The three most common methodology chapter mistakes, and how to fix them [with video at the end]

What if I told you that your methodology chapter could be silently costing you vital marks? Every year, I see students lose points in this chapter for the same, entirely avoidable reasons. Even when the topic is strong, the analysis is solid, and the hard work has been done, the methodology chapter often lets them down. Many students think their methodology is “fine,” but if it’s generic, underdeveloped, or missing the explanations examiners look for, they are handing away marks they could easily keep.

In my recent video, I walk through three of the most common and costly methodology‑chapter mistakes, which are all fixable with clear, specific adjustments. Below is a summary of the key issues, but if you want deeper explanations and real examples from student work, I recommend watching the full video as I show examples that illustrate each mistake and how to fix them.

Mistake 1: A Method choice section that could belong to any dissertation

This is a mistake I see in almost every draft: a method choice section that simply states, for example, “qualitative research was used,” followed by a short paragraph or a generic table copied from a research methods textbook. While such tables describe strengths and weaknesses, they do not explain your methodological choices. Your dissertation is not about research in general, but about your research: what you did, how you did it, and why.

A strong explanation must link directly to the specifics of your study. Yes, you can use characteristics such as research purpose, data type, sample size or population geographical distribution, but you should highlight only the few that actually drove your decision. If you selected qualitative research, it should be because specific qualitative strengths make it suitable for your study, or because quantitative methods had limitations that made them unsuitable.

In the video, I show a strong student example where the researcher clearly identifies her paradigm, reasoning, and methodological approach all at once, then clearly isolates the three reasons behind her methodological choices. This makes the section not only specific and persuasive, but also strongly grounded in context. And you can tell immediately the topic was organisational improvisation and what dimensions were being explored.

This is what well‑written methodology looks like: explain what you did, how, and why.

Mistake 2: Failing to explain the design of the data collection instrument

The second mistake - even top students make it - is giving very little detail about how the data collection instrument was designed. Students often just state that the interview guide or questionnaire can be found in the appendix. While this is acceptable, it cannot replace a thorough explanation of the questions asked and the reasons behind them.

After all, the quality of your data depends on how well your instrument was designed. If you ask the wrong questions, or ask the right questions in the wrong way, the data suffers, and so does the dissertation.

I share two contrasting examples in the video. The weaker one identifies the theoretical areas considered (for example, from the theory of planned behaviour) but gives no indication of what questions were asked to capture each area. The stronger example, a quantitative study, explains in detail how each concept was measured, which scales were used, what adaptations were made, and why. After reading it, you know exactly what the student asked, how she asked it, and the reasoning behind her choices.

Again, methodology is all about what you’ve done, how, and why.

Mistake 3: Describing data analysis generically

The third mistake is explaining the data analysis process in very generic terms. Students often describe a standard framework, such as Braun and Clarke’s six phases, but provide no indication of how they interpreted or applied those steps in practice.

Examiners want to know:

✔️ What was considered a theme and what wasn’t?

✔️ How were themes created or merged?

✔️ What challenges emerged and how were they handled?

You don’t need to explain every tiny detail, but you do need illustrative examples showing how you applied the process to your own data.

In the video, I compare two examples. The first could belong to any qualitative study. The second is rich with detail, explains interpretive “mental rules,” discusses challenges such as subjectivity, and even justifies deviations from standard procedure. Importantly, you can tell exactly what the dissertation is about because the explanation is rooted in context.

If your methodology chapter reads like a textbook, change it. It must come from your brain in relation to your study.

Want More Help?

If you found these insights helpful, an extended version of this video featuring additional examples is available inside the Virtual Tutor resource. The Virtual Tutor provides in-depth guidance through every stage of the dissertation process, including how to write a strong and high‑impact methodology chapter. And if you’d like personalised guidance, I also offer one‑to‑one supervision, where we work together to help you achieve the standard you’re aiming for. Feel free to reach out by dropping me an email - I’d be happy to support you.