When you\u2019re in the midst of recruiting participants, juggling interview schedules or scouring databases for papers, it can feel like you will never forget the steps you took to get from A to B (and then to C and E and H). However, you\u2019d be amazed at how quickly these details can vanish if you haven\u2019t been taking careful notes. As such, we recommend starting to write your methodology section almost in real-time \u2013 as you\u2019re doing the actual study. Yes, you\u2019ll need to edit it later, but getting those key facts down while they\u2019re fresh in your mind can save you a whole host of hair-pulling further down the road. Additionally, since the method can be straightforward to write, this is a great way to combat empty page syndrome. Yes, you\u2019ve still got some of the longer sections to write, but you\u2019ve made a start, and that\u2019s always a good feeling.<\/p>\n In their guidance for authors, journals often include a list of subheadings that they expect to see in a method section. This can be helpful, as the headings make it clear exactly what you need to include and what you can leave out. If you\u2019re writing up a thesis, check with your supervisor or in your institution\u2019s handbook to see if they also suggest subheadings. If they do, use them. Start by writing each subheading into a Word document, then make bullet points of all the relevant info for each one. You can shape those points into paragraphs in the next step.<\/p>\n Traditionally, the point of the method section is to give your readers enough information to replicate the study if they want to. This idea is more suitable for quantitative experiments \u2013 where you have a certain amount of control over the various variables \u2013 than qualitative research, which is led by participants and their stories. However, the principle still applies. Following the suggested subheadings, as per the point above, should help with this.<\/p>\n You need to tell the story of what you did and how you did it. How did you contact and recruit participants? Where did you conduct your interviews? How did you record them? Which methodology did you use to analyse your data? Did you use any software to help you? Who gave you ethics clearance? All these questions will need to be answered. And, importantly, they should be answered using as few words as possible. This section is about presenting the facts, not flowery language. If you\u2019re writing for a peer-reviewed paper, you\u2019re likely to have quite a tight word count. If your method section is concise as possible, this frees up more words for your findings.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re writing up a qualitative study, as most PGPR clients are, you need to think carefully about how much information you\u2019re going to provide about your participants. Demographic details about the participants which have a bearing on the research question need to be provided, but participants\u2019 identities must be protected. This information will often be presented in a table. Let\u2019s say you\u2019re writing up a study about what it\u2019s like to give birth to your first child. Your table might include participants\u2019 pseudonyms\/ID numbers, their age, the age of their child and their ethnicity. You might choose to leave out where they live and their occupation. However, if your study is about young working mothers, occupation is more important, so you would include that, but perhaps leave out other details. Always check your consent form to be sure you\u2019re not conveying any information that participants haven\u2019t given you permission to share.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, there are still quite a few reviewers and examiners out there who don\u2019t understand or trust qualitative methods. As such, you need to ensure that your justification for using the methodology you\u2019ve picked is ironclad. You may only need a sentence or two, but do include some lines to explain why qualitative methods are the perfect fit for your study, even if it seems really obvious to you!<\/p>\n Research is unpredictable. Things go wrong, and that\u2019s fine. You might not have been able to recruit as many participants as you\u2019d hoped. Some interviews might not have recorded perfectly. You might be new to qualitative methods and have struggled with analysis. None of these are reasons to beat yourself up; we\u2019re all learning, all the time. If things have gone less than brilliantly, state that plainly in this section. You can then go on to talk about the implications of those hiccups and what you might do next time in your limitations section, all whilst reminding yourself that even the most esteemed professors run into difficulties at times. You\u2019ve still completed your study and that is brilliant.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re struggling with your method section \u2013 or any other area of your write-up \u2013 just get in touch with us via the box below. We\u2019re a friendly team of qualitative and mixed methods experts who can help you with feedback, proofreading and word reduction on this and any other section of your thesis or paper.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"http:\/\/postgradproofreader.co.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/marije-woudsma-MJ4nZ1mNfTc-unsplash-663x1024.jpg\")
\n
\n
![\"A](\"http:\/\/postgradproofreader.co.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/kelly-sikkema-VlN7cJMLofg-unsplash-683x1024.jpg\")
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/postgradproofreader.co.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/john-salvino-bqGBbLq_yfc-unsplash-683x1024.jpg\")
\n
\n