How To Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

How To Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

1. Why the Methods Section Matters

The methods section is the engine room of a research paper. It explains exactly how the study was conducted so that readers can judge whether the design, procedures and analysis are appropriate for answering the research question. In journal articles and postgraduate work, a well-constructed methods section also allows other researchers to replicate or build on your work.

Whether you are writing a short undergraduate paper or a full-length article for a peer-reviewed journal, the core purpose of the methods section is the same:

• to describe what you did during the research;
• to specify how you did it in enough detail to be evaluated and reproduced; and
• to explain why you chose those procedures as the most suitable way to achieve your objectives.

The exact level of detail, length and structure will vary depending on discipline and assignment type. A brief undergraduate project might allocate only a short paragraph to methods, whereas a journal article or thesis chapter may devote several pages to describing design, participants, materials and analysis. The principles, however, remain consistent.

2. Start with the Instructions: Journal and Course Guidelines

Before drafting your methods, always consult the relevant guidelines for your paper:

• For a course assignment: read the module handbook, assignment brief and any marking rubrics provided by your instructor.
• For a thesis or dissertation: refer to departmental and institutional guidance.
• For a journal article: carefully read the journal’s Instructions for Authors and examine recent papers published there.

These documents will often specify:

• required or preferred section headings (e.g., “Methods,” “Materials and Methods,” “Research Approach”);
• whether methods must be grouped under subheadings such as “Participants,” “Instruments,” “Procedures,” “Design,” “Data Analysis”;
• word limits and expectations for detail (especially important when some methods are moved to supplementary materials); and
• discipline-specific reporting standards, such as CONSORT, PRISMA, COREQ or STROBE.

Following these requirements precisely is not optional. Many papers are rejected at the editorial screening stage simply because the methods section does not meet basic structural or reporting expectations.

3. Choosing Headings, Subheadings and Overall Structure

The goal of your structure is to guide readers logically through what you did. In many fields, the methods section follows the introduction and precedes the results, which means it forms the bridge between your research questions and your findings.

For simple projects, a single “Methods” section without subheadings may be adequate. For more complex studies, subheadings increase clarity and allow readers to locate specific information quickly. Common subheadings include:

• Design or Study Design – overall research approach (experimental, cross-sectional, qualitative, mixed-methods, etc.);
• Participants or Subjects – who or what was studied, how they were selected, sample size;
• Materials, Measures or Instruments – tools, equipment, tests, questionnaires, software;
• Procedures or Data Collection – step-by-step account of how data were generated or gathered;
• Data Analysis – how data were processed, coded and analysed (statistical or qualitative);
• Ethical Considerations – approvals, consent and confidentiality procedures, if not presented separately.

A chronological order that mirrors the research process is often most intuitive: first describe how participants or materials were obtained, then what was done with them, then how the resulting data were analysed. Within each subsection, you can arrange information by importance, starting with the most critical details.

4. Writing Style: Clarity, Tense and Voice

The writing style in the methods section should be clear, precise and free from ambiguity. Avoid colourful language or rhetorical flourishes; your aim is to communicate technical details efficiently and accurately.

Key considerations include:

• Tense: use the past tense to report procedures that have already been carried out. For example, “We recruited 120 participants” or “Data were analysed using…”.
• Active vs. passive voice: many fields now accept or even prefer the active voice (“We measured blood pressure using…”), because it tends to be more concise and direct. However, some journals and disciplines still favour the passive voice (“Blood pressure was measured using…”). Follow the conventions you see in your target journal or in your supervisor’s recommendations.
• Grammar and punctuation: errors can make procedures difficult to understand and may undermine reviewers’ confidence in your attention to detail. Proofread carefully or seek professional editing support.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of writing the methods is achieving the right balance between brevity and detail: too little information and your work cannot be evaluated or replicated, too much and the reader is overwhelmed with peripheral technicalities. Knowing your audience and the norms of your discipline will help you decide what can be assumed and what must be spelled out.

5. What to Include in Quantitative and Empirical Studies

For quantitative or empirical-analytical research, certain elements are expected almost universally. Readers need to know enough about your design, participants, variables and analysis to judge both internal validity (are the results trustworthy for this study?) and external validity (can they be generalised beyond it?).

5.1 Participants or Subjects

Describe who or what was studied in sufficient detail:

• recruitment methods (e.g., random sampling, convenience sampling, inclusion/exclusion criteria);
• sample size and group allocation (e.g., control vs. experimental groups);
• key demographic or descriptive characteristics relevant to your research question.

If your study involves human participants or animals, also state clearly:

• that you obtained ethical approval, naming the committee or institutional review board and approval number if applicable;
• that you obtained informed consent from participants, and how confidentiality and data protection were handled.

5.2 Variables and Measurements

Introduce and define your key variables:

• Independent variables (those you manipulate or categorise);
• Dependent variables (those you measure as outcomes);
• Confounding variables and how you controlled or adjusted for them.

For each variable, specify how it was measured. If you used widely recognised instruments, you may only need to identify them by name and provide references, but you must still explain:

• how they were administered (timing, setting, instructions);
• any adaptations or translations you applied; and
• evidence of reliability or validity, especially if the instrument is not universally known.

5.3 Procedures and Data Collection

Provide a step-by-step description of what happened during the study:

• the sequence of experimental tasks or interventions;
• equipment and materials used;
• timing (e.g., duration of sessions, follow-up intervals);
• environmental conditions that might affect outcomes.

You do not need to describe routine laboratory steps or statistical operations in exhaustive detail if they are standard practice in your field, but any unusual procedures or innovations should be presented clearly and justified.

5.4 Data Analysis

Reviewers will expect a concise but accurate description of how you analysed the data:

• software used (including version numbers);
• specific statistical tests or models applied, and the reasons for choosing them;
• any data cleaning, transformation or handling of missing data;
• thresholds for statistical significance or criteria for model selection.

This subsection is not the place to report the results themselves, but rather to explain the analytical framework you used so that others can judge whether it is appropriate and, if desired, reproduce it.

6. Methods in Qualitative and Interpretive Research

Qualitative and interpretive studies require methods sections that look different from those in quantitative work, but the underlying aim is identical: to tell readers what you did, how and why, so that they can assess the trustworthiness of your interpretations.

Typical elements of a qualitative methods section include:

• Methodological framework: for example, grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, discourse analysis.
• Sampling strategy: purposive, snowball, theoretical sampling; number and type of participants or documents.
• Data collection: interviews, focus groups, observations, field notes, archival materials; how access was obtained and how data were recorded.
• Data analysis: coding procedures, thematic analysis, use of software (e.g., NVivo, ATLAS.ti); how you moved from raw data to themes or interpretations.
• Reflexivity and positionality: when appropriate, reflection on how your own position may have influenced data collection and interpretation.

Because qualitative methods often involve researcher subjectivity and interpretation, it is particularly important to be transparent. Give enough detail for readers to understand how conclusions arose from the data, even if they cannot replicate the exact conditions.

7. Justifying Your Choices Without Turning the Methods into a Discussion

Good methods sections do not just list procedures—they also provide brief rationales for key decisions. However, there is a fine line between appropriate justification and drifting into full discussion.

As a rule of thumb:

• include short explanations such as “We used X because…” or “Y was chosen as it allows…” when your choices depart from standard practice or when multiple reasonable options existed;
• save extended theoretical reflection and implications for the discussion section;
• avoid speculative language and focus on practical reasons linked to your objectives, constraints or prior literature.

This approach helps readers understand your design while keeping the methods section focused and concise.

8. Supplementary Materials and Online Appendices

Many journals now encourage authors to provide highly detailed methods—such as full survey instruments, code lists, scripts or extended protocols—in supplementary files. The main methods section in the article then presents the core information, directing readers who need additional detail to the supplementary material.

If you use this option, make sure that:

• the main paper still contains enough information to be understood independently;
• supplementary materials are clearly labelled and referenced (e.g., “see Supplementary Appendix 1 for the full questionnaire”);
• all files are well-organised and formatted for easy reading.

9. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Some frequent problems weaken methods sections and can contribute to a negative editorial or examiner response:

• Vagueness: describing procedures in general terms without specific details (“data were collected” rather than “we collected data by…”).
• Missing information: failing to report sample size, selection criteria, key variables or analysis methods.
• Inconsistency: methods described in one way in the text but differently in tables, figures or supplementary materials.
• Overload: including unnecessary technical detail that obscures the main message.
• Copying protocols verbatim: reproducing long passages from standard manuals or previous work instead of tailoring descriptions to your study.

10. Revise, Proofread and Ask for Feedback

As with any part of a research paper, the methods section benefits from multiple rounds of revision. Once you have a complete draft:

• check that the description is complete, consistent and logically ordered;
• ask colleagues or supervisors to read it and note any points they find unclear;
• revise to remove redundancy, sharpen wording and correct errors;
• proofread specifically for accuracy in numbers, names of instruments, software versions and ethical approvals.

A carefully written methods section demonstrates professionalism and strengthens reviewers’ confidence in your work. When combined with a clear introduction, robust results and thoughtful discussion, it lays a solid foundation for a successful research paper—whether for a course, a thesis or a journal publication.