The methodology (or “methods”) section is where a qualitative research paper earns or loses its reviewers’ trust. Because qualitative inquiry doesn’t rely on the standardized statistical machinery that lets a quantitative methods section be checked mechanically, its credibility rests almost entirely on how transparently the author describes the research design, the participants, the data collection procedures, and — critically — the steps taken to establish that the analysis is trustworthy rather than an unexamined narrative built on the researcher’s own assumptions.
This guide covers how to write that section: what it needs to contain, how qualitative rigor is demonstrated in prose (not with a p-value), which reporting standards a journal is likely to expect, and the mistakes that most often draw a reviewer’s objection. It assumes you already know how a methods section fits inside a manuscript’s overall IMRaD structure — for that context, and for the mechanics of drafting the rest of the paper, see CASRAI’s guide to how to write a research paper and its reference on research paper format.
What the Methodology Section Has to Establish
A qualitative methodology section is doing more argumentative work than its quantitative counterpart. Where a quantitative methods section mostly reports what was done, a qualitative one has to actively justify that what was done was appropriate — because unlike a randomized trial or a validated survey instrument, a qualitative design has no single accepted template a reviewer can check against. In practice, that means the section needs to accomplish four things:
- Justify the qualitative approach itself. State plainly why the research question calls for qualitative rather than quantitative or mixed methods — typically because the study is exploring meaning, process, or lived experience rather than testing a hypothesis about a measurable relationship between variables. See CASRAI’s comparison of qualitative research vs. quantitative research for the underlying distinction, and the mixed methods research term if the design combines both.
- Name and justify the specific tradition or design. “Qualitative” alone is not a methodology — grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, case study, narrative inquiry, and thematic analysis each carry different assumptions about what counts as valid knowledge and how it should be produced. Reviewers familiar with the field will notice a mismatch between the tradition claimed and the procedures actually described.
- Describe procedures in enough detail that another researcher could follow them. Sampling strategy, setting, recruitment, data collection instrument or protocol, and analytic procedure all need to be concrete enough to support replication of the process (not the findings, which qualitative research does not claim to be replicable in the statistical sense).
- Demonstrate rigor on qualitative terms. This is the piece most often missing from weak drafts — see the section on trustworthiness below.
Core Components to Include
Research Design and Rationale
Open by naming the specific qualitative tradition (grounded theory, interpretive phenomenological analysis, ethnography, case study, narrative inquiry, etc.) and briefly justify the fit between that tradition and the research question. A one- or two-sentence statement of the study’s epistemological or theoretical framing (e.g., constructivist, interpretivist, critical) is expected in many social-science and health-education journals, though the level of detail expected varies significantly by discipline and by journal — check recent issues of the target journal for its norm before over- or under-writing this.
Setting and Participants
Describe the study setting and the population from which participants were drawn. For sampling, name the strategy explicitly — purposive sampling, theoretical sampling (common in grounded theory, where sampling continues iteratively alongside analysis), snowball sampling, criterion sampling, or maximum-variation sampling are the most commonly reported. State the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the recruitment method.
Sample size in qualitative research is justified differently than in a quantitative power calculation: the standard justification is data saturation — the point at which additional data collection stops producing new themes or codes relevant to the research question. If saturation is claimed, state how it was assessed (e.g., ongoing analysis alongside data collection, a pre-specified stopping rule, or consultation with the research team) rather than simply asserting it was reached.
Data Collection Procedures
Specify the method (semi-structured interviews, focus groups, participant observation, document analysis, or a combination), and report enough procedural detail for a reader to assess rigor: interview length, location or mode (in person, phone, video), who conducted the interviews, whether an interview guide was used and how it was developed or piloted, and how data were recorded and transcribed. CASRAI’s qualitative data collection techniques term covers the range of methods available and when each is typically used.
Data Analysis
Name the specific analytic approach — reflexive thematic analysis, framework analysis, grounded theory constant comparison, content analysis, or a phenomenological analytic method such as IPA — and describe the actual steps taken, not just the label. Reviewers increasingly expect the specific citation for the analytic method used (e.g., Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis has a specific six-phase procedure, and citing it without following or adapting it consistently is a common critique). State whether coding was done manually or with qualitative data analysis software, and whether coding was done by a single researcher or multiple coders, and if multiple, how disagreements were resolved.
Establishing Trustworthiness (the Qualitative Equivalent of Validity)
Quantitative validity and reliability don’t transfer directly to qualitative work. The most widely used alternative framework, from Lincoln and Guba, substitutes four parallel criteria, and a methodology section that addresses them explicitly — rather than leaving rigor implicit — is markedly stronger:
- Credibility (parallel to internal validity) — confidence that the findings accurately represent participants’ perspectives. Commonly supported through prolonged engagement, triangulation of data sources or methods, and member checking (returning findings or interpretations to participants to confirm they resonate).
- Transferability (parallel to external validity) — whether findings could apply in other contexts, supported by thick, detailed description of the setting, participants, and context rather than a claim of statistical generalizability.
- Dependability (parallel to reliability) — whether the research process is logical, traceable, and documented, typically supported by describing an audit trail of analytic decisions.
- Confirmability (parallel to objectivity) — the degree to which findings are shaped by participants’ accounts rather than the researcher’s own bias, supported by reflexivity.
Reflexivity deserves its own mention: a short statement of the researcher’s position relative to the topic and participants (relevant professional role, prior assumptions, potential conflicts) is now expected in most qualitative methods sections, particularly in health and education research, because the researcher is understood to be an active instrument in data collection and analysis rather than a neutral observer. Omitting it is one of the more common reasons a qualitative methods section reads as under-developed to an experienced reviewer.
Reporting Standards Journals Expect
Several EQUATOR Network-endorsed reporting guidelines exist specifically for qualitative research, and an increasing number of journals either require or recommend one at submission:
- COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) — a 32-item checklist developed by Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig, specifically for studies using interviews and focus groups. It is the most commonly required checklist in health and clinical qualitative research.
- SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research) — a 21-item checklist developed by O’Brien and colleagues, written to apply across qualitative designs generally (grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, case study), not only interview/focus-group studies.
- ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) — for qualitative evidence synthesis (meta-synthesis) rather than a single primary qualitative study.
Check the target journal’s author guidelines before drafting: many now name a specific checklist as a submission requirement, and completing it alongside the manuscript — rather than retrofitting the methods section to match it after a reviewer asks — produces a cleaner draft. The EQUATOR Network’s own guideline library is the authoritative source for the current version of each checklist.
Common Reviewer Critiques and How to Avoid Them
- No stated rationale for the qualitative approach. Reviewers with a quantitative background especially will ask why qualitative methods were chosen; a sentence connecting the research question’s nature (exploring meaning, process, or experience) to the method choice heads this off.
- Sample size treated as if it needs a quantitative justification. Don’t apologize for a small sample or attempt a post hoc power-style justification; justify it on saturation or information-power grounds instead.
- Analytic method named but not actually followed. Citing Braun and Clarke, Charmaz, or another named methodologist and then describing a generic “we identified themes” process without the method’s actual steps is one of the most frequent critiques in review.
- No reflexivity statement. Especially in interview-based or ethnographic work, the absence of any acknowledgment of the researcher’s position is increasingly flagged.
- Methods and methodology used interchangeably without distinction. Methodology is the underlying theoretical approach and justification; methods are the specific procedures and tools used to carry it out. A section that only reports the latter without ever addressing the former reads as procedurally complete but conceptually thin.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between “methods” and “methodology” in a qualitative paper?
Methodology refers to the underlying theoretical approach and the reasoning for why it fits the research question — the “why” and the philosophical grounding. Methods are the concrete procedures and tools used to collect and analyze data — the “how.” A strong methodology section addresses both, not just the procedural checklist.
How long should a qualitative methodology section be?
There is no fixed rule, and it varies by journal and word limit, but qualitative methods sections typically run longer, proportionally, than quantitative ones, because procedural transparency and rigor have to be demonstrated in prose rather than reported as a set of standardized statistics. Journal-specific author guidelines and recent published examples in the target journal are the most reliable guide.
Do I need to use a reporting checklist like COREQ or SRQR?
Check the target journal’s author guidelines first — many now require one at submission. Even when not required, using SRQR or COREQ as a drafting checklist helps ensure the section covers everything reviewers in the field will expect.
How do I justify my sample size without a power calculation?
State the sampling strategy explicitly and, where relevant, describe how and when data saturation (or “information power,” an alternative framework some journals now prefer) was assessed during data collection, rather than presenting a fixed number without explanation.
Does a qualitative study need a reflexivity statement?
Most journals in health, education, and social-science research now expect one, particularly for interview-, focus-group-, or ethnography-based designs where the researcher’s role in data collection and interpretation is direct. Check journal-specific guidance, but including a brief reflexivity statement is rarely a mistake even when not explicitly required.
Related CASRAI Resources
- Qualitative Research — the core definitional term
- Mixed Methods Research — for studies combining qualitative and quantitative components
- Qualitative Data Collection Techniques
- Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative Research
- How to Write a Research Paper
- IMRaD Structure
