tesifyUK
Start writing free
How it worksFAQBlogHelpContactLog in

Tag: HRA approval

  • How to Write the Methodology Chapter of a Nursing PhD Thesis: Design, Governance and Analysis in Eight Steps (2026)

    How to Write the Methodology Chapter of a Nursing PhD Thesis: Design, Governance and Analysis in Eight Steps (2026)

    The methodology chapter of a nursing PhD is where two different examiners meet: a methodologist who wants the design justified against the alternatives, and a clinical academic who wants to know how you got into the ward, who consented, and whether the NMC Code held. This guide sets out the chapter in eight steps, with the UK governance layer — HRA, IRAS, research passports, the NIHR route — that general methodology guides leave out. Research degree regulations differ by institution; check your own code of practice before acting on any step.

    Step 1: Name the paradigm and let it do real work

    Examiners have read a hundred paragraphs on pragmatism, constructivism and post-positivism that changed nothing downstream. Write the paradigm section only to the extent that it decides something. A realist evaluation of a ward-based intervention, a qualitative descriptive study of patient experience and a feasibility trial sit in different paradigms, and the sentence that matters is the one connecting the paradigm to the design you chose and the designs you rejected.

    Expected output: two to four paragraphs ending in a sentence of the form “Because the question asks how and why the intervention works for whom, a realist design was adopted rather than an experimental one.”

    Step 2: Choose the design the field recognises, and justify it against its nearest rival

    Nursing has a small set of doctoral designs that examiners recognise on sight, each with a canonical source you should cite by name.

    Design Doctoral use in nursing Anchor source
    Qualitative descriptive Patient and staff experience where interpretation beyond the data is not the aim Sandelowski (2000), Research in Nursing and Health
    Interpretative phenomenological analysis or hermeneutic phenomenology Lived experience of illness, caring, transition Smith, Flowers and Larkin; van Manen
    Grounded theory Processes: how nurses make decisions, how families adapt Charmaz (constructivist); Glaser and Strauss (classic)
    Complex intervention development and evaluation Developing or feasibility-testing a nursing intervention Skivington et al. (2021), MRC and NIHR framework, BMJ 374:n2061
    Realist evaluation What works for whom in what circumstances, in service change Pawson and Tilley (1997)
    Mixed methods Instrument development, implementation studies Creswell and Plano Clark

    The justification examiners read for is comparative: why qualitative descriptive rather than IPA, why a feasibility study rather than a definitive trial. The 2021 MRC and NIHR framework is worth citing precisely because it replaced the 2008 guidance most textbooks still describe; it frames complex intervention research around four phases — development or identification, feasibility, evaluation and implementation — with core elements that include context, programme theory and stakeholder engagement. A nursing doctorate typically occupies the first two phases, and saying so is a mark of methodological literacy.

    Expected output: a design statement, a rejected-alternatives paragraph, and a sentence locating the study in the MRC and NIHR framework if it involves an intervention.

    A short briefing on what a doctoral methodology chapter for qualitative research has to establish before the methods are described.

    Step 3: Write the governance section as a procedure, not a disclaimer

    This is the section that distinguishes a nursing methodology chapter from a generic one. In England the framework is published by the Health Research Authority, and its student research pages set the doctoral position plainly: doctoral “applicants are eligible to complete health and social care research, subject to relevant approvals being in place.” The HRA also states that students “should not normally take the role of chief investigator at any level of study,” but that “for PhD courses, the student may take the role of chief investigator if the supervisor and the sponsor agree.” Record which arrangement applied to you and why.

    Then set out the route you actually took, with dates.

    1. Is it research? The HRA decision tool and the student research toolkit, which students and supervisors must complete before an application can be submitted through the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). Service evaluation and audit follow a different route and do not need REC review.
    2. Sponsor. Usually your university. Name the sponsor and the date of sponsorship confirmation.
    3. Ethics. NHS Research Ethics Committee review where participants are NHS patients, relatives, or identifiable data; university ethics committee for staff-only or non-NHS studies. Give the REC reference and date of favourable opinion.
    4. HRA Approval (England) or the equivalent Health and Care Research Wales approval, with the date.
    5. Site access. Capacity and capability confirmation from each NHS organisation, and your own access status. The HRA describes the research passport as “the mechanism for non-NHS staff to obtain an Honorary Research Contract or Letter of Access (LOA) when they propose to carry out research in the NHS.” A nurse employed by the trust where the study runs will not need one; a nurse now in a university post returning to a former ward usually will.
    6. Data protection. UK GDPR lawful basis (for a university, usually public task), the data protection impact assessment if one was required, and the retention period.

    Expected output: a governance table — approval, body, reference, date — followed by a paragraph on what the approvals required you to change in the design. That last paragraph is what examiners cannot get from the appendix.

    Ethics and NHS approval paperwork for a nursing doctoral study laid out beside a laptop
    Governance is a procedure with dates and references, and the chapter should show it as one.

    Step 4: Describe the setting and the sample as a clinician would recognise them

    Describe the setting in the terms a clinical examiner uses: the type of unit, the patient population, the staffing model, the shift pattern, and any service change during data collection — a ward move, a new electronic record, a winter pressures escalation. Naming them shows you understood the site as a nurse rather than a visitor.

    For sampling, name the strategy and its source (purposive, maximum variation, theoretical, consecutive) and give the inclusion and exclusion criteria exactly as approved. For sample size, cite the convention that fits your design rather than a number: information power for qualitative work, a power calculation for a quantitative study, the feasibility conventions for pilot studies. Our companion guide to sample size in postgraduate nursing research sets out those conventions with their sources; cite them and report the achieved sample against the planned one.

    Expected output: a setting paragraph, a sampling paragraph with criteria, a sample-size justification with a named source, and a recruitment flow — approached, declined, consented, withdrawn — as a figure or short table.

    Step 5: Recruitment and consent, including the parts that went wrong

    Nursing recruitment runs through gatekeepers — ward managers, clinical nurse specialists, research nurses — and the chapter should say who identified potential participants, who made first contact, and how you kept the approach from feeling like a request from a colleague that could not be refused. The NMC Code’s requirement to act in people’s best interests and obtain consent applies to a nurse-researcher exactly as it does to a nurse, and examiners from the profession will look for the point where you addressed the dual role.

    Consent should be described as a process, not a signature: the participant information sheet version, the time given to decide, the capacity assessment where relevant, and the arrangements for participants who became unwell during the study. Report withdrawals and the reasons.

    Expected output: a recruitment procedure in numbered steps with the gatekeeper role explicit, and a consent paragraph that names the dual-role problem and your response to it.

    Step 6: Data collection described so that it could be repeated

    For interviews: the topic guide and how it changed, the setting (a side room, a home visit, online), the recording device and transcription approach, and the average duration. For observation: the sampling of shifts and times, the position you took on the ward, and how patients and staff were informed. For surveys and instruments: the validated tool, its licence, the version used, and its reliability in your sample. For intervention studies: the TIDieR checklist items.

    Where an instrument is not validated in your population, say so. Where interviews were transcribed by a service or a tool, name it and state the confidentiality arrangement; our comparison of transcription tools for PhD interviews covers the ethics and data-protection questions that belong in this section.

    Expected output: one subsection per data source, each ending with what was actually collected — number of interviews, hours of observation, response rate.

    Step 7: Analysis, with the version of the method named

    Thematic analysis is the commonest analytic method in nursing theses, and the commonest examiner complaint is that the chapter cites Braun and Clarke’s 2006 paper and then describes something else. Braun and Clarke themselves, in Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 2019), revisit the unspoken assumptions of the 2006 paper and distinguish their reflexive approach from coding-reliability and codebook versions. Say which you used. If you claim reflexive thematic analysis, do not report inter-rater reliability; if you used a codebook approach with a second coder, say so and cite that tradition instead.

    For grounded theory, describe coding stages and theoretical sampling. For quantitative analysis, state the software and version, the tests, the handling of missing data and the significance threshold. In every case include a worked example — one theme built from codes with two extracts, or one variable from raw score to test result — because that is how an examiner judges whether the analysis was done as described.

    A nurse researcher coding interview transcripts for the analysis section of a doctoral methodology chapter
    The analysis section should show one theme or one variable worked through, not only a description of the method.

    Expected output: a named method with its version, the steps as you performed them, the software, and one worked example.

    Step 8: Rigour, reflexivity and the reporting checklist

    Use the rigour vocabulary that matches the paradigm — trustworthiness criteria for interpretive work, validity and reliability for quantitative — and report against a published checklist. For interview and focus-group studies the standard is COREQ, the 32-item checklist by Tong, Sainsbury and Craig (International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2007). For qualitative work that does not fit COREQ, the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (O’Brien and colleagues, Academic Medicine, 2014) are the alternative. For quantitative designs, CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies. Put the completed checklist in an appendix and cite it in the chapter.

    Reflexivity in nursing is not a paragraph about your feelings; it is an account of how your clinical identity shaped access, questions, interpretation and what participants chose to tell you. A ward sister interviewing junior nurses gets different data from a stranger; say which you were and what it changed.

    Expected output: a rigour subsection organised by the criteria you named, a reflexivity statement in the first person, and a checklist reference.

    A worked opening for the chapter

    A methodology chapter should open with the design decision, not the philosophy of science. A serviceable first paragraph for a qualitative descriptive study reads: “This chapter sets out the design and conduct of a qualitative descriptive study of how newly registered nurses experience the first year on an acute medical ward. It explains why a descriptive rather than interpretive design was chosen, the governance route through which access to two NHS trusts was obtained, the purposive sampling of fourteen participants, and the reflexive thematic analysis applied to the interview data. It closes with the measures taken to secure trustworthiness and a reflexive account of the researcher’s position as a former ward-based nurse.” Everything the examiner needs is there, and the chapter delivers it in the order announced.

    The chapter is also the part of the thesis your upgrade or confirmation review panel reads most closely, because at upgrade the design is all there is to examine. Write the governance and design sections early, then update them as the study unfolds; the dates and deviations make the final version credible. If your study includes a systematic review chapter, its methods belong in that chapter rather than here, and our guide to the PRISMA systematic review chapter covers that separately.

    Drafting the chapter alongside the study

    The methodology chapter is written twice: once for ethics and upgrade, when it is a plan, and once for submission, when it is a record. Between the two, recruitment slips, a site withdraws and the topic guide changes. The chapter that survives examination records all of it.

    Draft your nursing methodology chapter in Tesify: keep the protocol version, the governance table and the chapter in one workspace so that every deviation is logged where the examiner will read it. The design decisions, the clinical judgement and the reflexivity are yours alone; the tool keeps the record straight from IRAS submission to viva. There is a free plan, so you can start with the governance table today.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does a nursing PhD need NHS ethics approval?

    If participants are NHS patients, their relatives or carers, or identifiable NHS data, yes: NHS Research Ethics Committee review and, in England, HRA Approval. Studies involving only NHS staff as participants usually need HRA Approval but not REC review.

    Can a PhD student be the chief investigator?

    The HRA states that students should not normally be chief investigator at any level, but that for PhD courses the student may take the role if the supervisor and the sponsor agree. Say which arrangement applied and why.

    Do I need a research passport for my nursing PhD?

    Only if you are not employed by the NHS organisation where the research takes place and need access to patients, data or premises. The research passport is the HRA mechanism for obtaining an honorary research contract or letter of access.

    Which version of thematic analysis should I cite?

    The one you used. Braun and Clarke’s 2019 paper distinguishes reflexive thematic analysis from coding-reliability and codebook approaches; citing the 2006 paper while reporting inter-rater agreement mixes two incompatible traditions and examiners notice.

    Which reporting checklist applies to a qualitative nursing study?

    COREQ, the 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups published by Tong, Sainsbury and Craig in 2007, is the standard. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research from 2014 cover designs that COREQ does not fit. Complete the checklist and put it in an appendix.

    Should I cite the MRC complex intervention framework?

    If your study develops or tests a nursing intervention, yes, and cite the 2021 update by Skivington and colleagues in the BMJ rather than the 2008 guidance. State which phase of the framework your doctoral study occupies, usually development or feasibility.

    How do I handle having worked on the ward where I recruited?

    Declare it, describe the dual-role problem for consent and data quality, and report what you did: an independent person for first contact, explicit statements that participation did not affect care or working relationships, and a reflexive account of how the relationship shaped the data.

    Where does the systematic review method go?

    In the review chapter itself, not in the methodology chapter. The methodology chapter covers the empirical study; a systematic review has its own methods, protocol registration and PRISMA reporting.

  • What Does a DClinPsy Thesis Look Like? Structure, Word Counts and the Three-Paper Portfolio (2026)

    What Does a DClinPsy Thesis Look Like? Structure, Word Counts and the Three-Paper Portfolio (2026)

    A UK DClinPsy thesis is usually not a monograph. It is a portfolio of journal-ready papers — most commonly a systematic review, an empirical study and a critical appraisal — bound and examined together, under a word limit set by your own programme rather than by any national standard.

    That single structural fact explains most of what confuses trainees in their second year. You are not writing chapters that build toward a conclusion across 80,000 words. You are writing two or three self-contained documents, each of which has to survive being read on its own, plus a reflective piece that does the work a monograph would have done through its connective tissue. The skills transfer badly from an undergraduate or MSc dissertation, and the timetable is unforgiving because clinical placements do not pause while you collect data.

    How is a DClinPsy thesis different from a PhD thesis?

    The difference is architectural, not one of difficulty or of standard. A PhD thesis is examined as a single sustained argument that makes an original contribution to knowledge; the reader is expected to move through it in order. A DClinPsy thesis is examined as a set of outputs plus evidence of the reflective, clinically-informed reasoning that produced them.

    The consequence is that redundancy is designed in rather than penalised. Your systematic review and your empirical paper will both contain an introduction that sets up the same clinical problem, and both will cite an overlapping literature. In a monograph that would be a fault. In a portfolio it is the correct behaviour, because each paper must stand alone at submission to a journal. This is the same logic that governs an alternative-format doctorate, and it is worth reading how professional doctorates differ from a PhD before you assume any structural convention carries across.

    The second difference is the assessed relationship to practice. A PhD is judged on contribution to knowledge. A professional doctorate in clinical psychology is judged on contribution to knowledge and on your capacity to reason as a scientist-practitioner — which is precisely what the critical appraisal exists to evidence.

    How many words is a DClinPsy thesis?

    Considerably fewer than a PhD, and the number you are governed by is in your programme handbook, not in a sector-wide rule. Totals in the region of 25,000 to 30,000 words are common, but programmes express the limit in at least three incompatible ways.

    Some set a single total for the whole portfolio and let you distribute it. Some set a per-paper limit — often around 8,000 words for each of the review and empirical papers, with a shorter appraisal. Some set the limit by reference to the target journal’s own instructions to authors, which can bring an empirical paper down to 4,000 or 5,000 words and push the rest into appendices. One UK institution’s regulations set the DClinPsy at 14,000 words where the same institution sets the PhD at 100,000 — a difference that only makes sense once you know appendices are excluded and the journal format is doing the compression.

    Check three things in your handbook before you plan anything: whether the limit is per paper or total, whether abstracts, tables, reference lists and appendices count toward it, and what the tolerance is for exceeding it. These vary enough between programmes that borrowing a friend’s plan from another university is actively risky. If you are trying to work out where chapter or paper boundaries belong at all, the reasoning behind how doctoral theses divide into chapters applies to portfolio components too.

    What goes in the systematic review paper?

    A publishable synthesis answering a clearly bounded clinical question, conducted and reported to a recognised standard. In practice that means a PRISMA-compliant systematic review, and increasingly a meta-analysis where the literature supports pooling.

    The commonest failure is a question that is too broad to be searched systematically — “psychological interventions for anxiety” will return tens of thousands of records and no trainee has the time. The question needs population, intervention, comparator and outcome specified tightly enough that the search returns a screenable number. You will also need a protocol, ideally registered on PROSPERO before screening begins, and a second reviewer for at least a proportion of the screening and quality appraisal.

    Quality appraisal is where clinical psychology reviews are marked hardest, because the included studies are usually heterogeneous in design. Expect to justify your choice of appraisal tool rather than simply apply one. The full procedure, including the screening arithmetic and the flow diagram, is set out in our guide to writing a PRISMA systematic review chapter.

    What goes in the empirical paper?

    Your own study, written to the length and section structure of a named target journal. It is the component most constrained by circumstances outside your control: recruitment through NHS services, ethics timelines, and the fact that you are on placement.

    Design realism matters more here than ambition. Trainees routinely propose a randomised design and end up with a cross-sectional survey because recruitment through a service ran at a fraction of the projected rate. Build the sample size assumption explicitly and early, and know what your paper becomes if you reach only half of it — a pilot, a feasibility study, a qualitative design. Getting the sample size right in postgraduate health research is the single decision that most often determines whether the empirical paper is publishable.

    Qualitative empirical papers are entirely standard in clinical psychology and are not a lesser option. They carry their own requirements: a stated epistemological position, a defensible analytic approach, and reflexivity that is evidenced rather than asserted.

    What is the critical appraisal for?

    It is the component with no equivalent in a PhD, and the one trainees most often treat as an afterthought. The critical appraisal — sometimes called the reflective commentary, integration chapter or extended paper — asks you to stand outside the two papers and interrogate them.

    Done badly it is a diary: what went wrong, how stressful it was, what you would do differently. Done well it is an argument about the epistemology and clinical utility of your own work. Why this design and not the obvious alternative? What does the systematic review tell you that changes how the empirical findings should be read? What would a service actually do differently on Monday morning, and what is the honest strength of the evidence for doing it? Where did your position as a trainee inside the service shape recruitment, the interviews, or the analysis?

    Examiners use it to test whether you understand the limits of your own study, which is also the substance of much of the viva. The reasoning is close to that of a doctoral discussion chapter that handles limitations well — limitations stated as analytic judgements strengthen the work rather than undermining it.

    Why write in journal article format at all?

    Because the profession expects the research to reach practice, and because a portfolio written to journal specifications can be submitted within weeks of the viva rather than being rewritten from scratch a year later.

    The practical implication is that you choose target journals before you write, not after. The journal determines your word limit, your section headings, your reporting checklist, your reference style and whether you can include a figure at all. Writing 8,000 words and then discovering the journal caps research articles at 5,000 is a fortnight lost. Name a first-choice and a fallback journal for each paper, put their instructions to authors in front of you, and write to them. Our guide to turning doctoral work into a journal article covers the submission decisions that follow.

    What ethics and governance approval will you need?

    More than an MSc project, and on a timeline you must plan backwards from. If your study involves NHS patients, staff recruited through the NHS, or NHS data, you are looking at an IRAS application, HRA approval and in most cases a Research Ethics Committee review, plus local capacity and capability confirmation from each participating site.

    Treat the approval process as a research phase with its own duration rather than as paperwork. Committee meeting dates are fixed, responses to provisional opinions take time to draft, and site confirmations arrive at their own pace. Trainees who lose a thesis year almost always lose it here. If your design can answer a worthwhile question using existing data, a service evaluation route, or participants recruited outside the NHS, that is a legitimate and often wiser choice — but confirm with your programme’s research director that it satisfies the thesis requirement before committing.

    What does the DClinPsy viva assess?

    The same things a PhD viva assesses — that the work is yours, that you understand its limits, that you can defend your decisions — with an added strand on clinical and professional implications.

    Expect to be asked why you chose this question rather than an adjacent one, what you would do with another year and a larger sample, how the review and empirical paper speak to each other, and what a clinician should take from your findings. Expect at least one question that invites you to criticise your own study before the examiners do. Examiner composition follows the same internal-and-external convention as other UK doctorates; if that is unfamiliar, see who examines a doctoral thesis in the UK.

    What do trainees most often get wrong?

    Four things, in roughly this order of frequency. Starting the systematic review too late, on the assumption that it is the easy component — it is not, and second-reviewer screening takes calendar time you cannot compress. Designing an empirical study whose recruitment assumptions were never stress-tested. Writing the critical appraisal in the last fortnight, when it is the component that most differentiates a strong portfolio. And leaving the choice of target journal until after drafting, which guarantees a rewrite.

    The structural fix for all four is the same: decide the shape of all three components in your second year, including target journals and sample size logic, and treat each as a document with its own deadline rather than as a section of one large thing you will assemble later.

    Write the portfolio without losing the thread between papers

    The hardest part of a portfolio thesis is holding three documents in mind at once while a clinical placement consumes your week. Tesify keeps the review, the empirical paper and the appraisal in one workspace, with your sources, notes and drafts attached to the paper they belong to, so the argument in the appraisal can actually reach back into the other two. It supports your writing rather than replacing it — the reasoning stays yours, which is the only version examiners will accept.

    Start your thesis portfolio with Tesify

    Frequently asked questions

    Is a DClinPsy thesis a real doctorate?

    Yes. A DClinPsy is a doctoral award at the same level as a PhD, examined against doctoral criteria including an original contribution to knowledge. It differs in assessment architecture — a portfolio of papers plus clinical competence requirements rather than a single monograph — not in level.

    How many papers are in a DClinPsy thesis?

    Most UK programmes require three components: a systematic review, an empirical paper and a critical appraisal. Some require only the review and empirical paper with a shorter integrative statement, and a minority require an additional service-related project. Your programme handbook is the authority.

    Do appendices count toward the DClinPsy word limit?

    Usually not, which is why journal-format portfolios can be much shorter than a monograph. Interview schedules, ethics documentation, extended analyses and search strategies typically sit in appendices outside the count. Confirm this in your regulations, because a minority of programmes count them.

    Do you have to publish your DClinPsy papers to pass?

    No. Programmes require the papers to be written to publishable standard and formatted for a named journal, but acceptance by that journal is not normally a condition of the award. Submission usually happens after the viva and any corrections.

    Can a DClinPsy empirical paper be qualitative?

    Yes, and qualitative designs are common in clinical psychology. They require an explicit epistemological position, a justified analytic method, and evidenced reflexivity. They are not treated as a weaker option, though they carry different appraisal expectations than quantitative work.

    When should you register a systematic review protocol on PROSPERO?

    Before you begin screening. Registration after screening has started is possible but must be declared, and reviewers of the eventual paper will notice. Registration also protects you if another group publishes a similar review while yours is in progress.

    How long does HRA and ethics approval take for a DClinPsy project?

    It varies with study type and how quickly you respond to a provisional opinion, and it is measured in months rather than weeks once site confirmations are included. Plan backwards from your data collection window and treat committee dates as fixed constraints.

    What happens if recruitment fails on a DClinPsy empirical study?

    You reframe the study rather than abandon it — commonly as a feasibility or pilot study, or by shifting to a qualitative analysis of the participants you did recruit. Discuss the change with your supervisor early, and check whether an ethics amendment is required.

    Is the critical appraisal assessed separately?

    It is normally assessed as part of the whole portfolio rather than given an independent mark, but it carries disproportionate weight in examiners’ overall judgement because it evidences the scientist-practitioner reasoning that distinguishes a professional doctorate.

    Can you fail a DClinPsy viva?

    Outright failure is rare. The usual outcomes mirror other UK doctorates: pass with no corrections, minor corrections, major corrections, or referral for resubmission. Because clinical training and the research award are linked, check how your programme handles a referral alongside qualification.