Metaphors used to describe the process of integration of analyses in mixed methods research are analyzed to determine various ways in which researchers think and write about integration. By examining the metaphors used and through examples of the application of each metaphor, the authors clarify the integrative processes they point to. The authors conclude this analysis by identifying from these metaphors eight principles to guide the effective integration of analyses in mixed methods research.
BazeleyP. (2009). Mixed methods data analysis. In AndrewS.HalcombE. (Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences (pp. 84-118). Chichester, England: Wiley.
3.
BazeleyP. (2010a). Computer assisted integration of mixed methods data sources and analyses. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research for the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed. pp. 431-467). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
4.
BazeleyP. (2010b). Conceptualising research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 889-904.
5.
BazeleyP.KempL.StevensK.AsmarC.GrbichC.MarshH.BhathalR. (1996, September). Waiting in the wings: A study of early career academic researchers in Australia (National Board of Employment Education and Training Commissioned Report No. 50). Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.
6.
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, England: SAGE.
7.
BirdD. (2010). Social dimensions of volcanic hazards, risk and emergency response procedures in southern Iceland. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Sydney: Macquarie University.
8.
BonnerA.GreenwoodJ. (2005). Producing the magnum opus: A metaphor for nephrology nursing expertise acquisition. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51, 64-72.
BrintonC. (1938). Anatomy of a revolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
12.
BrymanA. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research. In BergmanM. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 87-100). London, England: SAGE.
13.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
14.
CoffeyA.AtkinsonP. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
DenzinN. K. (1970). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
16.
DenzinN. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
17.
DenzinN. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
FlickU. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative?Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 175-197.
FlickU. (2010). Triangulation of micro-perspectives on juvenile homelessness, health, and human rights. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and human rights (pp. 186-204). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
22.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
24.
Hesse-BiberS. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
25.
HumeC.SalmonJ.BallK. (2005). Children’s perceptions of their home and neighborhood environments, and their association with objectively measured physical activity: A qualitative and quantitative study. Health Education Research, 20, 1-13.
26.
JanesickV. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: minuets, improvisations and crystallization. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
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.
28.
JohnsonR. B.OnweugbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
29.
KaneM.TrochimW. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
KempL. (2001, May). The DNA of integrated methods. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Social Research, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
31.
KrippendorffK. (1993). Major metaphors of communication and some constructivist reflections on their use. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 2(1), 3-25.
32.
LackoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LawrenzF.HuffmanD. (2002). The archipelago approach to mixed method evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 331-338.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
36.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research for the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
MedlingerS.CwikelJ. (2008). Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data of women’s health behaviors: A double helix model for mixed methods. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 280-293.
38.
Moran-EllisJ.AlexanderV. D.CroninA.DickinsonM.FieldingJ.SleneyJ.ThomasH. (2006). Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 45-59.
39.
NickelB.BergerM.SchmidtP.PliesK. (1995). Qualitative sampling in a multi-method survey. Quality & Quantity, 29, 223-240.
40.
NiglasK. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research. Tallinn, Estonia: Tallinn Pedagogical University.
41.
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.
42.
RichardsonL. (1994). Writing: a method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
RihouxB.RaginC. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational comparative methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
44.
SealeC. (2001). Sporting cancer: struggle language in news reports of people with cancer. Sociology of Health and Illness, 23(3), 308-329.
