A research design template for Notion that helps you defend your choice

See inside the Methods Design Navigator

The problem it solves

"Why this design and not another?" Every supervisor, ethics committee and examiner asks it. "It seemed the most appropriate" is not an answer, and neither is naming the design you happened to start with.

A defensible methods section names the design, says why it fits the question and your constraints, lists the alternatives you considered with the reason each was set aside, and states the limitations you accept. Most students only write the first part, because they never weighed the alternatives on purpose.

The other trap is the mismatch between question and design. A mediation question answered with one survey wave can only show consistency with mediation, not mediation itself (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). A causal question answered with a cross-sectional design needs a stated limitation, or an examiner will supply one for you.

This studio has you record the reasoning while you make the choice, so the paragraph is already half-written when the question comes.

How it works: Frame → Weigh → Justify

1. Frame

   Write your research question and pick what kind of question it is: descriptive, association, causal effect, mediation, moderation, lived experience, mixed, or secondary data analysis. A design prompt names the families worth weighing. It prompts; you decide.

2. Weigh

   Add two or more candidate designs, including the one you would rather avoid. Tick the four feasibility checks (access, timeline, ethics, skills) and log each design's threats to validity with a severity and a mitigation.

3. Justify

   Mark one design Chosen with your rationale and the limitations you accept, and mark the rest Rejected with the reason. The studio drafts a justification paragraph from your own words.

What the studio checks for you

Each candidate design and each question carries a plain-language signal, worked out by formulas from what you enter. These are the labels you will see.

Readiness, per candidate design

• 📝 Log its threats first: no threats to validity logged for this design yet.
• ⚪ Set a severity for 1 threat(s): a logged threat still has no High, Medium or Low.
• 🔴 1 unmitigated high threat(s): a High threat is not ticked as mitigated, or is ticked with no real mitigation written.
• 🟠 Feasibility gap: 3/4: one or more of the four feasibility checks does not hold.
• 🟢 Ready to compare: threats rated, no open high threat, all four checks ticked.

Brief check, per question

• 📝 Add candidate designs: nothing weighed yet.
• ⏳ No design chosen yet: candidates exist, but none is marked Chosen.
• ⚠️ More than one marked Chosen: pick one.
• ⚠️ No alternatives recorded: a design is chosen, but nothing was rejected with a reason.
• ✅ Choice and alternatives recorded: one Chosen design with a rationale, alternatives with reasons, and nothing left Considering.

Record check, per design

• ⚠️ Add your rationale / ⚠️ Add why you set it aside: the reason is missing, or is a placeholder such as tbc or n/a.
• ⚠️ Name the open high threat(s) in Accepted limitations: you chose a design that still has an open high threat, without saying you accept it.

The design prompt rules and the Readiness signal are GradSummit conventions, labelled as such in the studio. ✅ in Brief check means your record is complete, not that the design is sound or approved.

The worked example

Fictional study

The worked example uses the fictional Brookfield study: whether timely instructor feedback is linked to course completion among first-generation students in online programmes. It has 2 questions, 6 candidate designs, 9 threats to validity and 2 decision log entries. For the central question, a survey linked to course records is chosen over a three-term panel cohort, a before-and-after policy study and a randomised design that would deliberately delay feedback. The second question asks whether belonging mediates the link; a single belonging wave is chosen with its 🔴 high threat named as an accepted limitation, to show that you can choose a design with a known weakness if you report it. Both questions reach ✅. Clearing the example takes a few minutes.

Method and sources

The studio draws on established design texts: Shadish, Cook & Campbell (2002) for the four validity types, Lincoln & Guba (1985) for qualitative trustworthiness, Creswell & Creswell (2023) for matching design to question, Creswell & Plano Clark (2018) for mixed methods, Creswell & Poth (2018) for qualitative traditions, Mann (2003) for observational designs, Kraemer et al. (2002) for moderators and Maxwell & Cole (2007) for mediation.

Quantitative validity types and qualitative trustworthiness criteria are kept separate, and the method page warns against mixing the two for one design. It also shows, step by step, how the design prompt and Readiness are decided.

What the studio does not do

• It does not choose your design. You and your supervisor do.
• The design prompt is a coarse rule set. It does not yet cover single-case designs, diagnostic accuracy studies, action research or Delphi studies.
• It does not judge whether your rationale is good, only whether a real one is written.
• The justification paragraph is a draft built from your entries. Edit it; it is not finished prose.

What you get

• A one-page PDF with your private link, sent by Gumroad straight after checkout. Click it, then Duplicate, and the studio is in your own Notion workspace, yours to keep.
• Simple mode: three steps, one small table each, with a plain instruction above every table. You can start in Notion for the first time today.
• Design briefs, candidates side by side, a board of threats with no fix yet, justification paragraphs and a decision log for when you change course.
• Export views that turn your briefs, designs, threats and decisions into clean CSV tables for an appendix.
• A Start here page, a method guide with full references, and a worked fictional example you can clear in a few minutes.
• Works on Notion's Free plan. No charts, no paid features and no Notion AI needed.

Related guides and templates

• Research design

  a plain-English guide

• Types of research design

  experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal and more

• How to write the methodology chapter

  where your justification goes

• Validity and reliability

  the threats you will log for each design

Other research studios

• Research Question Lab

  Free. Score each draft research question and revise the weakest part.

• Sample Size & Power Planner

  Free. A sample size you can defend, with a justification paragraph.

• Mixed Methods Integration Board

  Pair your strands, judge fit and explain discordance. $15.