Preregistering Qualitative Research: Uptake of a new practice to strengthen rigour

Introduction
The uptake of open science practices in qualitative research has prompted both enthusiasm and concern. Preregistration, while widely endorsed in quantitative fields, is often considered ill-suited to the iterative and flexible nature of qualitative inquiry. To assess whether preregistration can meaningfully contribute to qualitative research quality without constraining its methodological integrity, empirical examination is needed.

Goals and Methods
This study investigates how preregistered qualitative studies evolve from initial plans to published outputs. Specifically, it identifies which aspects of preregistered plans are modified, and whether such changes are explicitly reflected upon. A sequential quan-QUAL mixed-methods design was adopted. . Data consisted of all existing qualitative preregistrations available on the Open Science Framework in January 2024, as well as their matched resulting academic journal publications. We analysed 214 preregistration–publication pairs using descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis.

Results
Nearly all studies showed changes from preregistered plans, particularly in research questions (categories included structural change, conceptual reframing, and question alteration), sampling strategies (e.g., category composition or group shifts), and credibility procedures. However, very few studies reflected on changes or provided justifications. In contrast, elements such as data sources and overarching design were more stable. Inductive content analysis revealed that many changes reflected methodological refinement, practical feasibility, or data-responsive adaptations rather than questionable conduct.

Conclusions
Preregistration is neither rigid nor redundant in qualitative research. When paired with thoughtful documentation, it can serve as a mechanism for enhancing transparency and reflexivity. However, the uptake remains uneven. To strengthen its value, clearer guidance and cultural support are needed to encourage the explicit reporting of methodological evolution—thereby advancing the quality of qualitative scholarship.