DAY 2 · INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY · ~20–30 MINUTES
Methodology Audit
HOW TO USE THIS
Start with Part 1 — select only the sections that are actually part of your methodology chapter. Part 2 will then show you a prompt for each one you've picked, and skip the rest.
Parts 3 to 5 apply more broadly and stay visible throughout, but work through them at whatever pace matches where you're at — a flag next to any part means it's fine to skip for now and come back to later.
Have a draft chapter?
Work from what you've actually written — this is a real audit, not a hypothetical one.
Still designing?
Answer as a plan. Writing "I chose this because..." before you've drafted the chapter is genuinely useful practice.
Doing two or three individual studies? Pick just one to focus on today — the same worksheet works for each, so you can come back and run it again for the others.
What are you working on today?
Worth noting down, especially if you're tracking more than one study — easy to lose which one this was about later.
Which sections actually apply?
Not every methodology chapter needs every one of these. Select only what's genuinely part of yours — Part 2 will follow your lead.
Justify what you've selected
For each section you picked above: not what you did, but why — and how it traces back to your research question.
Why this research question, why now?
State your research question — or questions, if you have more than one — in a line or two, and the problem or gap it responds to. The reason it needs answering, not just that it's interesting.
Why this design, and why this version of it?
Name it precisely. If it's a named tradition, which specific version — and why, over the alternatives? Worth a line, too, on how it connects to your assumptions about knowledge and reality.
Why did you select participants this way?
How you selected them, and why that fits your question — not just who they are.
Why this method of collecting data?
What made this the best fit for what you needed to find out — not just what was practical or familiar.
Why this way of analysing your data?
Name your actual approach — not "themes were identified."
Which criterion needs defending most?
Name which of the four (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) is most at risk in your project, and why — given your research question and design. You'll choose actual techniques in Part 3.
Why does your own position matter here?
Why your presence as researcher is actually relevant to this particular project — and where it's already shaped a decision you've made.
Why does your ethics approach fit this population?
Consent, confidentiality, and any particular vulnerabilities — and why your specific approach suits the people you're researching, not just that approval was granted.
Trustworthiness fit-check
Choose one or two techniques per criterion that genuinely fit your project — this is a toolkit to select from, not a checklist to complete in full.
Skip for now if you haven't reached this stage▸Not sure what one of these means? Tap to see plain-English definitions
Triangulation — comparing multiple data sources, methods, or researchers to see whether a pattern holds up from more than one angle.
Member checking — taking your interpretation back to participants to see if it resonates with their experience.
Peer debriefing — talking your analysis through with a colleague who'll push back on it.
Prolonged engagement — spending enough time in the field or with the data that you're not working from a shallow first impression.
Thick description — giving the reader enough rich, specific detail about your setting and participants that they can judge for themselves whether your findings might apply elsewhere.
Detailed sampling & context — being explicit about who took part, how, and in what setting, so a reader can judge how similar their own situation is.
Peer scrutiny — having a colleague or supervisor review your process, not just your findings.
Audit trail — a running record of how your thinking and coding actually developed, kept as you go rather than reconstructed afterwards.
Code-recode check — coding the same data twice, a while apart, and checking how closely the two rounds agree.
Second coder / checker — having someone else independently code some of your data, then comparing notes.
Precision & transparency — being exact and open about how you handled the data, so a reader can see the path from data to conclusion.
External audit — an independent person outside the study reviews your whole process and audit trail.
Does your interpretation reflect the reality of what you studied?
Could a reader in a different context judge whether your findings apply to theirs?
Would a careful reader trust that your process was sound?
Are your interpretations grounded in the data, not just asserted?
Does your combination sit comfortably with your philosophical position?
Check what you've chosen above against your epistemology and ontology from the red thread exercise. For example, if you're strongly constructionist, member checking framed as "checking you got it right" needs reframing — as gathering another layer of interpretation, not confirming a single truth.
Positionality & reflexivity
Positionality is who you are in relation to this research. Reflexivity is the ongoing practice of examining how that shapes it.
What's your relationship to this topic or these participants?
Insider, outsider, or somewhere in between — and what background, experience, or assumptions are you bringing in that someone in a different position might not share?
Where has your position already shaped a decision?
Who you approached, how you phrased a question, what you followed up on or let go. And looking ahead — where's it most likely to shape your interpretation without you noticing?
The vague-language check
Read back over any section of your methodology chapter, or your plan for it — data analysis is usually the worst offender, but vague language can hide anywhere in this chapter.
Only if time allowsAny sentence that could be cut without losing anything?
"Themes were identified" is the classic example — vague enough to apply to almost any qualitative study, in almost any section. Find one, from any part of the chapter, and rewrite it properly — name your actual approach and what you actually did.
WHAT TO DO WITH THIS
Not everything above works the same way. Parts 1, 2 and 5 are direct justification — the sentences you've written are close to ready to fold straight into your methodology chapter draft.
Part 3 is your toolkit for the trustworthiness section specifically — the techniques you've picked are what to name and describe there.
Part 4 is more reflective than the rest, and that's deliberate — its value is in the noticing. Keep today's answers as the start of a reflexive journal entry, and come back to them when you write your positionality statement.
Your answers aren't saved automatically — click below to keep a copy before you leave this page.