Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Develop Research Design and Ethics Protocol
3–4 weeks
Qualitative research begins with a research design that justifies why qualitative is appropriate for the specific question, and an ethics protocol that protects participants. Develop a complete research design specifying: research question, methodological approach (ethnography, grounded theory, thematic analysis, or IPA — choose one and justify), sampling strategy (purposive or theoretical), and data collection method. Include an ethics protocol covering informed consent, confidentiality, right to withdraw, data storage, and participant harm assessment.
Proof required
Submit: (a) the research design document (minimum 1,000 words) covering all four elements: question, methodology with justification, sampling strategy, and data collection method, (b) the ethics protocol covering all five areas listed, and (c) a written methodology review from a social scientist (academic or professional researcher with postgraduate training) confirming the methodology is appropriate for the question and the ethics protocol is adequate.
What gets checked
- Methodology choice is justified with reference to the specific research question — not just 'I chose qualitative methods'
- Ethics protocol addresses participant harm specifically, not just consent
- Methodology reviewer confirms appropriateness — not just general encouragement
Common mistakes
- Research design treats methodology as a label — 'I will use qualitative methods' without specifying the framework is not a research design
- Ethics protocol copied from a template without adapting to the specific participant population
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Does the methodology align with the epistemological position implied by the question? Phenomenological questions require IPA; pattern-generating questions require grounded theory. A mismatch produces invalid findings.
- Check the ethics protocol for vulnerabilities specific to this population — power dynamics, stigmatised identities, or sensitive topics require protections beyond the generic five areas.
Conduct Fieldwork and Produce Primary Qualitative Data
6–10 weeks
Conduct the fieldwork as specified in your research design. For interview-based approaches: complete at least six semi-structured interviews (30–60 minutes each), audio-record with consent, and produce verbatim transcripts. For observation-based: complete at least 40 hours of participant observation with contemporaneous field notes. All data must be anonymised before submission.
Proof required
Submit: (a) anonymised transcripts or field notes from fieldwork (minimum 50,000 words for interviews/observation), (b) a reflexivity log (minimum 400 words) documenting how your positionality affected data collection and your responses to that effect, and (c) a methodological memo (minimum 300 words) documenting one significant unexpected development during fieldwork and how you adapted.
What gets checked
- Primary data volume meets the minimum — a 30-minute interview typically produces 3,000–5,000 words of transcript
- Anonymisation is thorough — names, locations, and identifying details replaced with codes
- Reflexivity log is specific about positionality effects — not a general claim about remaining neutral
Common mistakes
- Interview questions lead participants toward anticipated answers — qualitative fieldwork should seek disconfirming evidence
- Reflexivity log written as an afterthought — reflexivity is continuous during fieldwork
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review the reflexivity log: does it describe concrete instances where positionality affected an interaction or interpretation? Generic claims about 'remaining objective' indicate it was not genuinely engaged with.
- Check the methodological memo: does the unexpected development represent a genuine challenge to the research design, and was the adaptation methodologically sound?
Analyse Data and Defend Methodology to a Social Science Peer
4–6 weeks
Complete a full qualitative analysis using the method specified in your research design. Produce an analysis report. Present to a social scientist with relevant methodological expertise who will challenge at least two interpretive or methodological decisions in a live or recorded session.
Proof required
Submit: (a) the analysis report (minimum 3,000 words) presenting findings with direct quotes from primary data and a clear analytical narrative — not just a summary of what participants said, (b) an attendance record for the peer review session (reviewer name, qualifications, date), and (c) a Q&A log (minimum 500 words) documenting at least two challenges to analytical decisions and your responses.
What gets checked
- Analysis report moves from data to interpretation — not just rich description of what participants said
- Q&A log shows real analytical challenges — the reviewer challenged specific interpretive decisions
- Reviewer has methodological expertise in the specific approach used
Common mistakes
- Analysis describes themes without depth — finding 'participants felt stressed' is description; explaining the discourse at work is analysis
- Peer review conducted by someone without social science background who cannot challenge qualitative methodology
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Your most important questions target the interpretation layer: 'Why did you code this passage as Theme 2 rather than Theme 1?' and 'How did you handle member validation?'
- After the session, provide written confirmation (minimum 200 words) of your qualifications, the specific decisions you challenged, and your assessment of the submitter's ability to defend interpretive choices.