The Research Methodology Section

Length and placement

As a design component, a section of the introductory chapter.

As a chapter, in an empirical dissertation, frequently its own chapter, which MU's structure permits since chapters II to VI are the student's to allocate, chapter 1320.

Length. In a doctrinal study, two or three pages. In an empirical one, eight to fifteen, plus the instrument in an appendix.

And it is the section a supervisor reads first, before the findings, because the findings mean nothing until the method is known.

The commonest failures

Vagueness. The researcher adopted the doctrinal as well as empirical method and collected data from various sources through questionnaires and interviews. Nothing in that sentence can be checked: how many, whom, chosen how, asked what.

Copying the synopsis, so the section is in the future tense and describes a study that was planned, chapter 1250.

Omitting the sampling method, which is the single most important thing in an empirical methodology, chapter 1020.

No instrument in the appendix, so the reader cannot see what was asked.

No operational definitions, so nobody can tell what was counted, chapter 1050.

Concealing the difficulties, as above.

And describing a method that was not used, usually because a textbook's list of methods has been reproduced. A student who writes that they used the historical, comparative, analytical and empirical methods has usually used one.

A worked example: a specimen, written out

Method. The study is doctrinal as to the content of the duty and empirical as to its performance.

Research problem. As stated at chapter 1100, in four paragraphs.

Research questions. One main and three subsidiary, as at chapter 1110.

Hypotheses. H1 and H2 as at chapter 1150, each with its derivation and with the result that would refute it.

Doctrinal method. The decisions were read in full text from a free database, the Supreme Court's own host being unreachable; each was checked for subsequent treatment by searching later judgments citing it; and the Act and Regulations were taken from India Code and checked for amendment to a stated date.

Empirical method. Non-participant structured observation of every remand production in the named court on every sitting day between two stated dates, being a complete count of the defined population, so no sampling was required.

Instrument. A one page schedule recording the date, the number of persons produced at the sitting, whether anything was said concerning free legal services, by whom, whether the accused was represented, and the time taken. Reproduced at Appendix A.

Operational definition. Informed means words addressed to the accused, in a language they appeared to follow, conveying that a lawyer may be provided at State cost, whether spoken by the magistrate or by a court officer.

Pre-test. Two sitting days, after which the field recording who spoke was amended, because the original wording could not accommodate the case where a clerk speaks and the magistrate assents.

Administration. By the researcher alone, so no inter-observer check was possible.

Data treatment. Schedules edited the same evening; entries coded; a codebook maintained; tabulated by week and by size of sitting.

Analysis. Proportions with their bases; comparison across three bands of sitting size; no test of significance applied, the study being a complete count of its population.

Ethics. No individual was identified; no officer is named; the court was public and no permission was required; the schedules are retained by the researcher.

Difficulties. Two sitting days were missed and are recorded; the District Authority's returns were requested and not received.

Every one of those lines can be checked by a reader, which is the whole purpose of the section.

Quick revision

MU's sixth component, and the University expressly requires it to include the identification of the research problem and the research questions. The hypotheses belong here too, since MU marks their proving.

It contains: problem; questions; hypotheses with derivation and refutation conditions; method and reason; population, frame and omissions; sampling or census; tools with the instrument in an appendix; administration; operational definitions; the pre-test and what it changed; data treatment; the plan of analysis; and ethics.

Written in the past tense and honestly, recording changes, shortfalls and failures, since a methodology with no difficulties in it describes a study that did not happen.

Failures: vagueness; copying the synopsis; omitting the sampling method; no instrument appended; no operational definitions; concealed difficulties; and listing methods that were not used.

Test yourself

1. What does MU expressly require the research methodology component to include, and what else belongs there? The identification of the research problem and the research questions. The hypotheses belong there too, with their derivation and with what would refute each, because the same notice provides that evaluation is on the proving of the hypothesis although the hypothesis is not among the seven printed components.

2. Why must the section record difficulties and changes? Because a change made for a good reason and recorded is a strength, while the same change unrecorded is a defect the reader cannot detect; and because a methodology section containing no difficulties describes a study that did not actually happen, which a supervisor recognises.

3. Name five things whose omission makes an empirical methodology unusable. The sampling method; the instrument, which should be reproduced in an appendix; the operational definitions; how the tools were administered and by whom; and the treatment of non-response, refusals and missed occasions.

4. What is wrong with writing that the researcher adopted the doctrinal as well as empirical method and collected data from various sources through questionnaires and interviews? Nothing in it can be checked. It does not say how many respondents, who they were, how they were selected, what they were asked, over what period, or by whom, so a reader cannot judge the findings and another researcher cannot repeat the study.