Introduction

Too many researchers discover problems with their research design late in the process—at the ethics stage, during peer review, or even in the viva. The most common issue is not a lack of effort or ambition, but misalignment. Coherence is the golden thread of a defensible project, and without it, even well-intentioned studies can falter. In this piece, we’ll look at five areas where designs most often go wrong, and how to spot misalignment before it derails your work.

1. Paradigm and Question Alignment

Your paradigm is not just a theoretical backdrop—it determines what kinds of questions you can ask. A positivist question assumes one reality that can be measured; an interpretivist question seeks meaning in context. If you’re asking a meaning-making question but collecting quantitative survey data, the misfit will undermine credibility. The earlier you check your paradigm-question alignment, the more coherent your project will be.

2. Aims and Purpose (Axiology)

Why does your research matter, and to whom? Axiology, the values and purpose underpinning a project, shapes every design decision. For example, a study that aims to empower marginalised voices but relies on distant, extractive methods risks contradiction. A participatory or action-oriented approach would align more closely with its stated purpose. Being explicit about your research purpose strengthens both coherence and impact..

3. Ethical Integrity and Power Awareness

Ethics goes beyond consent forms. Every design involves power dynamics between researcher and participants. Have you considered how your position influences trust, disclosure, or interpretation? Designs that ignore this risk being extractive rather than generative. Ethical integrity is integral to methodological coherence.

4. Theoretical Anchoring

Without clear theoretical engagement, research can drift into description. Anchoring your project in a conceptual framework helps shape your questions, guide your analysis, and situate your findings in wider debates. Lack of theoretical clarity is a common reason projects feel “thin” or unfocused.

5. Methodological Consistency

Methods carry assumptions. If you blend traditions, say, ethnography with statistical testing, without justifying the mix, reviewers will notice the incoherence. A consistent methodology doesn’t mean inflexibility; it means your tools and strategies match your question, aims, and paradigm.

Conclusion

Research designs fail not because researchers lack commitment, but because coherence gets lost. By checking paradigm, purpose, ethics, theory, and methodology early, you can avoid the most common pitfalls. These are exactly the issues we explore in depth in the Research Design Masterclass – a space to refine your design and strengthen its credibility from the start.