My advisor keeps flagging the justification section of my thesis methodology as 'insufficient' for a mixed-methods business study?

Your advisor is right that a mixed‑methods MBA thesis usually needs a brief but explicit research‑philosophy justification, and the best place for it is a short, dedicated subsection that links the philosophical stance to your sampling and design choices. In practice you’ll want to state why pragmatism fits your supply‑chain case, contrast it with a purely positivist stance, and then show how that stance informs the combination of surveys, interviews, and archival data you’re using. By doing this up front you give the reader a clear lens through which to interpret every methodological decision, rather than leaving the rationale to be inferred later in the discussion. Imagine you’re writing about a retailer’s inventory‑management overhaul. You could open the philosophy paragraph by noting that the phenomenon is both quantifiable (stock‑out rates, lead times) and interpretive (managerial attitudes toward risk). A pragmatic stance acknowledges that both types of evidence are needed to capture the full picture, whereas a positivist view would push you toward only the numerical metrics. Then you tie that back to your sampling: you selected a stratified survey of warehouse staff to get the hard numbers, and you chose purposive interviews with senior planners to uncover the contextual meanings that numbers alone can’t reveal. This explicit link shows the reader that your methodological mix isn’t an after‑thought but a deliberate outcome of your philosophical commitment. From here, you might start by drafting a concise paragraph—no more than 150 words—that spells out pragmatism, contrasts it with positivism, and directly references your data‑collection choices. Next, weave a sentence or two into the sampling section that reminds the reader how the philosophy guided the selection of participants and instruments. Finally, when you later discuss findings, briefly revisit the philosophical stance to reinforce why the mixed evidence strengthens your conclusions. By embedding the justification in both a dedicated spot and the relevant methodological sections, you’ll satisfy the rubric while keeping the narrative fluid. This approach should smooth the tension between practical insights and theoretical rigor.