Mixed Methods Research: Design, Sequencing & Best Practices

The phrase "mixed methods" is often applied loosely to any project combining surveys and interviews, regardless of whether the two research strands are designed to interact. However, genuine mixed methods research is a deliberate strategic choice: one research strand is explicitly built to inform or explain the other, and the analysis directly connects their findings.

This guide from OASIS Research & Writing clarifies the foundational principles of effective mixed methods research. We explore how to move beyond merely running two studies under a single budget line to truly integrating qualitative and quantitative work for deeper insights.

You'll learn about the core designs, critical integration points, common pitfalls, and best practices that elevate a multi-method study into a true mixed methods approach, yielding insights neither method could achieve alone.

Download the original PDF (26 Mixed-Methods-Research-OASIS.pdf)

What Mixed Methods Research Actually Requires

Mixed methods research deliberately combines qualitative and quantitative approaches within a single study. Each approach addresses what the other cannot: qualitative work explores meaning and generates hypotheses, while quantitative work measures scale and tests those hypotheses. Its value hinges entirely on deliberate sequencing and integration; simply running both types of research and reporting them separately does not constitute mixed methods, but rather two studies bound together.

A genuine mixed methods study requires:

• A stated rationale for combining approaches, explaining what each strand contributes uniquely.
• A specific, planned point in the design where findings from one strand inform or are tested against the other.

Without this integration step, combining data collection produces a multi-method study, not a mixed methods one.

The Three Core Designs

The choice of mixed methods design depends on the research question and the intended relationship between the qualitative and quantitative components.

Exploratory Sequential Design

• Sequence: Qualitative first, then quantitative.
• Typical Purpose: To generate hypotheses, build a research instrument, or define a phenomenon before measuring it at scale. For example, identifying the reasons behind customer churn qualitatively before building a survey to quantify them.

Explanatory Sequential Design

• Sequence: Quantitative first, then qualitative.
• Typical Purpose: To explain an unexpected or unclear quantitative finding in depth. For instance, if a survey shows unexpectedly low product adoption, interviews might uncover the underlying reasons.

Convergent Parallel Design

• Sequence: Both conducted simultaneously, integrated at analysis.
• Typical Purpose: To cross-validate findings from two independent angles on the same question, aiming for triangulated confidence in the results.

Integration: Where Mixed Methods Succeeds or Fails

Integration is the single most important, and most frequently overlooked, element of mixed methods design. It must occur at a specific, planned point. Examples include:

• Qualitative themes directly shaping the wording of survey questions.
• Quantitative segments being explicitly explored through targeted follow-up interviews.

A report that presents a qualitative section followed by an unconnected quantitative section, with no explicit cross-reference, fails the defining requirement of the method.

The Mixed Methods Process, Step by Step

1. Define the overall research question: Clearly identify what each strand needs to contribute to answering it.
2. Select the design: Choose exploratory, explanatory, or convergent, based on the intended relationship between the two questions.
3. Plan the integration point: Determine before data collection begins where and how the strands will inform each other.
4. Conduct each strand rigorously: Apply the appropriate qualitative or quantitative standards to each component.
5. Integrate explicitly in analysis: Connect findings directly across strands, rather than reporting them in separate, unconnected sections.
6. Report the combined insight: Present what the integration revealed that neither strand would have shown alone.

When Mixed Methods Is Worth the Extra Cost

Mixed methods research typically requires more time and budget than a single-method study. It is a worthwhile investment specifically when the research question genuinely demands both depth and scale – particularly for high-stakes decisions where neither statistical confidence nor rich understanding alone would be sufficient for informed action.

Common Mistakes

• Running both types of data collection without a planned integration point.
• Reporting qualitative and quantitative findings in separate sections with no explicit cross-reference.
• Choosing a design (exploratory, explanatory, convergent) that doesn't align with the actual relationship between the two research questions.
• Under-resourcing one strand due to prioritizing the other, thereby undermining its rigor.
• Treating mixed methods as inherently more rigorous than a well-designed single-method study.

Best Practices

• State explicitly what each strand contributes to the research question that the other cannot.
• Plan the integration point before data collection begins.
• Apply full methodological rigor to each strand individually.
• Connect findings explicitly in the final report, rather than presenting them side-by-side without synthesis.
• Reserve mixed methods for questions that genuinely require both depth and scale.