Exploratory Sequential Design

Exploratory sequential is a two-phase mixed methods research design that starts with a qualitative phase followed by developing and testing a quantitative instrument in the second phase. In this section of the Mixed Methods Research Guide, we will look at the definition, background, purpose, advantages, and challenges of an exploratory sequential design. We will also showcase studies that applied this method and its variations.

Introduction

In an exploratory sequential design, researchers focus on the qualitative strand which is later complemented by the quantitative phase. Researchers usually apply this design when they want to develop an instrument from the qualitative data that it is then verified in the quantitative strand. This design has also been called the "instrument development design" and the "quantitative follow-up design".

According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2017), the purpose of this mixed methods design is to generalize qualitative findings from a small sample to wider sampling methods that utilize quantitative data collection. The design is based on, as its name says, "exploring" measures or instruments that do not exist yet, where the variables are unknown, and there is no guiding theoretical framework yet.

This design is used when a researcher seeks to generalize, assess, or test qualitative results to see if they can be generalized to a sample and a population. Overall, the research problem is more qualitatively oriented and the researcher doesn't know what constructs are key for the study.

Philosophical assumptions

Exploratory sequential mixed methods research integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches to address complex research problems comprehensively. In contrast to explanatory sequential design, this design begins with qualitative research, which takes priority when the research problem requires a deeper understanding of experiences, contexts, and perspectives. The initial phase operates under constructivist principles, focusing on exploring subjective meanings and social contexts. This phase allows researchers to uncover rich, nuanced insights that help define key themes or variables.

How to design a exploratory sequential mixed methods research study?

Creswell and Plano Clark (2017) suggest the following step-by-step approach for conducting exploratory sequential mixed methods research designs:

Design and implement the qualitative strand

• Clearly state the qualitative research question(s) and select an appropriate qualitative approach.
• Obtain the necessary permissions to conduct the research.
• Identify and recruit participants for the qualitative sample.
• Collect open-ended data using established protocols.
• Analyze the qualitative data through theme development techniques or methods specific to the chosen qualitative approach. This analysis should address the qualitative research question(s) and provide insights to guide the second phase, which includes refining the research question(s) and developing a new quantitative data collection instrument.

Develop strategies to build on qualitative results

• Design and pilot test a quantitative data collection tool, such as a survey, measurement scale, or app, based on findings from the qualitative phase.
• Refine quantitative research questions or hypotheses, along with the mixed methods research question, to reflect insights from the qualitative data.
• Determine the criteria for selecting participants for the quantitative sample.

Design and implement the quantitative strand

• Formulate quantitative research questions or hypotheses that are informed by the qualitative results and choose an appropriate quantitative approach.
• Secure permissions required for conducting quantitative research.
• Select a quantitative sample that allows for generalizing or testing the qualitative findings and the newly developed quantitative instrument.
• Collect closed-ended data using the instrument designed from the qualitative phase.
• Analyze the quantitative data with descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and effect size calculations to address both quantitative and mixed methods research questions.

Interpreting the connected results

• Provide a clear summary and interpretation of the qualitative findings.
• Summarize and interpret the quantitative results, highlighting key trends and insights.
• Discuss how the quantitative results support, generalize, or test the qualitative findings, explaining the extent and nature of the connection between the two strands.

Strengths

• Phase separation: The separation of phases simplifies the process of explaining, conducting, and presenting the research.
• Adds a quantitative phase: While the design often highlights qualitative methods, adding a quantitative phase can make the findings more appealing to audiences that favour quantitative approaches.
• Revealing insights: It is helpful when insights from the initial qualitative phase reveal the need for a subsequent quantitative phase.
• New instruments: A researcher can create a new instrument as one of the research process results.

Challenges

• Time-intensive process: The two-phase structure can be time-consuming, particularly if developing a new instrument is part of the study. Researchers must allocate sufficient time for both the qualitative and quantitative phases in their research plan.
• IRB application complexities: Specifying the procedures for the quantitative phase during the initial Institutional Review Board (IRB) application can be difficult, as these details often depend on findings from the qualitative phase. Researchers may need to submit tentative plans or separate applications for each phase.
• Sampling considerations: The kind of participants to include in each strand need to be carefully planned. The qualitative phase should involve a small, purposeful sample, while the quantitative phase should include a larger, more diverse group to enhance generalizability and reduce potential bias in the quantitative phase.
• Instrument development challenges: When developing an instrument between phases, researchers must carefully determine which qualitative data to prioritize and how to effectively translate these insights into quantitative measures.
• Ensuring validity and reliability: Establishing the validity and reliability of scores generated from the new instrument requires rigorous procedures. Researchers should follow established guidelines for instrument and scale development to maintain the integrity of their data.

Exploratory sequential design variants and example studies

Unlike the explanatory sequential design, an exploratory project includes three distinct phases: a qualitative phase, a quantitative development phase (focused on creating a variable, instrument, intervention, or digital tool), and a final quantitative testing phase. The key difference among variants of the method lies in what is developed during the middle phase of the design.

New variable development variant

In this variant, researchers identify new variables or create a conceptual or theoretical framework during the qualitative phase. These variables are then analyzed in the quantitative phase to determine their prevalence or to test the emerging theory with a larger sample. Researchers apply this model when qualitative findings inform the development of quantitative research questions or hypotheses. An example of this can be seen in the research of Goldenberg, Gallimore, and Reese (2005), who began with qualitative case studies involving interviews, observations, and document analysis with Latino families to identify new variables and relationships related to family literacy practices. The insights from this qualitative phase informed the development of a quantitative survey, which was used in a path analysis to statistically test the identified variables and their relationships. This design allowed the researchers to explore literacy practices in depth and then validate their findings through quantitative analysis.

Survey development variant

The qualitative phase helps define the content and structure of survey instruments in this variant. Researchers gather qualitative data to identify key themes, which guide the development of survey questions. After finalizing the instrument, they administer it to a representative sample for quantitative analysis. For instance, Clark et al. (2012) collected focus group data to explore reactions to research on violence in Jordan. Based on this data, they designed a survey with dichotomous questions and distributed it to a large sample for further analysis. Another example that combines survey development with theory testing is the study by Mak and Marshall (2004). They began by qualitatively exploring young adults' perceptions of their significance to others in romantic relationships. Based on these findings, they developed the Mattering to Romantic Others Questionnaire and used it in the quantitative phase to test hypotheses related to a theoretical model of perceived mattering in relationships.

Intervention development variant

Researchers use qualitative data to design interventions or experiments that are meaningful and relevant to participants. The qualitative phase focuses on identifying activities and measures that can influence outcomes. For example, in a study involving war-affected youth in Sierra Leone, Betancourt et al. (2014) conducted interviews with youth, caregivers, and experts from youth-serving organizations. The key themes from these interviews informed the development of a group-based mental health intervention, which was later assessed through qualitative feedback on participant satisfaction.

Digital tool development variant

This variant involves using qualitative data to guide the design and testing of digital tools. Researchers begin with qualitative exploration to understand the questions and measures needed for the tool. This data shapes the development process, and the tool undergoes quantitative evaluation in practical settings. This approach could be used to develop a video game, as was done by Kron, Gjerde, Sen, and Fetters (2010), who developed a prototype video game for medical education based on qualitative interviews and virtual reality environments. They then assessed the game's effectiveness through a survey.

Conclusion

The exploratory sequential design is an effective mixed methods approach that begins with qualitative data collection and analysis to explore key insights, followed by quantitative data collection to test or generalize these findings.

Exploratory sequential designs begin with qualitative data collection and analysis, which then informs a subsequent quantitative phase. This approach allows researchers to develop instruments, identify variables, or refine theories based on initial qualitative findings. In contrast, explanatory sequential designs start with quantitative data collection, followed by a qualitative phase that helps explain or elaborate on the initial numerical results.

While exploratory and explanatory designs differ in their sequence and purpose, researchers can integrate qualitative and quantitative strands more fully by adopting an embedded design. This design involves nesting one method within another, allowing for concurrent analysis and richer data interpretation. Embedded designs can provide deeper insights by addressing different aspects of a research problem simultaneously, ensuring that both qualitative and quantitative perspectives contribute meaningfully to the study.

References

1. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
2. Clark, C. J., Shahrouri, M., Halasa, L., Khalaf, I., Spencer, R., & Everson-Rose, S. (2012). A Mixed Methods Study of Participant Reaction to Domestic Violence Research in Jordan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(9), 1655-1676.
3. Betancourt, T. S., McBain, R., Newnham, E. A., & Brennan, R. T. (2014). A behavioral intervention for war-affected youth in Sierra Leone: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(12), 1288–1297.
4. Kron, F.W., Gjerde, C.L., Sen, A. et al. Medical student attitudes toward video games and related new media technologies in medical education. BMC Med Educ 10, 50 (2010).
5. Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., & Reese, L. (2005). Using mixed methods to explore Latino children's literacy development. In T. S. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children's development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 21–46). The University of Chicago Press.
6. Mak, L., & Marshall, S. K. (2004). Perceived Mattering in Young Adults’ Romantic Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(4), 469-486.