Design-Based Concurrent Embedded Mixed Methods Design
Also known as: DBR concurrent embedded design, design-based embedded MMR, concurrent embedded DBR design, design experiment embedded mixed methods
Design-based concurrent embedded mixed methods design merges the iterative intervention logic of Design-Based Research (DBR) with the concurrent embedded mixed methods structure, in which one data type (typically qualitative) is nested within a dominant dataset (typically quantitative) and both are collected simultaneously within each design cycle. This approach is especially suited to educational intervention and applied research contexts where a product, curriculum, or tool is being developed, tested, and refined through repeated cycles of implementation and analysis.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use this design when you are developing, implementing, and refining an intervention, tool, curriculum, or programme and need simultaneous quantitative evidence of effect alongside qualitative evidence of mechanism within each iteration. It is particularly well-suited to educational technology, instructional design, health intervention development, and participatory design contexts. Do not use it when a clean causal claim is the primary goal (a randomised controlled trial is more appropriate), when iterative refinement is not part of the research plan, when resources cannot support concurrent data collection within each cycle, or when the research question calls for a sequential build (qualitative first to develop an instrument, then quantitative — that is an exploratory sequential design, not this one).
Strengths & limitations
- Produces both evidence of outcome (quantitative) and evidence of mechanism or process (qualitative) within each design cycle, yielding richer actionable insight.
- Simultaneous collection is more time-efficient than sequential designs when iterative cycles are short.
- The embedded structure keeps the dominant quantitative plan intact while adding interpretive depth without equal resource cost.
- Iterative integration of findings allows real-time course correction of the intervention across cycles.
- Aligns research and development goals: the design matures and the evidence base builds in tandem.
- Requires significant methodological expertise in both quantitative measurement and qualitative analysis, as well as mixed methods integration logic.
- Concurrent collection within multiple cycles is resource-intensive — coordinating two data streams per cycle demands careful project management.
- The nested, iterative structure makes it difficult to use standard statistical generalisability claims; findings are context-specific to the design setting.
- Mixing quality indicators (e.g., internal validity for the quantitative strand, transferability for the qualitative strand) requires explicit attention and can be hard to communicate to audiences unfamiliar with mixed methods.
Frequently asked
How is this different from a standard concurrent embedded mixed methods design?
A standard concurrent embedded design collects both strands simultaneously in a single-phase study. The design-based variant wraps that concurrent embedded structure inside an iterative design cycle framework, so data collection, integration, and intervention refinement happen repeatedly across cycles. The iterative, development-oriented logic is what distinguishes it.
Which strand should be dominant — quantitative or qualitative?
The choice depends on the primary research purpose of each cycle. In efficacy-oriented cycles (Does the intervention work?), quantitative outcomes are typically dominant. In formative or exploratory cycles (Why is it working? What do users experience?), qualitative data may be dominant. The designation can even shift between cycles, provided the rationale is explicitly documented.
How many design cycles are needed?
There is no fixed rule. Most DBR studies report two to four cycles, driven by convergence (when the intervention stabilises and findings stop revealing new design problems) or practical constraints (time, funding, cohort availability). Each cycle must be complete in itself — with collection, integration, and revision — before the next begins.
Can I use this design outside of educational research?
Yes. While DBR originated in educational and learning science contexts, the design-based concurrent embedded approach applies wherever an intervention is being iteratively developed and tested — health promotion, organisational development, UX research, and community programme design are all viable contexts.
How do I report findings across multiple cycles?
The recommended practice is to present each cycle as a coherent unit — stating the cycle's research question, the concurrent data collected, the integration finding, and the resulting design revision — then synthesise across cycles to show how the intervention evolved and what evidence accumulated. A joint display or comparison matrix for each cycle aids transparency.
Sources
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1412975179
- Nolen, A. L., & VanderPutten, J. (2007). Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 401–407. link ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Design-Based Concurrent Embedded Mixed Methods Design. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/research-design/design-based-concurrent-embedded-mixed-methods-design
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Concurrent Embedded Mixed Methods DesignResearch Design↔ compare
- Design-based ResearchField Methods↔ compare
- Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods DesignResearch Design↔ compare
- Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods DesignResearch Design↔ compare
- Intervention Mixed Methods DesignResearch Design↔ compare
- Multiphase Mixed Methods DesignResearch Design↔ compare