Integration in mixed methods involves bringing together quantitative and qualitative approaches. There is a need for practical examples of how to integrate the two approaches in an explanatory sequential design at the methods level and at the interpretation and reporting level. This article reports an explanatory sequential mixed methods study of adolescents’ quantitative judgments about belief-related scientific arguments and qualitative reasons behind those judgements via interviews. This context is used to illustrate how integration can be achieved in an explanatory sequential design at the methods level, through the sampling frame and through the development of the interview protocol with a methodological joint display, and at the interpretation and reporting level through narrative and the use of a results joint display.
BastardiA.UhlmannE. L.RossL. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 22, 731-732.
2.
BazeleyP. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203.
3.
BientzleM.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2015). The role of tentative decisions and health concepts in assessing information about mammography screening. Psychology, Health, & Medicine, 20, 670-679.
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
5.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1), 97-113.
6.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
7.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 19-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.JiaoQ. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267-294.
9.
CornerA. J.WhitmarshL. E.XeniasD. (2012). Uncertainty, skepticism, and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change, 114, 463-478.
10.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall.
12.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
14.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
EdwardsK.SmithE. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.
16.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
EvertssonN. (2017). A nested analysis of electoral donations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 77-98.
18.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48, 2134-2156.
19.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
21.
GuettermanT.CreswellJ. W.KuckartzU. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXDQ software to represent the results of mixed methods research. In McCruddenM. T.SchrawG.BuckendahlC. (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 145-175). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
22.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13, 554-561.
23.
HoferB.PintrichP. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
IvankovaN. V. (2014). Implementing quality criteria in designing and conducting a sequential Quan → Qual mixed methods study of student engagement with learning applied research methods online.”Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(1), 25-51.
26.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.
27.
JohnsonR. B.SchoonenboomJ. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 587-602.
28.
KardashC. M.HowellK. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524-535.
29.
KingP. M.KitchenerK. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 5-18.
30.
KlaczynskiP. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71, 1347-1366.
31.
KlaczynskiP. A.AnejaA. (2002). The development of quantitative reasoning and gender biases. Developmental Psychology, 38, 208-221.
32.
KlaczynskiP. A.GordonD. H. (1996). Self-serving influences on adolescents’ evaluations of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 317-339.
33.
KlaczynskiP. A.GordonD. H.FauthJ. (1997). Goal-oriented critical thinking biases and individual differences in reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 470-485.
34.
KoslowskiB. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
35.
KuhnD. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In GoswamiU. (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 497-523). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
36.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
37.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
38.
LordC.RossL.LepperM. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
39.
MaierJ.RichterT. (2013). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151-175.
40.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
MoshmanD. (2011). Adolescent rationality and development: Cognition, morality, and identity. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
42.
MoshmanD. (2015). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
43.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
44.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 8, 231-259.
45.
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.
46.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. British Medical Journal, 341, c4587.
47.
OlejnikS.AlginaJ. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241-286.
48.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Plano ClarkV. L.SandersK. (2015). The use of visual displays in mixed methods research: Strategies for effectively integrating the quantitative and qualitative components of a study. In McCruddenM. T.SchrawG.BuckendahlC. (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 177-206). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
50.
PlousS. (1991). Biases in the assimilation of technological breakdowns: Do accidents make us safer?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1058-1082.
51.
SandovalW. A.SodianB.KoerberS.WongJ. (2014). Developing children’s early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 1-14.
52.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F.ToplakM. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 259-264.
53.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in political information processing. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
54.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
56.
TunarosaA.GlynnM. A. (2017). Strategies of integration in mixed methods research: Insights using relational algorithms. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 224-242.
57.
WolfeC. R.BrittM. A. (2008). The locus of myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1-27.
58.
YinR. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
59.
ZimmermanC. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223.
