Participatory Concurrent Embedded Mixed Methods Design
Also known as: participatory embedded concurrent design, action-research embedded mixed methods, PAR concurrent embedded design, community-based embedded mixed methods
Participatory concurrent embedded mixed methods is a research design that combines a participatory or community-based action research framework with an embedded concurrent data structure — simultaneously collecting dominant and supplementary data strands from community stakeholders who are active co-investigators rather than passive subjects. The embedded strand (typically qualitative) is nested within the dominant strand (typically quantitative) and both are gathered at the same time while community members guide priorities, instruments, and meaning-making throughout.
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 need to answer a primary research question with quantitative evidence while simultaneously capturing contextual or explanatory depth through a qualitative sub-question, and when the study population must be actively involved as partners rather than passive respondents — common in public health, community development, education equity, and social justice research. It is appropriate when trust between researchers and community is essential for data quality, when insider knowledge is needed to interpret numerical findings, and when action and advocacy are explicit goals. Do not use it when the community lacks capacity or willingness for meaningful co-investigation (reducing it to tokenism), when the research timeline is too short for genuine partnership-building, when a purely explanatory sequential design would better serve your integration logic, or when the embedded sub-question is substantial enough to warrant its own sequential phase.
Strengths & limitations
- Combines efficiency of concurrent data collection with depth of embedded qualitative inquiry, saving time compared to sequential designs.
- Community co-ownership increases ecological validity, participant trust, and local relevance of findings.
- The embedded strand provides contextual nuance that explains quantitative patterns which might otherwise be misinterpreted.
- Action-orientation bridges the research-to-practice gap; findings directly inform community decisions.
- Flexible priority weighting — the dominant strand can be quantitative or qualitative depending on the community's needs and the question structure.
- Partnership-building and participatory governance add substantial time and relational labor before data collection begins.
- Managing power dynamics between academic researchers and community co-investigators requires ongoing reflexivity and negotiation.
- Integration of strands with different sample sizes and analytic logics is methodologically complex and must be justified explicitly.
- Community co-investigators may need training in research ethics and data handling, adding capacity-building burden.
- Findings may be highly context-specific, limiting transferability to other communities or settings.
Frequently asked
How is this different from a standard concurrent embedded design?
A standard concurrent embedded design simply nests one data strand inside another and collects both simultaneously. The participatory variant adds a governance and partnership layer: community members or stakeholders co-design the study, co-collect or co-interpret data, and co-disseminate findings. The data structure is the same; the relational and ethical framework is fundamentally different.
Does the dominant strand always have to be quantitative?
No. Although quantitative-dominant is the more common configuration (e.g., survey with embedded interviews), the design can be qualitative-dominant with an embedded quantitative sub-study. The choice depends on which research question is primary and what the community identifies as the most meaningful form of evidence for their context.
How do I handle integration when the two strands have very different sample sizes?
Unequal sample sizes are expected and acceptable in embedded designs — the secondary strand is purposefully smaller. Integration focuses on conceptual connection rather than statistical aggregation: use qualitative themes to explain quantitative patterns (or vice versa) through narrative synthesis, side-by-side comparison tables, or joint displays. Explicitly state the integration logic in your methods section.
What level of community involvement qualifies as truly participatory?
At minimum, community partners should be involved in problem definition, instrument review, and interpretation of findings. Full co-investigator status — including shared decision-making authority and co-authorship — represents the gold standard. Studies that involve community members only as data sources or advisory reviewers should be described as community-engaged rather than genuinely participatory.
Is IRB or ethics approval more complex for participatory designs?
Yes, often. When community organizations are formal research partners, some ethics boards require community-level consent agreements in addition to individual informed consent. Researchers should plan extra time for ethics review, clearly describe the participatory governance structure, and address data ownership and benefit-sharing arrangements in the protocol.
Sources
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978-1483344379
- Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978-1412972666
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Participatory Concurrent Embedded Mixed Methods Design. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/research-design/participatory-concurrent-embedded-mixed-methods
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.
- Action ResearchQualitative Research↔ compare
- Concurrent Triangulation Mixed Methods DesignResearch Design↔ compare
- Participatory Action ResearchQualitative↔ compare
- Participatory Exploratory Sequential Mixed MethodsResearch Design↔ compare