No, in most theses and many papers, the methodology follows the literature review to align design with prior work.
Getting the order right saves time, tightens your argument, and keeps reviewers on your side. The usual flow places background and prior findings before the plan for data collection and analysis. That way, the gap you claim leads straight to the choices you make about design, sampling, measures, and analysis.
Quick Order At A Glance
This overview shows how common scholarly formats handle section order. You’ll see that methods usually sit after theory and prior studies, not before them.
| Document Type | Typical Sequence | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| APA-Style Journal Article | Title → Abstract → Introduction (with prior studies) → Method → Results → Discussion → References | Prior work appears inside the Introduction; the Method section follows it. See standard APA layouts adopted by many writing centers and guides. |
| Thesis/Dissertation | Front matter → Chapter 1 (overview) → Chapter 2 (prior studies) → Chapter 3 (methods) → Findings → Discussion | Universities commonly specify a dedicated chapter for prior work followed by a methods chapter. |
| Research Proposal | Overview → Prior studies (targeted) → Proposed methods → Timeline/ethics/resources | Some programs accept a shorter early overview or prospectus before the full write-up. |
Should Methods Chapter Precede The Review Of Literature?
For most projects, no. A grounded scan of prior studies frames the question, clarifies variables, and narrows design choices. Placing the plan before that groundwork can produce a mismatch between what you propose and what the field already tried, measured, or warned against. Many university guides and writing centers present the standard sequence with prior work first, then methods. One widely used explanation states that the methods section comes after the introduction and prior studies in papers and theses, not before. You can read a clear walkthrough in this style of guide from Scribbr and similar academic writing resources (see methods placement in papers and theses).
In thesis formats, the same pattern appears as Chapter 2 followed by Chapter 3. Many program handbooks describe this order explicitly. A representative example from a university handbook lists the chapters as Introduction, Review of Related Studies, and then Methods, before moving to findings and discussion (see chapter order in a typical dissertation).
Why Prior Studies First Strengthens Your Design
It Sharpens The Research Question
A scan of the field reveals what’s known, what’s contested, and where a clean gap sits. That process trims broad aims down to testable questions. Without that pass, a methods plan can drift or chase a question already answered.
It Aligns Concepts, Variables, And Measures
Prior studies show which constructs map to which indicators. They reveal tried-and-tested scales, coding frames, and instruments. You can borrow, adapt, or, when needed, justify a new measure. That reduces design risk and helps readers see continuity with the field.
It Guides Sampling And Power
Reported effect sizes, base rates, and variance in earlier work help you set sample size and inclusion rules. That planning step keeps your study feasible while still carrying enough sensitivity for the tests you plan to run.
It Flags Pitfalls Before You Commit
Previous work surfaces threats to validity, response biases, attrition patterns, and instrument quirks. Knowing those early lets you add controls, pilot tasks, or design tweaks before data collection starts.
It Builds A Credible Rationale
Readers like to see a clear thread: field context → open question → plan that fits the gap. When the thread is linear, your choices look motivated rather than arbitrary.
When A Methods-First Move Can Still Work
Short Empirical Reports
In some brief formats, prior studies compress into a tight opening paragraph, and then the plan appears quickly. Even then, the short nod to prior work still comes first, just in miniature.
Registered Reports And Protocols
In registered reports or protocol papers, the plan is the star. Yet these formats still ask for enough prior work to justify the plan up front. The order stays consistent: context first, plan second.
Prospectus Stage
Some programs invite a lean prospectus early in the process. That document sketches the idea and a rough plan. After feedback, you expand the scan of prior studies and then lock the full plan. A prospectus is not the final order; it’s a checkpoint.
Natural Keyword Variant In A Heading: Should The Methods Section Come Before Prior Studies?
Writers ask this a lot, especially when deadlines loom. The safer route is to outline prior work first, even if the draft remains messy. With that scaffold in place, your plan falls into shape faster and survives committee or peer review with less red ink. If a template you must follow dictates the layout, follow that template, but keep the logic: show readers how the gap leads to your plan.
What Editors Expect In APA-Style Papers
In APA-style research articles, prior work appears in the introductory section; the Method section follows it. Many guides reprint this sequence clearly: introduction (theory and syntheses of prior studies), then Method, Results, and Discussion. A concise primer like the one at Hamilton College’s writing center lays out this order as standard with Method after the introduction and syntheses.
Need a crisp refresher on how a scan of prior studies works as a genre? Purdue’s guide explains purpose and structure and helps you synthesize sources, not just list them. See writing a literature review for a step-by-step outline of expectations.
Practical Sequence You Can Use
1) Draft A One-Page Rationale
State the working question, the audience that needs an answer, and the value of a clear test. Keep it short. This page guides your reading and keeps the later plan on target.
2) Build A Search Plan
List databases, keywords, and inclusion rules. Track what you read with a citation manager. Tag papers by role: background, construct, method, instrument, or contrast view.
3) Synthesize, Don’t Stack Summaries
Group studies by theme, method family, or finding pattern. Within each group, compare designs and outcomes. Name agreements, tensions, and holes that actually matter for your plan.
4) Land The Gap And Question
State what needs testing now and why it matters to a reader who cares about the topic. Tie that need to design demands: measurement, sampling, and analysis.
5) Choose A Design That Fits The Gap
Pick quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Match the choice to the types of claims you want to make. Borrow measures where they fit, and explain any changes.
6) Map Procedures And Ethics
Lay out recruitment, consent, tasks, and data handling. Add power checks or saturation logic. List preregistration or archiving steps if your field expects them.
7) Write The Plan In Replicable Detail
Readers should be able to run your study from your text. Name instruments, versions, scoring, coder training, and analysis pipelines with enough clarity to repeat them.
8) Loop Back To The Scan
Before locking the chapter, reread the syntheses. Check that every choice in the plan links to a claim made earlier. If a choice lacks a link, add the link or adjust the choice.
Common Mistakes And Fixes
Writing The Plan In A Vacuum
Problem: Drafting procedures before reading makes the plan look out of sync with the field. Fix: Do a targeted scan first. Even ten solid sources can align your plan.
Listing Studies Without A Thread
Problem: Paragraphs that just summarize one paper after another leave readers lost. Fix: Group by theme and end each group with a one-line takeaway that drives a design choice.
Vague Constructs And Measures
Problem: Concepts float with no clear indicators. Fix: Tie each concept to named scales, items, codes, or artifacts from prior studies, then justify any change.
Underpowered Samples
Problem: Too few units to detect effects you care about. Fix: Use effect sizes reported in prior studies to plan sample size or, in qualitative work, saturation targets.
Unclear Analysis Plan
Problem: Methods chapter lists tools but not the logic behind them. Fix: Link each analysis step to a research question or proposition named earlier.
What A Strong Scan Looks Like
This section lists the core moves your scan should show so the plan that follows has a firm base.
Define The Conversation
Set the scope, name the main schools of thought, and flag the measures or data types used in prior work.
Compare Designs And Outcomes
Point out where results converge and where they split, and tie splits to design differences that your plan can resolve.
Lead To Concrete Choices
End each theme with a design or measurement choice. Readers should feel the transition into the plan as the natural next step.
Sample Outline For A Proposal Or Thesis
Use this as a template you can adapt to your program’s rules while keeping the logic of prior work first, plan second.
| Section | Core Questions It Answers | Typical Length |
|---|---|---|
| Overview/Chapter 1 | What’s the topic, why now, and who benefits from a clear test? | 4–8 pages (proposal), 8–15 pages (thesis) |
| Prior Studies/Chapter 2 | What do we already know, where are the gaps, and what follows for the plan? | 15–40 pages, based on scope |
| Methods/Chapter 3 | How will data be gathered, scored, and analyzed so the question gets a fair test? | 10–25 pages; include instruments and appendices as needed |
| Findings | What did the data show, and how reliable are those results? | Varies by design |
| Discussion | What do the results mean for the field, and what comes next? | 6–15 pages |
Tips For Keeping Review-Then-Methods On Track
Write Short “Bridge” Sentences
End each theme in the scan with a one-line bridge into the plan. Example: “Prior work links X to Y with self-report scales; we add behavioral logs to reduce bias.”
Use Headings That Mirror The Plan
If your plan will test H1, H2, and H3, group prior studies by those same targets. Readers then see how each chunk of evidence feeds a specific test.
Cite Instruments And Versions
Name the exact scale, coding guide, or dataset version. If you adapt an instrument, state what changed and why. This helps replication and invites cleaner feedback.
Track Constraints
Note barriers like access limits, privacy rules, or lab time. Then show how your plan handles them without drifting off the research path.
A Note On Field And Template Differences
Disciplines write with slightly different rhythms. In some lab sciences, prior work condenses into a tight section inside the Introduction; in many humanities and social fields, the scan stands as its own chapter. Still, across these styles, the plan sits after the context. If your program publishes a handbook or template, follow it to the letter while keeping the logic of context-then-plan intact. University guides and writing centers echo this layout across formats, and you can cross-check with references like the Purdue guide to prior studies and method guides linked above.
What To Do Next
Open a fresh document and write two pages of syntheses grouped by theme, not by author. Under each theme, write a single line that states what your plan should do in light of that evidence. Only then start the methods chapter, using those lines as section openers. You’ll draft faster, cut fewer pages later, and present a plan that reads as a direct answer to the gap you framed.
Helpful references: a clear placement note for methods in papers and theses is here: methods placement in papers and theses. For a reliable guide to the genre of prior studies, see writing a literature review. Many program handbooks, like the one cited above, also list the thesis order with prior work ahead of the plan.