According to Creswell (2009), there are 6 mixed method designs in which 3 of them are listed above. Can anyone share your thoughts what are the differences between Sequential Explanatory Design (quantitative first then followed by qualitative) or Sequential Exploratory Design (qualitative first then followed by quantitative) vs Sequential Transformative Design (which encompasses qualitative then quantitative or quantitative then followed by qualitative)?
I personally find Creswell's 6-design series confusing because there is really nothing sequential about the "sequential transformative" design. Instead, it is based on a change-oriented motivation: transformation. Transformation makes sense as form of critical theory (e.g., feminism), but it is not the basis for a design in the same sense that the exploratory and explanatory sequential designs are.
I agree with the above answers. Methodologists recognize that classifications of methods are based on existing studies and that practice informs theory as much as theory informs practice (see Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009).
These classifications provide a very useful guidance but -- when not very clear and/or applicable -- they should not restrict or confuse the research path. Also, classifications are not exhaustive. An innovative study may very well provide a good food for thought to the methodologists and enrich the existing method inventories.
Best wishes,
Larisa
I second hundred percent the response of Larisa. At times we scientist and researchers do pin ourselves on issues that are subject to change leaving the substance and or objectivity of the matter. Regards, Norman
Hello Han. When I had my mixed methods class, taught by Vicki Plano-Clark, we reduced the types down: Explanatory (quan+qual) and exploratory (qual+quan) for sequential. She did not have the third option you listed above. The explanatory and exploratory may answer two different research questions (explanatory using follow-up qual to elaborate or explain quan; exploratory using follow-up quan to test, or generalize qual findings). This design may depend on the status of the gap studied - if qual first, it may be used to discover a theoretical basis of the phenomenon under study. What was stressed was having effective RQ that connected with your design and your research philosophy - a thread should go through the study that connects philosophy to RQ with timing/sequence, mixing/integration, priority (if any), and inferences. I hope this helps.
With the third design, Sequential Transformative Design, since it is transformative, the foundation is on its theoretical framework and not on its methods (Creswell & Clark, 2011). For example, a research study may use a feminist lens which drives the methods. Yet, from class and my own perspective, the theory always drives the design.
Hi, I doing my research related to food value chain analysis & searching for sample release paper for the sequential exploratory design. Pls share if anyone of you have sample.
Sequential Explanatory Design- I interpret this as a quantitative data collection followed by a qualitative measure, which is then repeated later in the experiment? Can anyone share if this would be correct?
Hi Nathaniel,
You can refer to this article for an example of Sequential Explanatory Design.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259478672_Relationship_between_Team_Satisfaction_and_Project_Performance_as_Perceived_by_Project_Managers_in_Malaysia_-_A_Mixed_Methods_Study
Verifying qualitative findings would reverse the priority in the two components, so that you would have QUAL --> quant.
I have written an article about that design:
Article From Themes to Hypotheses: Following Up With Quantitative Methods
Maria Shahid sequential exploratory designs are usually summarized as qual --> QUAN because the preliminary qualitative study is "driven by" the needs of the subsequent qualitative study. This is different from a QUAL --> quan design, where the quantitative follow-up study is driven by the goals of the qualitative study.
In the second case, you could consider the possibility of treating the goal for the qualitative study as "generating hypotheses" so that the quantitative study could provide a preliminary evaluation of those hypotheses.
1. The QUAL--> quan design is not counted as “sequential exploratory.”
2. There is no consensus about how much data is required for the preliminary development of a hypothesis. When you do a QUAL study, you need to follow the usual guidelines for a stand-alone qualitative study, which would include using "saturation" as the standard for determining the number of participants.
3. You may well want to include other relevant variables, but your sample size will almost certainly be too small for a thorough statistical analysis.
The key quotation is in the middle of p. 114 "Specifically, the primary intent of the exploratory design is to develop and apply a quantitative measure, survey, intervention, digital tool, or new variables that are grounded in the qualitative data." So in qual --> QUAN, the design of the preliminary qualitative study is driven by the needs of the primary quantitative study.
I think QUAL --> quan can be a useful sequential design, but it has not received as much attention as others in this group. I also have a chapter on this design in my book on Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, which says many of the same things as the article that I sent you.
the population sample research used sequential Explanatory (quan+qual) QUAN to QUAL can be different. for example i will use employees survey in first step as Quan approach. second step use the interview with customers
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research