Analysis you can defend, because you understand what it did
Running the test is the easy part. Choosing the right one, checking its assumptions and explaining what the output means are the parts a committee asks about, and they are the parts we work on with you.
Get your free quote
We reply within 1 business hour, no delays.
No card details required · 100% confidential · On time, or it's free
Why did you use that test?
The most dangerous position in a defense is having correct results you cannot account for. A committee does not usually challenge the output. They ask why you chose that test, whether you checked its assumptions, what you did about the ones it violated, and what the effect size means in the context of your field. A candidate who outsourced the analysis has no answers, and it is immediately obvious.
The same holds in qualitative work. A thematic analysis is not a list of themes; it is a defensible account of how you got from transcripts to those themes, including your coding frame, how it changed, and what you did about the parts that did not fit.
So the work here is analysis with you rather than for you. You run it, we sit with the output, and you leave able to explain every decision in it.
- Test selection justified against your design and your data
- Assumptions checked, violations named and handled
- Effect sizes interpreted in the terms your field uses
- Qualitative coding frames documented so they can be audited
What a session covers
Typically 60 to 90 minutes, on your own data
- Which analysis your design and measurement level actually permit
- Assumption checks run together, with what to do about failures
- The output read line by line, in plain language
- How to write it up so a committee can follow the inference
- The likely questions at the viva, and how you would answer them
Quantitative, qualitative and the methods underneath
Test selection and design
Working out what your design and measurement levels permit, before you run something that cannot answer your question.
SPSS, R and Excel
Running and interpreting the analysis together, with the assumption checks the write-up will have to report.
Sample size and power
Power analysis before you collect, and an honest account of what an underpowered study can and cannot claim afterwards.
Thematic and qualitative coding
Coding frames, NVivo mechanics, and the audit trail that makes a thematic analysis defensible rather than assertive.
Results write-up
Reporting to APA 7 statistical conventions, so a reader can follow every step from data to claim.
APA 7 formattingViva preparation on method
The methods questions your committee is most likely to ask, rehearsed against your actual analysis.
How coaching worksFind the part you are actually stuck on
Every one of these is work on your own data, done with you, so that you can explain it afterwards.
Qualitative
- Qualitative data analysisMethod choice, coding frames, themes and the audit trail
- Qualitative codingCodebooks, intercoder agreement, moving from codes to themes
- NVivoProject setup, coding in the software, queries and output
Quantitative
- Quantitative data analysisTest selection, assumptions, effect sizes and reporting
- Choosing a statistical testMatching test to question, variables and design
- SPSSData setup, procedures, reading output, APA 7 tables
- Sample size and powerPower analysis, and options when recruitment falls short
Across both
- Mixed methodsSequencing, integration points and joint displays
- Interpreting and reporting resultsTurning output or themes into a chapter that holds up
Not sure which you need? Send the dataset and the research question and we will tell you where the work actually is.
How a data session works
Send the design and the data
Your research questions, your variables and how they are measured, plus the dataset or a de-identified extract of it.
We agree what is answerable
Sometimes the honest answer is that the design will not support the analysis you were planning. Better to find that out now than at the defense.
We work through it live
You drive the software. We explain each decision as it is made, and you keep the notes.
You write it up, we check it
The write-up is yours. We read it for whether the inference holds and whether the reporting follows APA 7 statistical conventions.
One session, or the whole results chapter
Sessions run 60 minutes with a statistician rather than a writing coach, which is why they are priced above general coaching.
Single session
60 minutes
- One question answered properly, with the output in front of us
- Qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods
- Written notes afterwards
- No commitment to book another
Methods block
3 × 60 minutes
- Method choice, assumption checks, then the analysis itself
- The same statistician across all three
- Enough to get a methodology chapter defensible
- Booked around your supervisor meetings
Results chapter
Start to defense
- Everything in the methods block
- Every table and figure reported to APA 7
- Findings checked against what the analysis actually supports
- Defense questions rehearsed against your own output
You run the analysis. We work through it with you, check the assumptions and explain what the output means, because a committee will ask you and not us. We do not run tests on your behalf or write your results chapter.
Your data, your results, your defense
- We do not collect your data or recruit your participants.
- We do not fabricate, alter, exclude or clean data toward a result.
- We do not run analysis you cannot explain, which is why sessions are live.
- We do not write your findings or your discussion.
- If your design cannot support the claim you want, we will tell you that instead.
Data integrity is the part of research misconduct with the longest tail: a fabricated or unexplained result can be retracted and can end a career a decade later. Read the full policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
No, and this is deliberate. Sessions are live and you drive the software, because the value is being able to explain every decision at the defense. A result you cannot account for is worse than no result.
SPSS, R and Excel for quantitative work, and NVivo for qualitative coding. If your program mandates a different tool, say so and we will tell you honestly whether we can support it.
Usually not. Most assumption violations have a recognized remedy, a transformation, a robust alternative, or a non-parametric equivalent, and the committee's real question is whether you noticed and what you did about it. Silence is the problem, not the violation.
That is the best time to come. Power analysis, measurement level and design decisions are cheap to fix before collection and sometimes impossible to fix afterwards.
Yes. The integration point is where mixed methods work is usually weakest: two studies reported side by side with no account of how the strands actually inform each other. That is generally where we start.
Tell us what you are trying to find out
Send your research questions and how your variables are measured. We will tell you what the design supports, what a session would cover, and what it would cost.
Get My Free Quote