Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Design Research Methodology and Pilot Instrument
2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Define a specific research question that can be answered through primary data. Choose a method (survey, depth interviews, or mixed), design the full data collection instrument, and pilot it with three or more people from the intended sample. Document every change made after piloting and why.
Proof required
Submit: a research plan document covering research question, method justification, sampling strategy, and sample size rationale; the pilot-tested instrument (survey or interview guide) showing the pre-pilot and post-pilot versions; and a pilot log documenting the changes made and the reason for each.
What gets checked
- Research question is specific and testable — 'why do customers churn in month 3?' passes; 'understand customer behaviour' fails
- Sample size is justified for the chosen method — not an arbitrary number
- Pilot changes are documented: at least two questions were revised based on confusion, ambiguity, or leading phrasing
Common mistakes
- Skipping the pilot entirely and collecting data with an unvalidated instrument that produces unusable responses
- Writing leading questions that confirm a pre-existing hypothesis rather than testing it
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Read three questions from the instrument and ask the candidate to identify which assumption each tests
- Ask what changed between the pre-pilot and post-pilot versions and why
- Challenge the sample size: ask the candidate to justify the number without referring to convention
- Check for leading questions: pick two and ask whether a respondent could easily answer them without actually holding the relevant opinion
Execute Data Collection and Clean the Dataset
3–4 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Execute data collection, reaching a minimum of thirty survey responses or eight depth interviews. Document your recruitment method, response rate, and any notable differences between respondents and non-respondents. Produce a cleaned dataset and a cleaning log that documents every transformation decision made.
Proof required
Submit: the raw data file (with personally identifiable information removed or anonymised); the cleaned dataset; a data cleaning log documenting every transformation decision (duplicate removal, outlier treatment, recoding) and the reason for each; and a fieldwork summary noting recruitment method, response rate, and any sample quality issues.
What gets checked
- At least 30 survey responses or 8 depth interview transcripts are present in the raw data file
- Every cleaning decision is documented — no silent deletions or transformations
- The fieldwork summary acknowledges at least one sample quality limitation honestly
Common mistakes
- Convenience sampling from friends and colleagues without acknowledging the resulting sample bias
- Cleaning data selectively — removing inconvenient responses without documenting the rationale
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Ask to see the raw data alongside the cleaned data — check that the cleaning log accounts for every row removed
- Probe the recruitment method: ask exactly how respondents were found and whether they represent the intended sample
- Challenge one outlier treatment decision: why was that response removed rather than kept?
- Ask whether the response rate affected the analysis and how the candidate accounts for potential non-response bias
Analyse, Report, and Defend Findings
2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Analyse the cleaned data using methods appropriate to the research question — thematic coding for qualitative data, descriptive and inferential statistics for quantitative. Write a full research report including methodology, findings, limitations, and recommendations. Present the report to a researcher or experienced practitioner who challenges your interpretation and asks you to defend specific findings.
Proof required
Submit: the full research report (four to six pages) covering methodology, findings with supporting evidence, limitations section acknowledging at least two constraints, and recommendations; and a written record of the defence session including the reviewer's credentials, the specific challenges raised, and your responses.
What gets checked
- Findings are presented with appropriate confidence language — 'the data suggests' rather than 'the data proves' for small samples
- At least one counter-interpretation of the main finding is acknowledged and addressed in the report
- Reviewer has research credentials (academic or professional) and posed at least one methodological challenge beyond scope or sample size
Common mistakes
- Reporting only findings that confirm the original hypothesis and omitting contradictory data
- Seeking a reviewer who is unfamiliar with research methodology — the defence is meaningless without someone who can challenge analytical choices
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the candidate to identify their main finding and then propose an alternative explanation for the same data
- Check the limitations section: is it specific and honest, or vague and boilerplate?
- Probe one recommendation: ask what evidence in the data specifically supports that recommendation
- Challenge the sample: ask how confident they are that the findings generalise beyond the people surveyed