How does the choice of research methodology influence doctoral dissertation acceptance?

The choice of research methodology significantly influences doctoral dissertation acceptance, with methodological rigour, alignment with disciplinary norms, and clear justification of methods being key factors in approval.

1. Introduction

The influence of research methodology on doctoral dissertation acceptance is a multifaceted issue shaped by disciplinary expectations, methodological rigour, and evolving academic standards. Studies across education, nursing, management, and biomedical sciences reveal that while both qualitative and quantitative methods are widely used, dissertations employing quantitative or mixed methods often receive higher quality scores and are more likely to be published or cited, reflecting a preference for methodological rigour and robust validity controls (Catalano et al., 2024; Hallinger, 2011; Jogulu and Pansiri, 2011; Zhang and Ibarra, 2024).

However, qualitative and action research approaches remain prevalent in fields like education and social work, where context-specific insights and reflexivity are valued, though these dissertations may face additional scrutiny regarding rigour and epistemological alignment (Gringeri, Barusch and Cambron, 2013; Alves, Azevedo and Gonçalves, 2012; Staller, 2013; Tee and Chia, 2025; Tobin and Begley, 2004).

Systematic reviews and other non-traditional methodologies are gaining acceptance in some disciplines, but skepticism persists due to concerns about originality and the generation of new knowledge (Puljak and Sapunar, 2017). Ultimately, the acceptance of a doctoral dissertation is closely tied to the clear justification of methodological choices, the integration of theory and methods, and the demonstration of rigour appropriate to the chosen paradigm (Goodman, Robert and Johnson, 2020; Johnson, Goodman and Robert, 2024; Tobin and Begley, 2004).

Institutional policies, supervisor support, and the research environment also play significant roles in shaping outcomes (Belavy, Owen and Livingston, 2020). This review synthesises findings from diverse disciplines to elucidate how methodological choices impact dissertation acceptance and highlights ongoing debates and emerging trends in doctoral research.

2. Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major academic databases, including Semantic Scholar and PubMed, to identify research papers examining the relationship between research methodology and doctoral dissertation acceptance. The search strategy employed a range of targeted queries designed to capture studies on methodological rigour, theoretical frameworks, disciplinary norms, and their collective impact on dissertation approval across various academic fields.

Initially, 1,047 relevant papers were identified through this systematic process. Following initial screening, 710 papers were further assessed for eligibility, leading to 404 studies that met inclusion criteria. Ultimately, the 50 most pertinent papers were selected for in-depth analysis in this review.

The search strategy consisted of seven distinct query groups, each specifically tailored to explore different dimensions of research methodologies and their influence on doctoral dissertation acceptance within diverse academic disciplines and contexts.

3. Results

3.1 Methodological Trends and Disciplinary Norms

Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods are all represented in doctoral dissertations, with notable disciplinary differences. In education and social sciences, qualitative approaches predominate, but quantitative dissertations often score higher on methodological quality and are more likely to be published (Catalano et al., 2024; Hallinger, 2011; Alves, Azevedo and Gonçalves, 2012; Diaz‐Kope, Miller‐Stevens and Henley, 2019; Krueger, 2018).

In management and biomedical sciences, mixed methods and systematic reviews are increasingly accepted, though not universally (Puljak and Sapunar, 2017; Jogulu and Pansiri, 2011; Tee and Chia, 2025).

3.2 Methodological Rigour and Dissertation Acceptance

Methodological rigour—defined by clear research design, validity controls, and appropriate statistical or qualitative techniques—is a key determinant of dissertation acceptance. Dissertations lacking rigour, regardless of methodology, are less likely to be accepted or published (Goodman, Robert and Johnson, 2020; Catalano et al., 2024; Hallinger, 2011; Debusho et al., 2025; Tobin and Begley, 2004; Johnson, Goodman and Robert, 2024).

Common errors include inappropriate statistical methods, insufficient triangulation in qualitative research, and weak integration of theory and methods (Debusho et al., 2025; Gringeri, Barusch and Cambron, 2013; Tobin and Begley, 2004).

3.3 Justification and Integration of Methodology

Successful dissertations provide a strong rationale for methodological choices, aligning epistemology, methodology, and methods. This integration is especially critical for qualitative and mixed methods research, where examiners scrutinise the logical coherence of the research design (Greener, 2018; Staller, 2013; Tobin and Begley, 2004; Zhang and Ibarra, 2024).

Action research and practice-based methodologies are valued for their adaptability and context-specific insights but may face challenges in generalisability and acceptance (Tee and Chia, 2025; Archbald, 2008).

3.4 Institutional and Environmental Factors

Acceptance is also influenced by institutional policies, supervisor support, and the research environment. Experienced supervisors, supportive research environments, and alignment with institutional priorities enhance dissertation outcomes, sometimes outweighing the impact of methodology alone (Belavy, Owen and Livingston, 2020; Lunde, 2017; Archbald, 2008).

Systematic reviews and non-traditional methodologies are more likely to be accepted in institutions with greater methodological awareness and flexibility (Puljak and Sapunar, 2017; Tee and Chia, 2025).

Key Papers

Here’s your data neatly presented as a table:

4. Discussion

The literature demonstrates that the choice of research methodology is a significant, but not exclusive, factor in doctoral dissertation acceptance. Methodological rigour, clear justification, and alignment with disciplinary norms are consistently emphasised as critical for approval (Goodman, Robert and Johnson, 2020; Catalano et al., 2024; Hallinger, 2011; Tobin and Begley, 2004; Johnson, Goodman and Robert, 2024).

Quantitative and mixed methods dissertations often fare better in terms of quality scores and publication rates, likely due to their perceived objectivity and robustness (Catalano et al., 2024; Hallinger, 2011; Jogulu and Pansiri, 2011; Zhang and Ibarra, 2024). However, qualitative and action research approaches are essential in fields where context and reflexivity are valued, though they require explicit articulation of rigour and trustworthiness to gain acceptance (Gringeri, Barusch and Cambron, 2013; Alves, Azevedo and Gonçalves, 2012; Staller, 2013; Tee and Chia, 2025; Tobin and Begley, 2004).

Institutional culture, supervisor expertise, and the research environment can either facilitate or hinder the acceptance of diverse methodologies (Puljak and Sapunar, 2017; Belavy, Owen and Livingston, 2020; Lunde, 2017; Archbald, 2008). There is a growing recognition of the value of methodological diversity, but persistent skepticism toward non-traditional approaches like systematic reviews or practice-based research highlights the need for greater methodological literacy among faculty and examiners (Puljak and Sapunar, 2017; Tee and Chia, 2025).

Overall, the research underscores the importance of methodological training, transparent justification of choices, and institutional support in shaping dissertation outcomes. While methodological choice matters, it is the rigour, coherence, and contextual fit of the research design that ultimately determine acceptance.

Claims and Evidence Table

5. Conclusion

In summary, the choice of research methodology significantly influences doctoral dissertation acceptance, but its impact is mediated by methodological rigour, justification, and alignment with disciplinary and institutional expectations. Quantitative and mixed methods are often favored for their perceived rigour, but qualitative and action research approaches are accepted when their robustness is clearly demonstrated. Institutional culture and supervisor support further shape outcomes, highlighting the need for comprehensive methodological training and flexible evaluation criteria.

5.1 Research Gaps

Despite extensive research, gaps remain in understanding how methodological innovation, interdisciplinary approaches, and non-traditional methodologies are evaluated across different institutional contexts. There is also limited research on the long-term impact of dissertation methodology on academic and professional trajectories.

Research Gaps Matrix

Here’s your data neatly presented in table format:

5.2 Open Research Questions

Future research should explore how methodological innovation is evaluated, the impact of dissertation methodology on career outcomes, and strategies for increasing acceptance of non-traditional research designs.

Here’s your data clearly formatted into a table:

In conclusion, while methodological choice matters, it is the rigour, justification, and contextual fit of the research design that most strongly influence doctoral dissertation acceptance.

References

• Puljak, L., & Sapunar, D., 2017. Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe. Systematic Reviews, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0653-x
• Goodman, P., Robert, R., & Johnson, J., 2020. Rigor in PhD dissertation research.. Nursing forum. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12477
• Catalano, A., DePietto, M., Lord, A., Radin, S., & Williams, L., 2024. Methodological Quality and Publication of Doctoral Dissertations in Education: An Evaluative Study of Ten Years of K-12 Doctoral Dissertations in the United States. International Journal of Doctoral Studies. https://doi.org/10.28945/5343
• Hallinger, P., 2011. A Review of Three Decades of Doctoral Studies Using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale: A Lens on Methodological Progress in Educational Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, pp. 271 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10383412
• Debusho, L., Mashabela, M., Sebatjane, P., Sithole, S., Tabo, B., & Rapoo, E., 2025. Evaluation of statistical methods applied in theses and dissertations in an Open, Distance and e-Learning University. PLOS One, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319654
• Greener, S., 2018. Methodological choices for research into interactive learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 26, pp. 149 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1436431
• Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., & Cambron, C., 2013. Examining Foundations of Qualitative Research: A Review of Social Work Dissertations, 2008–2010. Journal of Social Work Education, 49, pp. 760 – 773. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2013.812910
• Alves, M., Azevedo, N., & Gonçalves, T., 2012. Educational Research and Doctoral Dissertations. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, pp. 626 – 637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412450156
• Staller, K., 2013. Epistemological boot camp: The politics of science and what every qualitative researcher needs to know to survive in the academy. Qualitative Social Work, 12, pp. 395 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325012450483
• Diaz‐Kope, L., Miller‐Stevens, K., & Henley, T., 2019. An examination of dissertation research: The relationship between gender, methodological approach, and research design. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 25, pp. 114 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2018.1463792
• Tee, T., & Chia, S., 2025. Methodological Insights of Action Research in Doctoral Studies within Education Disciplines: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.903sedu0084
• Tobin, G., & Begley, C., 2004. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework.. Journal of advanced nursing, 48 4, pp. 388-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2648.2004.03207.X
• Jogulu, U., & Pansiri, J., 2011. Mixed methods: a research design for management doctoral dissertations. Management Research Review, 34, pp. 687-701. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111136211
• Zhang, Z., & Ibarra, B., 2024. Mapping the Problem Statement and Study Purposes to the Quantitative Analysis: Insights From Mixed Methods Perspectives. Journal of Education and Development. https://doi.org/10.20849/jed.v8i1.1408
• Belavy, D., Owen, P., & Livingston, P., 2020. Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability?. PLoS ONE, 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327
• Johnson, J., Goodman, P., & Robert, R., 2024. Indicators of rigor in dissertation research.. Journal of professional nursing : official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 55, pp. 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.07.011
• Lunde, R., 2017. Predicting Dissertation Methodology Choice Among Doctoral Candidates at a Faith-Based University. **. https://doi.org/10.25778/w5bv-gc62
• Archbald, D., 2008. Research Versus Problem Solving for the Education Leadership Doctoral Thesis: Implications for Form and Function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, pp. 704 – 739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07313288
• Krueger, C., 2018. Quantitative Content Analysis of Virginia Doctoral Dissertations 2007-2017: Trends in Degree Types and Methodologies. **.