St. Thomas UniversityGraduate Research Methods

The opening pages every committee reads first.

A working guide for graduate researchers across quantitative and qualitative traditions. Seven modules covering the front matter of every proposal — the problem statement, the purpose statement, the research questions, the Nature of the Study section, and end-to-end alignment across all of them — with side-by-side study examples and short coached practice.

Why these pieces — and why alignment

Committees, reviewers, and IRBs read the same opening pages of every proposal. The problem statement establishes that a real gap exists and matters. The purpose statement declares — in one sentence — what your study will do about it. The research questions translate that purpose into questions the data can actually answer. The Nature of the Study commits to a methodology and a specific design and justifies both. And alignment is the audit trail that proves the whole chain hangs together — when it does, the rest of the proposal almost writes itself; when it doesn't, every later chapter inherits the wobble.

Module	Answers the question	Quantitative looks like…	Qualitative looks like…
Identifying the Gap	Is there a real gap, and what kind?	Synthesis matrix; effect-size inconsistencies; untested moderators	Conceptual gap; under-described context; missing voice/perspective
Framing the Problem	Why does this matter, to whom?	Evidence of cost/incidence; cited statistics with sources	Lived consequence; under-heard population; practice-level harm
Purpose Statement	What will the study do about the gap?	"The purpose of this [design] study is to examine the relationship between X and Y in [population]."	"The purpose of this [tradition] study is to explore [phenomenon] for [participants] at [site]."
Writing Strong RQs	Can the data answer this question?	Descriptive / relational / causal; named variables and groups	Exploratory / process / meaning-making; central + sub-questions
Nature of the Study	What methodology and design, and why?	Correlational / quasi-experimental / experimental, with feasibility rule-out	Case study / phenomenology / grounded theory, with tradition rule-out
End-to-End Alignment	Does the whole chain hang together?	Problem → Purpose → RQ → Design → Instrument → Test → Reporting	Problem → Purpose → RQ → Tradition → Data → Coding → Trustworthiness

Problem Statement · Part 1

Identifying the Gap

A defensible study starts with a real gap. Learn to map the literature, distinguish a true empirical or theoretical gap from a 'no one has studied my exact sample' gap, and gather the evidence that justifies the problem.

Open module

Problem Statement · Part 2

Framing the Problem

Turn the gap into a tight, three-to-five-paragraph problem statement: anchor it in evidence, name who is affected and how, and make the 'so what' explicit. The reader should finish your statement believing the study must be done.

Open module

Purpose Statement

Writing the Purpose

One sentence that declares what your study will do. Toggle between the qualitative and quantitative scripts: tradition / verb / phenomenon / participants for qual, or design / verb / variables / population for quant.

Open module

Research Questions

Writing Strong RQs

Strong research questions are specific, answerable with the data you can collect, and matched to the study's tradition. Toggle qual / quant to see the right verbs and types — and to avoid the leading or unanswerable phrasings reviewers reject.

Open module

Nature of the Study

Methodology & Design

The bridge between your RQs and your method chapter. Commit to a methodology (quant / qual / mixed) AND a specific design within it — and justify both against the RQs while ruling out the closest alternative.

Open module

End-to-End Alignment

Problem → Purpose → RQs → Design

Build the alignment table committees actually look for: every element from the problem statement through purpose, RQs, Nature of the Study, and analysis traced as one auditable chain — and catch misalignment before your proposal defense.

Open module

Interactive practice

Diagnose the front-matter flaw

Seven short proposal excerpts across quant, qual, and mixed methods. Identify which piece is broken — problem, purpose, RQ, or alignment — then pick the revision that actually fixes it.

Start practice

ver 1.0.5 · View changelog