A methods chapter that does not match its research question is one of the most common reasons a dissertation stalls at the proposal stage. The question asks what predicts an outcome, and the design describes a set of interviews. Each is a legitimate choice, and together they cannot produce an answer.
The mismatch usually survives several drafts because each chapter reads well on its own. The research question is clear. The methods are described in careful detail. The problem sits between them, where no one is reading.
Before revising the chapter, write three lines: (1) the research question, (2) the data source that will answer it, and (3) the analytic step applied to that data. If the three lines do not follow from one another, the chapter needs a different fix than better sentences.
Two outcomes are common. In the first, the question was drafted early and the design has since changed, so the question needs rewriting to fit what the study can answer. In the second, the design was inherited from a course project or a previous study, and the question is the real commitment, so the design needs to change. Your chair can tell you which applies, but only if you bring the three lines rather than the chapter.
A question about prediction calls for a design with measurable variables and enough cases to estimate a relationship. A question about experience calls for a design that captures description in participants' own terms. Mixed questions call for mixed designs, with a stated rationale for how the strands connect.
If you are unsure which situation you are in, send the three lines to your chair before the next draft. The cost is one short email, and the alternative is a full revision cycle on a chapter whose problem lies upstream.
This is practitioner observation from doctoral coaching, not a research finding.
I coach Ed.D. and Ph.D. students in education through the dissertation. Details and pricing: cevallos.org/dissertation-thesis-coaching