Guide
How to write a methodology section
The methodology section explains exactly how a study was carried out — its design, participants, materials, procedure and analysis — so that readers can judge and reproduce the work.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
What the methodology section is for
The methodology section answers a single question: how do you know what you claim to know? It records the procedures used to gather and analyse data in enough detail that another researcher could repeat the study and that a reader can decide whether the conclusions are warranted. Reproducibility is the standard it serves. A useful distinction is that “methods” are the specific techniques you used, while “methodology” is the rationale that justifies them; a strong section does both, explaining not only what you did but why those choices suited the research question. It is conventionally written in the past tense and the appropriate voice for your discipline.
Design, participants and materials
Open by stating the overall research design and approach — for example, a quantitative experimental design, a qualitative case study, or a mixed-methods design — and explain why it fits the question. Next describe the participants or sample: who they were, how many, the sampling method used to recruit them, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, so readers can judge to whom the findings might generalise. Then set out the materials and instruments: questionnaires, apparatus, interview schedules, software or established scales, noting any measures of validity and reliability. For the taxonomy of designs, sampling strategies and variables behind these choices, see the research-methods guidance.
Procedure and analysis
The procedure is a step-by-step account of what was actually done, in the order it happened — how participants were approached and consented, what they experienced, what was manipulated or measured, and over what timescale. Written carefully, it is the part that makes replication possible. Follow it with the analysis: state how the data were prepared and examined, naming the statistical tests and software for quantitative work, or the analytic approach (such as thematic or content analysis) for qualitative work. Specify the significance level or coding framework where relevant, so the path from raw data to findings is transparent.
Demonstrating rigour and ethics
A methodology section should show, not just assert, that the study was trustworthy. For quantitative work this means addressing validity and reliability and explaining how confounding variables and bias were controlled; for qualitative work it means addressing trustworthiness through credibility, dependability and confirmability, using techniques such as triangulation, member checking and an audit trail. Either way, record the ethical safeguards — informed consent, anonymity, ethics-committee approval — since reporting standards expect them. Acknowledging methodological limitations here, rather than hiding them, strengthens credibility and gives readers a fair basis for interpreting the results.
Common pitfalls to avoid
The most frequent weakness is describing what was done without justifying why, leaving readers unable to judge whether the method suited the question. A second is insufficient detail: vague procedures cannot be reproduced and undermine the section’s whole purpose. Avoid mixing results into the methods — findings belong in the results section. Do not pad the section with textbook definitions of well-known techniques; cite the source and move on. Finally, keep the section consistent with the rest of the paper, so that every measure mentioned later in the results has been introduced here first.
Key facts
At a glance
- Purpose: lets readers evaluate rigour and reproduce the study
- Core parts: design, participants/sample, materials, procedure, analysis
- Method vs methodology: the techniques used versus the rationale for them
- Tense: conventionally written in the past tense
- Rigour: validity and reliability, or qualitative trustworthiness
- Always include: ethics — consent, anonymity and approval
Common questions
FAQ
What is the difference between methods and methodology?+
Methods are the specific techniques and procedures you used — the survey, the experiment, the statistical test. Methodology is the broader rationale that justifies those choices: why this design, sample and analysis suit your research question. A strong methodology section does both, describing what was done and explaining why it was the appropriate way to answer the question.
What should a methodology section include?+
It should state the research design and approach, describe the participants or sample and how they were selected, list the materials and instruments, give a step-by-step procedure, and explain how the data were analysed. It should also address rigour — validity and reliability or qualitative trustworthiness — and the ethical safeguards applied, such as informed consent and approval.
What tense should the methodology be written in?+
The methodology is normally written in the past tense, because it reports what you already did: “Participants completed a questionnaire,” not “Participants complete a questionnaire.” Keep the voice consistent with your discipline’s conventions, and reserve the present tense for statements that remain generally true, such as describing an established instrument.
Going deeper
