A methodological framework for understanding the development of conflict mediation competencies among women: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study

Introduction The development of conflict mediation competencies constitutes a complex learning process that integrates cognitive, emotional, relational and ethical dimensions. Although research on mediation training programmes has increased considerably over recent decades, there remains a limited methodological understanding of how to investigate comprehensively the processes through which these competencies are acquired, consolidated and transformed. In response to this gap, the present study proposes a methodological framework based on an explanatory sequential mixed methods design aimed at understanding the development of mediation competencies through the integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence within a training programme grounded in transformative mediation, the systemic approach and constructivist methodology. Methods This study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (QUAN→QUAL) to investigate the development of conflict mediation competencies. Twenty-five women leaders holding positions of authority within a Costa Rican political organization participated in a 120-h specialized mediation training programme. The quantitative strand used the Test de Habilidades para la Gestión en la Negociación de Conflictos [Conflict Negotiation Management Skills Test] developed by, which comprises five dimensions: Communication, Commitment, Perspective, Emotional Control and Empathy. Subsequently, interviews and focus groups were used to explore participants’ experiences and the psychological, pedagogical and relational processes associated with competency development. Integration occurred at the interpretative stage, where the qualitative findings were examined in relation to the initial quantitative pattern to generate meta-inferences. Results The available quantitative records showed a descriptive increase between pretest and post-test assessments, from a reported mean level of 45% (range: 35–55%) to 80% (range: 75–85%). These values are reported descriptively because the original participant-level dataset is no longer available for independent reanalysis. The qualitative evidence identified experiential learning, critical reflection, emotion regulation, collaborative learning and supervised practice as processes associated with competency development. Integration of the two strands enabled the descriptive quantitative pattern to be interpreted in relation to participants’ accounts, without treating the qualitative evidence as statistical confirmation of programme effectiveness. Discussion The findings illustrate the usefulness of an explanatory sequential mixed methods design for examining complex competency development when quantitative patterns are interpreted alongside qualitative accounts of underlying processes. The study proposes an integrative methodological framework linking theoretical foundations, sequential enquiry and data integration. Given the single-group design, the descriptive nature of the available quantitative evidence and the absence of the original participant-level dataset, the findings are not presented as causal evidence of programme effectiveness. Rather, they provide a context-bound basis for further methodological and empirical investigation.