How should I structure a PhD research proposal outline if my committee requires a heavy emphasis on methodological innovation?

To keep your proposal from feeling disjointed, you should structure it so that your methodological innovation acts as the bridge between your theory and your data, rather than a separate technical appendix. Think of your research questions as the destination, your theoretical framework as the map, and your methodology as the vehicle you’ve custom-built to get there. Instead of separating these sections, try framing your methodology section as a direct response to the limitations of existing approaches you identified in your literature review. By explicitly stating why standard methods fall short for your specific question, you naturally set the stage to introduce your innovation as the logical, necessary solution. It is completely normal to feel like you are juggling too many balls right now, especially when your committee is pushing for technical rigor on top of theoretical depth. When you write, try to weave a narrative thread that connects each step: start by explaining the theoretical gap, show how that gap requires a new way of seeing the data, and then detail the mechanics of your collection process as the practical execution of that new vision. If you keep the focus on how your specific innovation unlocks a deeper answer to your research question, your committee will see the roadmap as a cohesive story rather than a list of technical tasks. You have clearly put a lot of thought into this, and once you frame the methodology as the hero of your theoretical argument, the whole structure will start to click into place.