This skill is based on Crotty's (1998) four-level framework of research design, Lincoln & Guba's (1985) trustworthiness framework, and Guba & Lincoln's (1994) paradigm theory, and conducts a top-down consistency check of the research design.
Core Position: The internal consistency of a research design is not a technical issue, but an epistemological issue. The researcher's epistemological position determines what type of knowledge claims she can make; methodology is the strategy for realizing these claims; concrete methods are the operationalization of the strategy. The three levels must point toward the same epistemological direction, otherwise the foundation of the research is unstable.
Startup: Obtain Necessary Information
After triggering, collect the following information:
Required 1: Research Question
The core question the research aims to answer.
Required 2: Research Design Description
It can be in any of the following forms:
- A methods chapter that has already been written (paste the text)
- A description of the research design framework (briefly explain each component)
- Item-by-item disclosure (epistemological position/research method/data collection/analysis strategy)
Optional 3: Theoretical Framework
The theoretical perspective adopted by the research (helpful for checking the consistency between theoretical presuppositions and methodology).
Optional 4: Existing Concerns
The researcher's own doubts about design consistency (prioritize these).
Execution Process
After receiving the information,continuously executethe following three stages without waiting for user confirmation.
Stage One: Reconstruction of the Four-Level Framework of the Research Design
First extract and clarify the four levels of the research design to establish the baseline for subsequent checks:
Level 1: Ontology
What are the researcher's basic assumptions about "social reality"?
Infer from the research design or theoretical choices:
- Realism: There exists an objective social reality independent of the observer
- Constructivism: Social reality is constructed by subjects and is not independent of the knower
- Critical Realism: There exist real structures/mechanisms, but they can only be known by observing their effects
- Relationalism: Reality is constituted by relations, not by entities
Level 2: Epistemology
What is the basic position on "how knowledge is produced"?
- Objectivism: Knowledge is the discovery of an independently existing reality, and the researcher is separate from the object of study
- Constructivism: Knowledge is co-constructed by the researcher and the object of study
- Subjectivism: Knowledge comes from the subject's internal world of meaning
- Critical Realist Epistemology: Knowledge is abductive reasoning about real mechanisms
Level 3: Methodology
What are the research strategy and design type?
- Grounded theory / phenomenology / ethnography / narrative research / case study / discourse analysis
- Survey research / experimental design / quasi-experimental design
- Mixed methods (integration type needs further specification)
Level 4: Specific Methods
What are the specific tools for data collection and analysis?
- Data collection: in-depth interviews / participant observation / questionnaires / documents/archives / experiments
- Data analysis: thematic analysis / grounded coding / content analysis / discourse analysis / statistical analysis
Output format：
【研究设计四层架构】
本体论立场（推断）：[立场名称]
依据：[从研究设计哪些地方推断出来的]
确定程度：明确声明 / 可推断 / 不清晰
认识论立场（推断）：[立场名称]
依据：
确定程度：
方法论（研究设计类型）：[类型名称]
说明：
具体方法：
数据收集：
数据分析：
Phase 2: Level-by-level consistency check
Check the consistency among the four levels, focusing on three "seams":
Seam 1: Ontology → Epistemology
Check principle: The ontological stance defines the possible range of epistemology.
Common inconsistencies:
| Ontology | Incompatible epistemology | Source of contradiction |
|---|---|---|
| Constructivism (no objective reality) | Objectivist epistemology | Contradiction: if there is no independent reality, how can one know "objectively"? |
| Realism | Radical constructivism | Contradiction: since there is an objective reality, how can knowledge be entirely constructed? |
| Relationalism | Individualist epistemology | Contradiction: relationalist ontology requires starting from relations rather than entities |
Check question: Do the ontological and epistemological stances support each other? Or is there an internal tension?
Assessment: ✅ Consistent / ⚠️ Tension (handling needs to be explained) / ❌ Fundamental contradiction
Seam 2: Epistemology → Methodology
Check principle: The methodology must be able to realize the mode of knowledge production claimed by the epistemology.
Common inconsistencies:
| Epistemological stance | Incompatible methodology | Source of contradiction |
|---|---|---|
| Constructivist epistemology | "Objective discovery" of grounded theory (Glaser version) | Constructivism cannot claim to objectively discover theory, only to construct theory |
| Objectivist epistemology | Phenomenology (phenomenology focuses on subjective experience and presupposes the legitimacy of subjective knowledge) | Conflict between the views of knowledge of epistemology and methodology |
| Interpretivism | Requires "repeatability" and "generalizability" | The goal of interpretivism is deep understanding, not statistical generalization |
| Critical realism | Only does descriptive analysis (does not look for mechanisms) | Critical realism requires revealing deep mechanisms and is not satisfied with describing phenomena |
Check question: Can the chosen methodology realize the mode of knowledge production required by the epistemology?
Assessment: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
Seam 3: Methodology → Specific methods
Check principle: The specific methods must be appropriate tools for realizing the goals of that methodology.
Common inconsistencies:
| Methodology | Incompatible specific methods | Source of contradiction |
|---|---|---|
| Grounded theory | Deductive verification (theory first, then use materials to verify) | Grounded theory requires induction from materials, not verification of a preset theory |
| Discourse analysis | Only doing thematic coding (without analyzing discursive practices) | Discourse analysis requires analyzing how language constructs reality, not just classifying content |
| Ethnography | Only conducting interviews, without participant observation | The core of ethnography is observation through presence; interviews cannot replace it |
| Phenomenology | Structured interviews (closed-ended questions) | Phenomenology requires open-ended exploration; structured interviews limit the presentation of experience |
Check questions: Is the specific method an appropriate operationalization of that methodology? Or does it merely borrow the name of the methodology?
Evaluation: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
Phase 3: Specialized checks
Special check 1: Consistency of validity language
Background: different epistemological traditions use different validity language systems. Mixing them will expose epistemological contradictions.: Different epistemological traditions use different validity language systems. Mixing them will expose epistemological contradictions.
| Tradition | Appropriate validity language | Language that should not be used |
|---|---|---|
| Positivism | Internal validity, external validity, reliability, generalizability | Credibility, transferability |
| Constructivism/Interpretivism | Credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability (Lincoln & Guba) | Internal validity, reliability, generalizability |
| Critical realism | Reasonableness of abductive reasoning, explanatory power of mechanisms, contextual sensitivity | Neither of the above two sets of language is fully applicable |
Check questions: Is the validity language used in the research design (especially the methods section) consistent with the epistemological position?
Special check 2: Theoretical framework-methodology consistency
When the study also has a theoretical framework, check:
- Are the epistemological presuppositions of the theoretical framework consistent with the methodology? (See the epistemological compatibility dimension of theory-fit-assessment)
- Does the theoretical framework "guide" the research (deductive) or get revised in "dialogue" (inductive/abductive)?
- If grounded theory is used but there is also a preset theoretical framework, is the relationship between this "theory first" and "open coding" explained?
Special check 3: Research question-method matching
Check principles: Different types of research questions correspond to different methodological strategies.
| Type of research question | Corresponding methodological strategy |
|---|---|
| What (what is/are there) | Descriptive research, grounded theory, content analysis |
| Why (why) | Explanatory research, requiring mechanism analysis |
| How (how it happens) | Process research, ethnography, historical comparison |
| Should (should be how) | Normative research, requiring a statement of value stance |
Check questions: Can the research question type and method design correspond? Can it answer "Why/How" questions rather than just "What"?
Phase Four: Comprehensive Assessment and Revision Suggestions
Overall Consistency Score
| Check Item | Assessment | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Ontology-Epistemology Consistency | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Epistemology-Methodology Consistency | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Methodology-Specific Methods Consistency | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Validity Language Consistency | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Theoretical Framework-Methodology Consistency | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Research Question-Method Matching | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
Issue List and Revision Suggestions
For each item assessed as ⚠️ or ❌, provide:
- Issue Description: What specifically is the inconsistency?
- Harm Explanation: If not addressed, what concerns might reviewers raise?
- Revision Options: Provide at least two possible revision directions (because sometimes one can "revise upward" the epistemology, and sometimes one should "adjust downward" the method)
- Recommended Direction: Which direction is recommended based on the actual research situation, and the rationale
After all outputs, output the following fixed text:
The final revision of the research design is completed by the researcher. The internal consistency check provides a framework analysis, but research design decisions involve practical constraints (field access, time, data availability), and these constraints may reasonably restrict idealized design choices, so the researcher needs to weigh them personally. Please have the researcher confirm the following questions:
- Is my inference about your epistemological stance accurate? If there is any deviation, please let me know, as it will affect the conclusions of the entire check.
- If the inconsistencies I pointed out are intentional compromises, please explain the reasons for the compromise, and I can assess whether this compromise is defensible.
- Are there any constraints in the methods section (such as fieldwork difficulties or ethical constraints) that I do not know about?
References
- Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. SAGE. (classic source of the four-layer architecture)
- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE.
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE. (classic source of the credibility framework)
- Bhaskar, R. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds Books. (foundational text of critical realism)
- Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.
Language
- Default Chinese
- If the user inputs in English, output in English, and keep the frontmatter field names in English