Can Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Studies Use the Registered Report Format?

Are Registered Reports Suitable for Research That Develops Through Interpretation?

You are preparing a qualitative study exploring how university teachers negotiate professional responsibility when using generative artificial intelligence. You have identified the research questions, sampling strategy, and analytic orientation, but you expect the interviews and interpretations to develop iteratively.

Alternatively, you may be planning a mixed-methods investigation in which quantitative results will determine which participants are invited for subsequent interviews. Some decisions can be specified before the study begins, while others necessarily depend on findings from earlier phases.

Can either study be submitted as a Registered Report? Or does the format require fixed hypotheses, predetermined coding categories, and a complete statistical analysis plan?

The answer depends on whether the journal recognizes the methodological logic of the proposed inquiry and whether Stage 1 review can meaningfully evaluate its research commitments before the principal findings are known.

Yes, When the Journal Supports the Methodology and Appropriate Flexibility

How Registered Reports Can Accommodate Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Research

Why Are Registered Reports Commonly Associated With Quantitative Research?

Registered Reports developed primarily in research contexts concerned with confirmatory hypothesis testing, selective reporting, analytical flexibility, and publication bias.

The conventional model involves Stage 1 review of a research question and proposed methods, followed by in-principle acceptance (IPA) when the journal determines that the investigation meets its requirements.

Researchers then conduct the approved study and submit the completed manuscript for Stage 2 evaluation. The publication commitment is intended to be independent of whether the findings support the original hypotheses.

Early examples frequently involved experimental designs, prespecified statistical tests, and prospective sample-size calculations. Consequently, some researchers assume that the format is inherently limited to quantitative studies.

That assumption is too restrictive. The defining editorial principle is prospective evaluation of the scientific question and methodology, not necessarily the use of statistical hypothesis testing.

Nevertheless, the availability of suitable review procedures remains uneven. Researchers should not assume that every journal offering Registered Reports accepts qualitative or mixed-methods submissions.

What Makes a Qualitative Registered Report Different?

Qualitative research encompasses methodologies with different assumptions about knowledge, interpretation, researcher involvement, and the development of findings.

A qualitative Registered Report should therefore be evaluated according to the methodological commitments appropriate to the particular approach.

For example, a qualitative descriptive study may specify its research questions, sampling criteria, interview procedures, and intended analytic process in considerable detail.

A constructivist grounded theory study may instead specify initial sampling and coding commitments while anticipating theoretical sampling and conceptual development as the analysis proceeds.

In reflexive thematic analysis, codes and themes are developed through interpretive engagement with the data. Requiring researchers to specify their final themes before data collection would misunderstand the methodology.

The distinction is between advance specification of a defensible research process and premature specification of findings that the process is intended to generate.

What Should a Qualitative Stage 1 Manuscript Include?

A qualitative Stage 1 manuscript should provide sufficient information for reviewers to evaluate the coherence and feasibility of the proposed investigation.

The exact requirements depend on the journal and methodology, but several elements are commonly relevant.

These components overlap with the principles of preregistering qualitative research, but Registered Reports introduce an additional requirement: the proposed methodology must satisfy a journal's prospective peer-review process.

Do Qualitative Registered Reports Need Hypotheses?

Not necessarily. Many qualitative studies are organized around open-ended research questions rather than directional predictions.

A phenomenological investigation might ask how participants experience a particular event. An ethnographic study may investigate the practices and meanings associated with a social setting. A grounded theory study may seek to develop a conceptual explanation of a process.

These objectives can be scientifically meaningful without being expressed as hypotheses predicting numerical differences.

However, researchers should not assume that every journal's Registered Report procedures accommodate such approaches. Some journals may have templates or eligibility requirements developed specifically for confirmatory quantitative studies.

Before preparing a submission, verify that the journal permits research questions and methodological commitments appropriate to the proposed qualitative tradition.

Can Interview Questions Change After Stage 1 Acceptance?

Potentially, yes. Semi-structured interviews commonly allow researchers to ask follow-up questions, clarify participants' responses, and investigate issues emerging during data collection.

If the approved methodology explicitly anticipates this flexibility, routine development of interview probes may be consistent with the accepted protocol.

For example, researchers studying teachers' use of generative AI may initially ask about instructional planning and assessment. Participants might subsequently identify an unexpected concern about institutional accountability, prompting additional questions.

Adding relevant probes may be consistent with the original research purpose rather than a fundamental change in design.

However, replacing the study's central phenomenon, changing the participant population substantially, or adopting a different methodological orientation may require editorial consultation.

The critical distinction is whether the development falls within the approved approach or constitutes a consequential departure from it.

Can Coding Categories and Themes Emerge During Analysis?

Yes, when consistent with the selected analytic methodology.

Qualitative approaches differ in how coding and interpretation are conducted. A deductive framework analysis may begin with categories derived from theory or prior research. An inductive approach may develop categories through engagement with the data.

Reflexive thematic analysis treats coding and theme development as interpretive activities rather than mechanical extraction of objectively predetermined categories.

A suitable Stage 1 manuscript can therefore specify the intended analytic orientation, familiarization procedures, coding process, reflexive practices, and approach to theme development without identifying the final themes.

Reviewers should assess whether the proposed process is coherent and capable of producing a defensible interpretation.

They should not automatically require inter-rater reliability, fixed coding schemes, or saturation criteria across all qualitative traditions.

Must Qualitative Registered Reports Specify an Exact Sample Size?

Not universally. Sample-size planning should follow the methodology and the information required to address the research question.

Some studies can specify a reasonably fixed sample. Others may use an initial target or range with iterative decisions about additional recruitment.

For qualitative interview studies, information power may provide one useful sampling rationale. Other methodologies may rely on theoretical sampling, variation across cases, or different principles.

The researcher should explain how the initial sample was selected and what considerations will determine whether additional data are needed.

These decisions should be distinguished from unplanned recruitment changes made simply to obtain preferred findings.

Because sample-size rules are not identical across methodologies, the principles for preregistering sampling and stopping decisions must be applied in a methodologically appropriate manner.

What Makes a Mixed-Methods Registered Report Different?

Mixed-methods research intentionally integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches to address a research question that benefits from their combined contribution.

Integration is not simply the presence of a survey and several interviews in the same project. The study should explain how the components relate and how their findings will be brought together to produce an integrated interpretation.

For a Registered Report, the Stage 1 manuscript should establish the purpose of combining methods, the design sequence, the relative roles of the components, and the intended points of integration.

The relevant commitments depend on the mixed-methods design.

These designs can be implemented in different ways. The labels do not, by themselves, establish the quality of integration.

Reviewers need to understand why both approaches are necessary and how the combined evidence will support conclusions that neither component could adequately provide alone.

How Can You Preregister Decisions That Depend on Earlier Findings?

Some mixed-methods decisions cannot be finalized before the study begins because they intentionally depend on results from an earlier phase.

For example, an explanatory sequential study may select interview participants based on quantitative response patterns.

The researcher cannot know in advance which individuals will display those patterns. However, the Stage 1 manuscript can specify the selection principles.

Suppose the study will interview participants representing relatively high and low outcome changes. The protocol can explain how those categories will be determined, how participants will be approached, and how the qualitative phase will investigate differences in experience.

This is an example of prespecifying a decision procedure rather than its eventual result.

Such planning reduces ambiguity without denying the intended dependence between phases.

What Should Be Prespecified About Mixed-Methods Integration?

Integration should be treated as a methodological commitment rather than an informal activity added after both components are complete.

Researchers may specify when integration will occur, what information will be compared or connected, and how convergence, complementarity, or disagreement will be interpreted.

For example, a study might compare quantitative achievement changes with qualitative accounts of how participants used instructional feedback.

Joint displays, integrated case comparisons, or other appropriate procedures may help researchers examine relationships between the evidence sources.

However, the researchers should avoid assuming that qualitative findings must confirm quantitative results. Divergence may reveal measurement limitations, contextual differences, or distinct aspects of the phenomenon.

The integration plan should therefore allow for disagreement and explain how competing interpretations will be considered.

What Do Stage 1 Reviewers Evaluate in These Studies?

The fundamental Stage 1 question remains whether the proposed study addresses a meaningful problem using methods capable of producing informative evidence.

For qualitative research, this may involve assessing methodological coherence, sampling rationale, data generation, reflexivity, ethical safeguards, and the relationship between the analytic process and intended claims.

For mixed-methods research, reviewers may additionally examine whether the quantitative and qualitative components are individually appropriate and whether their integration is justified.

Reviewers should also evaluate the feasibility of the proposed sequence and whether important dependencies have been anticipated.

Some journals may require additional information or use review criteria developed for particular methodologies.

The general principles of Stage 1 Registered Report peer review remain applicable, but their operationalization should respect the study's methodological foundations.

Does In-Principle Acceptance Eliminate Methodological Flexibility?

No. However, IPA establishes an editorial commitment to the study reviewed at Stage 1.

Researchers should distinguish adaptations anticipated within the approved methodology from substantial changes to the research objectives or procedures.

For example, adding interview probes within an approved semi-structured interview approach may be a routine methodological development.

Replacing an interpretive interview study with a structured questionnaire may fundamentally change the accepted design.

Similarly, selecting qualitative interviewees according to prespecified quantitative findings may be consistent with an explanatory sequential design, whereas replacing the entire qualitative component with an unrelated analysis may require additional review.

When consequential changes arise, researchers should follow the journal's procedures for amending a Registered Report after Stage 1 acceptance.

What Happens if Qualitative Findings Differ From Expectations?

Unexpected findings are not inherently a problem. Indeed, many qualitative approaches are intended to develop interpretations through engagement with evidence rather than confirm predetermined explanations.

Researchers should report the resulting interpretations with sufficient supporting material and explain how the analysis developed.

In mixed-methods research, unexpected disagreement between qualitative and quantitative findings may also be informative.

For example, a quantitative intervention analysis may show little overall improvement while interviews reveal that participants experienced substantial changes in confidence or perceived autonomy.

These findings need not be treated as contradictory unless they concern the same construct and inference. They may instead indicate that the two components address different dimensions of the phenomenon.

However, researchers should avoid using qualitative findings to retrospectively redefine an unsupported quantitative primary hypothesis.

The principles governing null and unexpected Registered Report findings remain relevant to the quantitative component.

How Should Stage 2 Reporting Handle Methodological Development?

The completed manuscript should distinguish the original Stage 1 commitments from methodological developments that occurred during implementation and analysis.

For qualitative studies, this may include explaining changes to interview guides, sampling decisions, analytic focus, or interpretive procedures.

For mixed-methods studies, it may include documenting how earlier findings influenced later sampling, data generation, and integration.

Researchers should identify which developments were anticipated by the approved methodology and which represented consequential departures.

Stage 2 reporting should also demonstrate how the conclusions are supported by the actual evidence. Qualitative interpretations require an appropriate relationship between the data, analytic process, and claims.

IPA does not mean that every interpretation developed during analysis is automatically credible.

What About Reflexivity, Confidentiality, and Open Research?

Qualitative and mixed-methods research may involve sensitive narratives, identifiable settings, or relationships between researchers and participants.

Stage 1 submissions should address relevant ethical and data-management issues, including consent, confidentiality, storage, access, and reporting.

Reflexivity may also be important. Researchers should consider how their professional positions, assumptions, and relationships influence data generation and interpretation.

Transparency does not necessarily require unrestricted access to interview recordings or transcripts. Removing direct identifiers may not be sufficient to protect participants when contextual information could reveal their identities.

Researchers may use carefully selected excerpts, methodological documentation, controlled-access arrangements, or other appropriate approaches to support transparency while respecting confidentiality.

Journal requirements should be evaluated alongside participant consent, institutional ethics approval, and applicable data-protection obligations.

When Might the Registered Report Format Be a Poor Fit?

A Registered Report may be unsuitable when the journal's review criteria are incompatible with the proposed methodology or when the study cannot establish meaningful prospective commitments.

Some exploratory or interpretive projects involve substantial uncertainty about the research setting, participant access, or eventual analytic orientation. In such cases, a rigid Stage 1 protocol may create artificial constraints.

Practical limitations also matter. Stage 1 review can take time, and some fieldwork opportunities may be time-sensitive.

The format may nevertheless remain useful when a journal accommodates flexible methodological commitments and when early review can improve the study.

The broader limitations of excessive preregistration in exploratory research should inform the decision.

Researchers should select the publication route that best supports methodological integrity rather than assume that Registered Reports are universally superior.

How Can You Find a Suitable Journal?

Begin by identifying journals that publish research using the proposed qualitative or mixed-methods approach.

Then determine whether they offer Registered Reports and whether the format explicitly accommodates the intended methodology.

Consult the journal's official author instructions, including Stage 1 eligibility, accepted research designs, prior data collection rules, analysis requirements, amendment procedures, and Stage 2 conditions.

The Center for Open Science provides information about Registered Reports, but individual journal policies remain authoritative for submission decisions.

If the instructions are unclear, a concise presubmission inquiry describing the methodological approach and intended flexibility may help establish suitability.

Preparing a Mixed-Methods Registered Report on AI-Supported Teaching

This example demonstrates that prospective methodological review does not require knowing the content of the eventual qualitative findings.

The researchers can commit to the logic of the mixed-methods design, including how survey results will guide interviews, without predicting the participants' accounts or the final themes.

Whether the study qualifies for a Registered Report remains dependent on the target journal's specific eligibility and review procedures.

Common Misunderstandings About Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Registered Reports

How to Decide Whether Your Qualitative or Mixed-Methods Study Is Suitable

Begin by identifying what can meaningfully be evaluated before the principal findings are known. A suitable Stage 1 proposal should demonstrate a defensible research purpose and methodological approach without pretending that interpretive findings can be predicted.

Next, assess whether the journal's procedures can accommodate the study's legitimate flexibility.

A suitable Registered Report should improve the prospective evaluation of the research rather than encourage artificial certainty about questions that the inquiry is intended to resolve.

Researchers should also consider the time required for Stage 1 review, the availability of appropriate methodological reviewers, and the practical consequences of delaying fieldwork.

The decision should ultimately depend on whether early peer review can improve the study while preserving its methodological integrity.

Before Submitting a Qualitative or Mixed-Methods Registered Report

Frequently Asked Questions About Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Registered Reports

Registered Reports Can Support Methodological Diversity Without Requiring Uniformity

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.