Improving Methodological Coherence in Thesis Proposal Design: Development and Preliminary Validation of Research Coherence Alignment Framework

Methodological coherence is a central requirement in thesis proposal design because valid inquiry depends on the logical alignment of the research questions, constructs, evidence sources, instruments, and analytical procedures. Although the research methodology literature consistently emphasizes alignment, student researchers often lack the operational tools for translating research questions into coherent empirical structures. This study developed and preliminarily validated the Research Coherence Alignment Framework (RCAF), a methodological support system designed to guide, evaluate, and diagnose coherence in thesis proposal design. The framework consists of four integrated components: the SOP–Instrument Alignment Matrix, the Methodological Coherence Evaluation Rubric, the Taxonomy of Research Alignment Errors, and the Methodological Coherence Index. A DBR-informed developmental design was employed, involving expert validation and classroom-based implementation with 60 thesis-writing students assigned to control and experimental intact groups. Expert evaluation yielded a Content Validity Index of .90, indicating strong agreement for the framework’s clarity, relevance, and usefulness. The results also show that students who used the RCAF obtained significantly higher methodological coherence scores than those who followed the usual thesis-writing condition, t (58) = 10.31, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.65. Given the quasi-experimental design, the findings should be interpreted as preliminary evidence of the framework’s pedagogical usefulness rather than definitive proof of causal effectiveness. Overall, the study suggests that RCAF can support thesis instruction, proposal evaluation, and research supervision by making methodological alignment more explicit, teachable, and assessable.