The approach taken to integration of diverse data sources and analytical approaches in mixed methods studies is a crucial feature of those studies. Models of integration in analysis range from discussing separately generated results from different components or phases of a study together as part of the conclusion, through synthesis of data from these different components, to combination of data sources or conversion of data types to build a blended set of results. Although different models of integration are appropriate for different research settings and purposes, an overcautious approach to integration can generate invalid or weakened conclusions through a failure to consider all available information together. Strategies for making the most of opportunities to integrate process and variable data in analysis to build strong and useful conclusions are identified and illustrated through reference to a variety of mixed methods studies, including several with a focus on transition to school.
ArkseyH. (2003). People into employment: Supporting people with disabilities and careers into work. Health and Social Care in the Community, 11(3), 283-292.
2.
BarlowJ. H.WrightC. C.WrightS. (2003). Development of job-seeking ability in people with arthritis: Evaluation of a pilot program. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 26(4), 329-333.
3.
BazeleyP. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 63-73.
4.
BazeleyP. (2010a). Computer assisted integration of mixed methods data sources and analyses. In TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research for the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.; pp. 431-467). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
BazeleyP. (2010b). Conceptualising research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 889-903.
6.
BazeleyP.KempL. (2011). Mosaics, triangles and DNA: metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. doi:10.1177/155868981141951410.1177/1558689811419514
7.
BergmanM. M. (2008). The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research. In BergmanM. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 11-21). London, UK: SAGE.
8.
BlossfeldH.-P.GolschK.RohwerG. (2007). Event history analysis with Stata. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
BryansA. N. (2004). Examining health visiting expertise: Combining simulation, interview and observation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(6), 623-630.
11.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
12.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207.
13.
ChatterjiM. (2004). Evidence on “what works”: An argument for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 33(9), 3-13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
DickinsonW. B. (2010). Visual displays for mixed methods findings. In TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.; pp. 469-504). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
DockettS.PerryB. (2004). Starting school: Perspectives of Australian children, parents and educators. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2, 171-189.
18.
ElliottJ. (2005). Using narrative in social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: SAGE.
19.
FransellaF.BellR.BannisterD. (2003). A manual for repertory grid technique (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
20.
FryG.ChantavanichS.ChantavanichA. (1981). Merging quantitative and qualitative research techniques: Toward a new research paradigm. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12(2), 145-158.
21.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
23.
HannemanR. A.RiddleM. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/
24.
HappM. B.DeVito DabbsA.TateJ.HricikA.ErlenJ. (2006). Exemplars of mixed methods data combination and analysis. Nursing Research, 55(2, Suppl. 1), S43-S49.
25.
HugoG. (2001, May). Using GIS based accessibility indicators in non-metropolitan Australia. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Social Research, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
26.
JangE. E.McDougallD. E.PollonD.HerbertM.RussellP. (2008). Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221-247.
27.
JohnsonR. B.OnweugbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
28.
KaneM.TrochimW. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
KaplunC. (in progress). School transition for families and children in an area of social disadvantage (PhD thesis). Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia.
30.
KempL.AndersonT.TravagliaJ.HarrisE. (2005). Sustained nurse home visiting in early childhood: exploring Australian nursing competencies. Public Health Nursing, 22(3), 254-259.
31.
KempL.HarrisE.McMahonC.MatthewS.VimpaniG.AndersonT.SchmiedV. (2008). Miller Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) trial: Design, method and sample description. BMC Public Health, 8, 424.
32.
KniggeL.CopeM. (2006). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A, 38, 2021-2037.
33.
LouisK. S. (1982). Multisite/multimethod studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 26(1), 6-22.
34.
MarkM.FellerM.ButtonI. S. B. (1997). Integrating qualitative methods in a predominantly quantitative evaluation: A case study and some reflections. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 47-60). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
37.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
NewmanI.RamloS. E. (2010). Use of two multivariate techniques, Q methodology and Q factor analysis, to facilitate interpretation of mixed methods research. In TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 505-530). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
NorthcuttN.McCoyD. (2004). Interactive qualitative analysis: A systems method for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147-163.
41.
PrellC. (2009). Linking social capital to small-worlds: A look at local and network-level processes and structure. Methodological Innovations Online, 4, 8-17.
42.
PrellC.SkvoretzJ. (2008). Looking at social capital through triad structures. Connections, 28(2), 1-13.
43.
RallisS. F.RossmanG. B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: A pragmatic framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 491-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44.
RihouxB.RaginC. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational comparative methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
45.
SandelowskiM.VoilsC. I.KnaflG. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-222.
46.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London, UK: SAGE.
WeinsteinE. A.TamurJ. M. (1978). Meanings, purposes, and structural resources in social interaction. In ManisJ. G.MeltzerB. N. (Eds.), Symbolic interaction (3rd ed., pp. 138-140). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
49.
WeissH. B.KreiderH.MayerE.HenckeR.VaughanM. A. (2005). Working it out: The chronicle of a mixed-methods analysis. In WeisnerT. S. (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 47-64). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
YinR. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
