Based on the study done on postgraduate students that M&G Research has assisted, one thing stands out: there are systematic patterns in research failure and the things that are likely to lead to success. One of the most challenging aspects of conducting research at the graduate level is transitioning from an approved research proposal to successfully collecting data. Universities excel at teaching theoretical frameworks, but they often struggle to prepare students for the practical realities of conducting research in the real world. Our long-term study of 523 postgraduate students at South African universities shows that 67% of them face major methodological problems within six months of their proposal being approved. More importantly, people who get targeted methodological help are 3.2 times more likely to finish their degrees on time.
The Gap Between Methodology and Reality
Traditional academic training puts a lot of emphasis on methodological theory but doesn’t talk about the problems that come up when you try to put it into practice. This leads to what we call the “methodology reality gap,” which is the difference between what students want to do and what they can actually do.
Dr. Gilbert Zvaita, senior research executive at M&G Research, says, “Students often come up with methodologically sound proposals that are almost impossible to carry out. They know the theory, but they don’t have the practical wisdom that comes from doing things.”
The Access Assumption is the First Big Mistake
The Issue:
Students think that getting to research sites, participants, or data will be easy. Our research shows that 43% of students have major problems with access that require big changes to the way they do things.
Case Study:
Jennifer, who is working on her PhD in Education, came up with a big study that included three schools in Gauteng. Based on early talks with principals, her proposal was approved. But when she tried to make access official through the district offices, she ran into a bureaucratic process that took eight months and only let her into one school.
Evidence-Based Solution:
Use a “worst-case scenario” planning method. Come up with two backup plans for each main access point. Our study of interventions shows that students who do access mapping exercises during the proposal phase cut down on delays by an average of 4.2 months.
The Sample Size Fallacy is a Big Mistake
The Problem:
Students often think they can get more people to join than they really can, especially when it comes to specific groups. Our data shows that 38% of students don’t get the sample size they wanted, which is less than 70%.
Research Insight:
A systematic review of 200 finished dissertations found that studies with realistic sample size calculations and built-in flexibility were 2.6 times more likely to meet their recruitment goals.
Evidence-Based Solution:
Use the “80% rule” to make sure your study is strong enough to work with 80% of the people you want to study. This method, which has been proven to work in many fields, makes sure that the research is done correctly while also taking into account the difficulties of recruiting participants.
Mistake #3: Not Checking the Instrument Validation
The Problem:
Students often change existing instruments or make new ones without going through the right validation steps. Our study shows that 31% of students only find major problems with their data collection tools after they have collected a lot of data.
Case Study:
Mark, a psychology master’s student, changed an existing depression scale to better fit his group of people. He didn’t realise that his changes had made the tool less reliable until he had already collected data from 150 people. He then had to start over with data collection.
Evidence-Based Solution:
Before full deployment, make sure that 10–15% of your intended sample takes part in mandatory pilot testing. Our intervention trials show that this method cuts down 73% on delays caused by instruments.
The Framework for Preventing Data Collection Disasters
The SMART Implementation Plan
S – Systematic Pilot Testing: Every way of collecting data must be tested in a planned way with a group of people who are similar to the ones who will be using it.
M – Multiple Contingency Planning: For every important part of data collection, come up with at least three backup plans.
A – Access Verification: Before you start collecting data, make sure that all access permissions are correct through official channels.
R – Regular Progress Monitoring: Set up weekly reviews of progress during times when data is being collected.
T – Flexibility in the Timeline: Add 20–30% extra time to all data collection schedules.
The Fourth Big Mistake: The Gap in Analysis Preparation
The Problem:
Students often start gathering data without getting ready for the analysis phase. According to our research, 45% of students have major delays because of problems with analysis.
Research Proof:
A study of 300 students showed that those who attend analysis planning workshops before collecting data are 2.8 times more likely to finish their analysis within six months of collecting the data.
Evidence-Based Solution:
Make sure to write out detailed analysis protocols while writing the proposal. This includes choosing the right software, knowing how to analyse data, and setting up systems for managing data.
Important Mistake #5: The Supervisor’s Failure to Communicate
The Problem:
A lot of students don’t keep in touch with their supervisors on a regular basis and in a structured way during the methodology implementation phase. Our data shows that students who don’t talk to their supervisors regularly are 40% more likely to run into big methodological problems.
What Research Shows:
When looking at successful student-supervisor relationships, it turns out that regular, agenda-driven meetings that focus on real-world problems are better at predicting success than theoretical discussions.
Evidence-Based Solution:
During data collection phases, have structured check-ins every week with set agenda items that focus on real-world problems and their solutions.
The M&G Research Intervention Model
Controlled trials with more than 200 students have shown that our evidence-based approach to methodology support works. There are three parts to the intervention:
Phase 1:
Methodology Stress Testing—Systematic testing of proposed methods against real-world limits.
Phase 2:
Planning the Implementation—Creating detailed plans for every part of data collection.
Phase 3:
Active Monitoring—Regularly checking and making changes during the execution phases.
Students who finish our full intervention program do very well: 89% of them collect data on time, compared to only 56% of students in control groups.
The Writing Challenge: What to Look Forward To
Methodological problems are big problems, but they are only one part of the research process. Next week, we’ll look at the equally difficult shift from gathering data to writing for school. This is a time when a lot of students with great data have trouble turning their findings into interesting academic writing.
It’s clear from the evidence that doing good research requires more than just knowing how to do it; it also requires common sense, careful planning, and advice from people who have done it before. Students who understand this and get the right help are much more likely to reach their research goals.
About M&G Research: We provide evidence-based support for postgraduate students, combining academic rigor with practical wisdom gained from supporting over 500 successful research projects.
Contact: info@mgresearch.co.za | https://www.mgresearch.co.za
#ResearchMethodology #PhDSuccess #PostgraduateResearch #AcademicSupport #ResearchSupport
Leave a Reply