you studied, how you selected it, how you collected it and how you analysed it. Beside each, write one clause on why. Any decision without a reason is a gap in your methods section.

Steps

0 of 6 steps done

Separate methodology from methods
Methods are the procedures you used; methodology is the reasoning that justifies them. Many theses need both: a short account of your approach and why it suits the question, then the concrete detail. Journal articles usually keep the justification brief.
Write for replication or for transparency
Experimental and quantitative work should give enough detail for another researcher to repeat it: materials, sample, procedure, measures and analysis, including software and versions. Qualitative, archival and theoretical work aims for transparency instead, so a reader can see how you reached your interpretations and judge their credibility.
Follow the order of the research
Use subheadings that match what happened, such as design, participants or materials, data collection, analysis and ethics. Give selection criteria, inclusion and exclusion rules, and the numbers at each stage (recruited, eligible, analysed).
Justify every choice a reader might question
One sentence of rationale per choice is usually enough: why this sample size, instrument, coding approach, archive or model specification. Cite established methods rather than describing them in full, and say precisely how you adapted them.
Make your analysis visible
For statistics, name the tests or models, the variables, how you handled missing data and which checks you ran. For qualitative work, name the approach (for example, reflexive thematic analysis), describe how codes became themes, and state your own position in relation to the data. For archival and theoretical work, explain how you selected sources or texts and the framework you read them through.
Report ethics and constraints plainly
State ethics approval, consent procedures or archival permissions where relevant, using your institution's required wording. Note known constraints of the design briefly here, and save the discussion of their consequences for the discussion section.

Templates

Methods section outline

Research design: [approach], chosen because [reason linked to the research question].
Participants or materials: [who or what, where, when]. Selected by [criteria]. [Number] included; [number] excluded because [reason].
Data collection: [instruments, interviews, experiments or archives], carried out [how, when and by whom].
Analysis: [tests, models, coding approach or interpretive framework], using [software and version]. [How missing data, outliers or disconfirming cases were handled.]
Rigour: [validity and reliability checks, sensitivity analyses, triangulation or reflexivity].
Ethics: Approved by [board], protocol [number]. [Consent or permissions.]

Justification sentences

[Method] was chosen because it allows [what it lets you see or test], which is needed to answer [question].
Following [Author, year], [procedure] was used, with one change: [adaptation], because [reason].
[Alternative method] was considered but not used because [reason].
Data were collected from [source] between [dates], yielding [number] [units].

Check your draft

0 of 8 done

Could a researcher in my field repeat this study, or follow my reasoning, from this section alone?
Have I explained why I chose this design, not only what it was?
Are selection criteria and the final numbers stated clearly?
Have I named my analytic method and the software, versions or coding procedures I used?
Are adaptations of established methods cited and described precisely?
Have I described data cleaning, exclusions and how I handled missing data?
Is ethics approval or permission to use materials reported where required?
Have I written in the past tense about what I did and kept results out of this section?

In your field

Methods are detailed enough for replication, often with protocols, equipment settings, code and data in supplementary files or repositories. Passive voice and past tense are traditional, though many journals now accept “we”.

Common mistakes

Describing what you did without saying why, so the reader cannot judge whether the design fits the question.
Omitting the numbers that show how the sample shrank from recruitment to analysis.
Writing “data were analysed thematically” without explaining how codes were developed into themes.
Reporting results or interpretation in the methods section.
Leaving out analysis decisions (exclusions, transformations, model changes) that a reader would need to reproduce your numbers.

Go further

Academic Phrasebank (University of Manchester): Describing methodsPhrases for explaining sampling, procedures, statistical analysis, reasons for choosing methods and methodological limitations.
EQUATOR NetworkA searchable library of reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, SRQR, COREQ, PRISMA and many more) that list what to report for each study type.
UNC Writing Center: Scientific ReportsClear guidance on methods, results and discussion sections in IMRaD format, including how much procedural detail to give.
Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide, by Virginia Braun and Victoria ClarkeA detailed guide to doing and reporting reflexive thematic analysis, including how to describe your process transparently.