What Is an Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Design?

What If You Cannot Measure a Phenomenon Adequately Until You Understand It?

You want to investigate how university teachers make decisions about using generative AI in assessment. A survey could help establish how widely particular practices occur, but you are uncertain whether existing questionnaires adequately represent those practices.

Teachers may interpret responsible AI use differently, distinguish among assessment activities in unexpected ways, or encounter institutional conditions that established instruments overlook. Developing survey items before investigating these differences could impose categories that do not reflect the phenomenon.

One possibility is to begin with qualitative interviews, use the findings to develop a questionnaire, and then evaluate and administer that questionnaire quantitatively. But what makes this arrangement an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design rather than simply a qualitative study followed by a survey?

The distinction matters because the design requires a developmental relationship between phases. Qualitative findings must meaningfully shape the quantitative investigation, and the resulting evidence must contribute to a coherent overarching research purpose.

Exploratory Sequential Research Builds Quantitative Inquiry From Qualitative Findings

Understanding the Logic and Procedures of Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods

What Makes the Design Exploratory and Sequential?

The term exploratory describes the initial purpose of investigating a phenomenon whose relevant dimensions, interpretations, or contextual characteristics require further understanding before quantitative inquiry can proceed appropriately.

The term sequential indicates that the qualitative component precedes the quantitative component and informs its development.

Both characteristics are essential. A researcher who conducts interviews in January and an unrelated survey in March has not necessarily implemented exploratory sequential mixed methods.

The defining relationship is developmental. What researchers learn during qualitative inquiry influences what they subsequently measure, investigate, or evaluate quantitatively.

Fetters, Curry, and Creswell (2013) describe this form of methods-level integration as building, in which findings from one component inform the data collection procedures of another.

The design therefore extends beyond using both forms of evidence. It establishes an explicit relationship between qualitative understanding and quantitative investigation.

What Are the Main Phases of an Exploratory Sequential Design?

An exploratory sequential study commonly involves an initial qualitative investigation, a developmental transition, a quantitative phase, and integrated interpretation.

The developmental transition may involve substantial methodological work. Researchers should not assume that questionnaire construction or intervention development can be completed immediately after qualitative coding.

When Should You Use Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods?

The design is appropriate when the quantitative investigation depends on knowledge that must first be developed through qualitative inquiry.

Several research situations may justify this arrangement.

These circumstances do not automatically require a mixed-methods design. Researchers should first establish whether existing theory, empirical studies, or suitable instruments already provide an adequate basis for quantitative investigation.

How Is Exploratory Sequential Different From Explanatory Sequential?

Both designs involve connected phases, but they begin with different forms of inquiry and address different methodological needs.

The uppercase notation shown here indicates sequence only for simplicity; formal mixed-methods notation often uses capitalization to communicate priority, so researchers should define their chosen convention.

The more important distinction is the integration purpose. An explanatory sequential design commonly investigates the meaning of quantitative findings, whereas exploratory sequential research uses qualitative findings to shape what comes next.

Does the Qualitative Component Have to Be Conducted First?

Yes, in the sense that the relevant qualitative findings must be available before the quantitative procedures they are intended to inform are finalized.

Researchers can prepare administrative arrangements, ethical approvals, sampling plans, and preliminary quantitative procedures in advance. However, decisions that depend on qualitative findings should remain responsive to those findings.

For example, a researcher can plan the broad structure of a survey before conducting interviews, but should not claim that the survey dimensions emerged from qualitative inquiry if they were finalized beforehand and remained unaffected by the findings.

The sequence must represent a genuine developmental dependency rather than a retrospective description of unrelated activities.

Must the Qualitative Component Have Greater Priority?

No. Collection order and methodological priority are separate characteristics.

A qualitative phase may be primarily developmental, while the quantitative phase carries the principal research emphasis. This can occur when interviews inform a questionnaire that is subsequently used to examine a central quantitative research question.

Alternatively, the qualitative investigation may make the primary conceptual contribution, with quantitative evidence examining the distribution or applicability of selected findings.

Some studies assign comparable importance to both phases.

Researchers should justify the relative priority of the components according to the overarching research purpose rather than the order in which data are collected.

How Can Qualitative Findings Inform Questionnaire Development?

One common application is the development of a quantitative measurement instrument from qualitative findings.

Suppose a researcher wants to measure teachers' responsible use of generative AI in assessment. Interviews might reveal distinctions among disclosure practices, verification of AI-generated materials, and responsibility for assessment decisions.

These findings could inform candidate constructs and survey items. However, the researcher must interpret them alongside relevant theory, previous empirical evidence, and the intended measurement purpose.

Boateng and colleagues (2018) describe scale development as a process involving item development, scale construction, and evaluation. Their guidance helps distinguish generating candidate items from establishing evidence supporting the resulting measure.

The researcher should document how particular qualitative findings informed specific item-development decisions. A development matrix can make this relationship transparent.

The process of using qualitative findings to develop quantitative instruments requires conceptual judgment and subsequent measurement evaluation.

Does Exploratory Sequential Research Automatically Produce a Valid Instrument?

No. Qualitative inquiry can contribute to the conceptual foundation and content of an instrument, but it does not establish all the evidence needed to support the interpretation and use of its scores.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing emphasize that validity concerns the evidence and theory supporting particular score interpretations for intended uses.

Depending on the instrument, researchers may need evidence concerning content, response processes, internal structure, relationships with other variables, and the consequences of testing.

Reliability, measurement precision, and appropriateness for the intended population also require consideration.

For example, items derived from interviews may appear relevant but fail to exhibit the expected measurement structure when administered quantitatively.

Researchers should report the specific evidence obtained rather than describing an instrument as validated simply because it originated from qualitative findings.

Can Exploratory Sequential Research Be Used to Develop an Intervention?

Yes. Qualitative inquiry may inform the development of an educational intervention when participant needs, contextual conditions, or implementation barriers are insufficiently understood.

For example, interviews with teachers could identify difficulties in designing assessments that incorporate generative AI responsibly.

The findings might inform a professional development intervention, including its learning activities, examples, and implementation supports.

However, intervention development should also draw on relevant theory and existing evidence. Participant preferences alone do not establish that particular intervention components will be effective.

Skivington and colleagues (2021) emphasize the importance of context, program theory, stakeholder engagement, and evaluation when developing complex interventions.

A subsequent quantitative component might examine feasibility indicators, implementation outcomes, or intervention effects, depending on the research objective and design.

The researcher should distinguish developing an intervention from demonstrating that it works.

How Should Qualitative Findings Be Translated Into Quantitative Variables?

Qualitative themes do not automatically become quantitative variables.

A theme may describe a contextual condition, an interpretive process, or a complex experience that cannot be adequately represented by a single numerical indicator.

Researchers should first determine whether the proposed variable has a defensible conceptual definition and whether it can be operationalized meaningfully.

For example, interviews may identify teachers' concerns about accountability for AI-supported assessment decisions. The researcher must decide whether accountability is best conceptualized as a belief, a reported practice, an institutional condition, or another construct.

These possibilities imply different measurement approaches.

Prematurely converting every qualitative theme into a survey scale may produce redundant or conceptually confused instruments.

How Should Participants Be Sampled Across the Two Phases?

Qualitative and quantitative phases often use different sampling strategies because they serve different inferential purposes.

The qualitative phase may use purposive sampling to investigate relevant experiences and variation in the phenomenon. The quantitative phase may require a larger or differently selected sample to support measurement evaluation, statistical comparisons, or population inference.

The same participants do not necessarily need to participate in both phases.

For example, interviews with teachers from several disciplines may inform questionnaire development, while a separate sample of teachers completes the questionnaire during quantitative evaluation.

However, the researcher should consider whether the qualitative participants adequately represent the contexts and perspectives relevant to the intended quantitative population.

The relationship between samples should be justified rather than determined by convenience alone.

How Much Qualitative Evidence Is Enough Before the Quantitative Phase?

There is no universal number of interviews or observations that establishes sufficient qualitative exploration.

Sample adequacy depends on the research question, qualitative methodology, sampling strategy, heterogeneity of the phenomenon, and depth of information required for the developmental purpose.

For example, developing an instrument for a narrowly defined professional practice within a relatively homogeneous population may require a different sampling strategy from investigating an emerging construct across multiple institutional contexts.

The researcher should determine whether the qualitative evidence is sufficiently developed to support the decisions required for the next phase.

This does not mean every possible perspective must be exhausted. Rather, the qualitative analysis should provide a defensible foundation for the intended quantitative development.

Where Does Integration Occur in Exploratory Sequential Research?

Integration commonly occurs when qualitative findings inform the quantitative component and again when the contributions of both phases are interpreted together.

The developmental transition is especially important.

For instrument development, researchers can document which qualitative findings informed candidate dimensions, items, or response formats.

For intervention development, they can explain how participant experiences and contextual findings influenced intervention content or implementation arrangements.

The subsequent quantitative findings may support, complicate, or challenge the original conceptualization.

Researchers should therefore plan the points of integration and document the reasoning connecting phases.

What If the Quantitative Findings Do Not Support the Qualitative Framework?

The quantitative phase may reveal that proposed dimensions overlap, particular items perform poorly, or expected relationships are not supported.

Such findings should not automatically be interpreted as failure.

They may indicate limitations in the proposed measurement model, differences between the qualitative and quantitative samples, or a need to reconsider how the construct was operationalized.

Researchers should distinguish measurement problems from substantive disagreements about the phenomenon.

For example, a proposed questionnaire dimension may fail to emerge as a distinct statistical factor. This does not necessarily mean that the experiences represented by the qualitative theme are unimportant.

It may mean that the items do not adequately distinguish the proposed dimension or that the conceptual structure requires refinement.

Any revisions should be supported by evidence and reported transparently.

What Are the Advantages and Limitations of Exploratory Sequential Design?

When Is Exploratory Sequential Design Not Appropriate?

The design may be unnecessary when the relevant constructs are already well established and suitable quantitative instruments exist.

It may also be inappropriate when the primary purpose is to explain unexpected quantitative results. In that case, quantitative-first explanatory sequential research may provide a better fit.

If quantitative and qualitative components can independently investigate related aspects of a phenomenon during the same period, a convergent arrangement may be appropriate.

Researchers should also consider whether a focused qualitative study or a limited instrument pretesting exercise would adequately address the problem without requiring a full mixed-methods investigation.

Developing a Questionnaire About Responsible AI Use in Assessment

Suppose the interviews suggest candidate dimensions concerning disclosure of AI assistance, verification of AI-generated materials, and responsibility for assessment decisions.

These dimensions could inform questionnaire development, but they should not automatically be treated as established measurement factors.

The quantitative phase might support the proposed structure, reveal substantial overlap among dimensions, or indicate that some items require revision.

The study is exploratory sequential because qualitative understanding directly informs the subsequent quantitative investigation. The design's contribution lies in this developmental relationship and the evidence obtained through appropriate quantitative evaluation.

Common Misconceptions About Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods

How to Design an Exploratory Sequential Study That Builds Meaningfully Between Phases

Begin by identifying what is insufficiently understood and why that uncertainty prevents appropriate quantitative investigation.

Then specify what the qualitative phase must establish and how those findings will inform the subsequent component.

In the methodology, explain how qualitative participants will be selected, how the findings will be analyzed, what developmental decisions will follow, and how the resulting quantitative procedures will be evaluated.

Allocate sufficient time for the transition between phases. Instrument construction, pretesting, and intervention refinement may require substantial work beyond the initial qualitative analysis.

The final report should demonstrate the relationship between phases and distinguish what the qualitative findings suggested from what the quantitative evidence subsequently supported.

Check Whether Your Exploratory Sequential Design Is Methodologically Defensible

Frequently Asked Questions About Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods

Use Exploratory Sequential Research When Qualitative Understanding Must Shape Quantitative Inquiry

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.