Good fit
- Faculty and research teams designing an empirical study
- Doctoral researchers needing advisory support at proposal or pre-submission stage
- Organisations requiring rigorous analysis of an existing dataset
For faculty teams, researchers and doctoral scholars
Advanced Research Methods
Resolve design, measurement and analytical decisions before they become reviewer comments, failed models or an indefensible methods chapter.
Book a methods fit call →
The buyer problem
What needs to change
Strong research questions can be weakened by unclear constructs, mismatched methods, underpowered samples, weak measurement or analysis chosen after looking at results.
Cost of inaction
Those problems can force expensive redesign, produce unstable findings, delay submission and make the work difficult to defend in peer review or a viva.
Fit before scope
Who this is for — and who it is not for
Not a fit
- Anyone seeking ghostwritten theses, papers or fabricated analysis
- Requests to select methods only because they produce a preferred result
- Work where the researcher will not retain authorship responsibility and understand the method
Process outcomes
What the engagement is designed to leave behind
These are defined working outputs and capability improvements — not guarantees of an external decision or result.
A coherent link from question and theory to data, measurement and analysis
A documented sampling, instrument and model strategy
Clear interpretation boundaries and reproducible analytical outputs
A methods narrative the author can understand and defend
Exact deliverables
What lands on your desk
- Research-design and methodology review
- Construct, instrument, sampling and power-analysis plan
- Model specification for SEM, fsQCA, econometric or mixed-method designs where appropriate
- Output interpretation review with clean tables and figures
- Reviewer-response or viva-preparation briefing where included
Client inputs
What we need from you
- Research question, objectives, conceptual framework and current stage
- Draft instrument, codebook or dataset where available
- Target population, sampling constraints and planned outputs
- Any reviewer, supervisor or institutional requirements that materially affect design
Method
A documented route from problem to evidence
Diagnose
Test alignment between the question, constructs, data and intended claims.
Specify
Document sampling, measurement, model and decision rules before analysis.
Execute
Analyse in the agreed package with reproducible outputs and transparent checks.
Defend
Translate choices and findings into language the author can explain under scrutiny.
Indicative investment
The range is a guide; the written scope fixes the fee
Research-design engagements are typically ₹15,000–₹1,00,000; analysis-only work is typically ₹20,000–₹1,50,000. Doctoral proposal-stage support is ₹8,000–₹25,000 and thesis-level review ₹25,000–₹90,000.
Every engagement is scoped in writing against objectives, inputs, methods, deliverables, review points and exclusions before work begins.
What changes the price
- Study stage and quality of the existing design or data
- Number of constructs, groups, waves or models
- Software, reproducibility and reporting requirements
- Number of review rounds and whether training or viva preparation is included
Ethical boundaries
What Gurjas will not deliver
- No ghostwriting, fabricated data, invented citations or purchased authorship
- No analysis chosen to manufacture significance
- No guarantee of publication, approval, grade or degree outcome
- No submission of work the author cannot understand and defend
Relevant proof
Credentials and methods you can verify
FAQ
Questions to settle before a fit call
Will you write my thesis or paper?
No. We provide methodological, analytical and pedagogical support. Authorship and final writing remain with the researcher.
Which software do you use?
Depending on the design, work may use R, Python, Stata, SPSS/AMOS or SmartPLS, with outputs delivered in the package agreed in scope.
Can you review an analysis that is already complete?
Yes, provided the data, model decisions and outputs are available. The review may recommend re-specification where the original approach is not defensible.
A clear first step
Start with the problem, evidence available and decision deadline.
Use the structured intake form. We usually respond within two working days with fit, missing inputs and the next sensible scope.