Preregistration in Qualitative Research: A Meta-Scientific Study of Changes, Justifications, and Disciplinary Patterns

Preregistration in qualitative research has gained traction as a tool for enhancing transparency, yet little is known about how preregistered plans evolve into final publications. We investigated (1) which components of qualitative preregistrations are changed and how, (2) whether changes are transparently justified, and (3) whether change patterns differ across disciplines. Using a concurrent mixed-methods design combining descriptive statistics with qualitative content analysis, we examined 214 preregistration-publication pairs that used the OSF Qualitative Preregistration Template (2020–2023). Results showed that 99% of studies included at least one change relative to their preregistered plan. We identified five categories of change: Specification Changes (40.2%), reflecting reformulations without substantive alterations; Process-Driven Evolution (26.3%), capturing field-driven methodological adaptations; Focus Alteration (19.1%), involving changes to research scope; Epistemological Reframing (6.1%), reflecting paradigmatic shifts; and Data Changes (3.0%), involving minor additions or removals of supplementary materials. Explicit justifications were rare, appearing in only 18.6% of cases. Patterns were broadly consistent across Health Sciences, Economic & Social Sciences, and Arts & Humanities; sampling strategy changes showed a clear gradient, increasing from 37.6% in Health Sciences to 65.0% in Arts & Humanities. These findings challenge concerns that preregistration constrains qualitative inquiry; researchers continued making context-sensitive changes throughout their research. However, the rarity of justifications suggests that current publication formats may not sufficiently invite reflection on methodological evolution. Developing tools to make the evolution of studies transparent could enable the full potential of qualitative preregistration.