Your professor rejected your methodology: what to change

A rejected methodology feels like a verdict on the whole project. It is almost always a comment on one weak link, and the link is usually the fit between your research question and the way you plan to answer it.

Read the feedback for its objection, not its tone. Then rebuild the link and answer the comment in writing.

1. Find the real objection

Methodology feedback tends to fall into a small number of categories. Match each comment to one.

• The method does not answer the question. You asked why something happens and planned a survey that measures how much of it there is.
• The sample does not fit. The group is too small, cannot be reached, or does not match the population in your question.
• The instrument is unproven. You wrote your own questionnaire with no evidence that it measures what you claim.
• The analysis does not match the data. The test you named needs data of a type you will not collect.
• The justification is missing. The choice may be sound, but you have not supported it with methodological sources.
• The plan is not feasible. The timeline, access, or ethics approval does not hold up.

If the comment is vague, such as "this is not rigorous," ask. A short, polite email works: "I understand your concern to be that my sample cannot support the claims in my research question. Is that correct, and what would you accept?" A yes or no from your professor saves you a week of guessing.

2. Rebuild the fit with an alignment table

Make a table with four columns: research question, data needed, method, and analysis. Fill in one row for each research question. Anything that does not connect across the row is the problem.

For example, a student asks, "Why do first-year teachers in Nairobi leave the profession?" and plans a survey of 200 teachers analyzed with a t-test. The question asks for reasons, and a t-test compares groups. The fix is either to change the method to interviews analyzed for themes, or to change the question to something a survey can answer, such as whether intention to leave differs between teachers with and without a mentor.

3. Change the design, then justify it

Once the table lines up, write the new justification. Support each methodological choice with sources about methods, not only sources about your topic.

• John Creswell and J. David Creswell's Research Design covers how to choose between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed designs.
• Robert Yin's Case Study Research and Applications covers the case study design.
• Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke's 2006 article on thematic analysis in Qualitative Research in Psychology is the standard source for that method.

Cite the source that matches the method you chose, and explain in a sentence why it fits your question. If your sample is smaller than planned, our guide to justifying a smaller sample in Chapter 3 shows how.

4. Answer the feedback in a revision memo

Do not send a revised chapter alone. Send a short table with it:

Comment	What I changed	Where
"The sample cannot support the claim."	Reduced the claim to the district level and added a limitation.	Section 3.4, p. 28

Every comment gets a line, including the ones you disagree with. For those, explain your reasoning and cite a source. Committees respond well to a student who engages with each point.

5. Keep the record

Save the original comments, your reply, and each version of the chapter. If a second committee member contradicts the first, you will need to show what was asked and what you changed.

What not to do

Do not defend the original design without a source, change the method without revising the question, or quietly fix some comments and skip the rest. Each of these produces a second rejection.

For the full structure of the methodology chapter itself, see our guide to what Chapter 3 should include.

Need help turning committee comments into a revision plan?

The Two Dissertation Moms offers a Dissertation Committee Feedback Review that reads the comments next to your returned chapter and sets out what each one requires. A Research Design and Methodology Review tests the new design before you resubmit.