We introduce a method in which instant data visualization facilitates real-time data integration and involves participants in data interpretation. The results of quantitative research (e.g., electronic card sorting) are represented visually (e.g., in a dendrogram) and fed back to research participants in follow-up focus group conversations. The visualized quantitative results are reviewed and discussed by participants. The visual display of the quantitative results is annotated with qualitative feedback generated by participants that explains, enriches, or challenges the quantitative results. We apply our method in a card sorting study of Fédération Internationale de Football Association’s (FIFA) stakeholders. An approach that facilitates real-time data integration that is participant driven and visually supported is the unique contribution of this article to mixed methods research.
AlexanderE.BrescianiS.EpplerM. J. (2015). Understanding the impact of visual representation restrictiveness on experience sharing: An experimental assessment. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 31(Part A), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2015.09.003
2.
AlvessonM.HardyC.HarleyB. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 480-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00765.x
3.
ArchibaldM. (2018). Integrating the arts and mixed methods research: A review and a way forward. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 342-355. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a23
4.
BalomenouN.GarrodB. (2015). A review of participant-generated image methods in the social sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 335-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815581561
5.
BartunekJ. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323-1333. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28165912
6.
BazeleyP. (2010). Computerized data analysis for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 385-422). Sage.
7.
BazeleyP. (2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Sage.
8.
BrechetC.BaldyR.PicardD. (2009). How does Sam feel? Children’s labelling and drawing of basic emotions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 587-606. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008X345564
9.
BrescianiS.EpplerM. J. (2015). The pitfalls of visual representations: A review and classification of common errors made while designing and interpreting visualizations. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015611451
10.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906290531
11.
BustamanteC. (2019). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based joint display in a mixed methods research case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817712119
12.
CreswellJ. W.KlassenA.Plano ClarkV. L.SmithK. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. National Institutes of Health.
13.
D’AngeloA.RyanL.TubaroP. (2016). Visualization in mixed-methods research on social networks. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 148-151. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3996
14.
DavisK. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.02.006
DejonckheereM.Lindquist-GrantzR.ToramanS.HaddadK.VaughnL. (2018). Intersection of mixed methods and community-based participatory research: A methodological review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 481-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/155868981877846
17.
DyllickT.TomczakT. (2009). Erkenntnistheoretische Basis der Marketingwissenschaft [Epistemological basis of marketing science]. In Qualitative marktforschung [Qualitative market research] (pp. 65-79). Springer.
18.
FeigheryW. (2006). Reflexivity and tourism research: Telling an (other) story. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(3), 269. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit/mp006.0
19.
FettersM.CurryL.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
20.
FettersM.FreshwaterD. (2015). Editorial: The 1 + 1 = 3 integration challenge. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 115-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815581222
21.
FewS. (2006). Information dashboard design. O’Reilly.
22.
FieldingN. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437101
23.
FlowersA. A.CarrollJ. P.GreenG. T.LarsonL. R. (2015). Using art to assess environmental education outcomes. Environmental Education Research, 21, 846-864. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.959473
24.
GarnerJ. T. (2015). Different ways to disagree: A study of organizational dissent to explore connections between mixed methods research and engaged scholarship. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 178-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813515333
25.
GibsonJ. (1978). The ecological approach to the visual perception of pictures. Leonardo, 11(3), 227-223. https://doi.org/10.2307/1574154
26.
GläserJ.LaudelG. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Springer-Verlag.
27.
GuettermanT.FettersM.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554-561.
28.
HeronJ.ReasonP. (2006). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research with rather than on people. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 144-154). Sage.
29.
HoweK.EisenhartM. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019004002
30.
IsraelB.EngE.SchulzA.ParkerE. (2013). Methods for community-based participatory research for health. Jossey-Bass.
31.
IvankovaN. V. (2013). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813487945
32.
IvankovaN. V. (2014). Mixed methods applications in action research. Sage.
33.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design: From theory into practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
34.
JohnsonR.OnwuegbuzieA.TurnerL. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
35.
KetokiviM.MantereS. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315-333. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.2.zok315
KingD.LearmonthM. (2015). Can critical management studies ever be “practical?” A case study in engaged scholarship. Human Relations, 68(3), 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714528254
38.
KnightL.PettigrewA. (2007, June7-9). Explaining process and performance in the co-production of knowledge: A comparative analysis of collaborative research projects [Paper presentation]. Organization studies third summer workshop, Rethymno, Crete, Greece.
39.
KosslynS. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. Oxford University Press.
40.
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage.
41.
KuckartzU. (2018, August22-25). Personal notes: Opinion expressed during MMIRA 2018 workshop [Conference session]. MMIRA 2018 workshop, Vienna, Austria. https://mmira2018.univie.ac.at/home/
MengisJ. (2007). Integrating knowledge through communication: An analysis of expert-decision maker interactions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Lugano.
MohrmanS. A.GibsonC. B.MohrmanA. M.Jr. (2001). Doing research that is useful to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 357-375. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069461
50.
Molina-AzorinJ. F.FettersM. D. (2019). Building a better world through mixed methods research. Sage.
51.
NiccaD.FierzK.HappM. B.MoodyK.SpirigR. (2012). Symptom management in HIV/AIDS: A mixed methods approach to describe collaboration and concordance between persons living with HIV and their close support persons. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(3), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811421773
52.
O’ConnellR. (2013). The use of visual methods with children in a mixed methods study of family food practices. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.647517
53.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CombsJ. P. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 397-430). Sage.
54.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.DickinsonW. (2008). Mixed methods analysis and information visualization: Graphical display for effective communication of research results. Qualitative Report, 13(2), 204-225.
55.
PeroffD. M.MoraisD. B.SeekampE.SillsE.WallaceT. (2020). Assessing residents’ place attachment to the guatemalan maya landscape through mixed methods photo elicitation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(3), 379-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819845800
PoddarA. (2014). FIFA World Cup 2018: Generating controversies than excitement. Amity Research Centers.
58.
PopperK. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchins.
59.
PresnellM. (1994). Postmodern ethnography: From representing the other to co-producing a text. In CarterK.PresnellM. (Eds.), Interpretive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication (pp. 11-43). State University of New York Press.
60.
ReasonP.BradburyH. (2008). The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage.
61.
RuggG.McGeorgeP. (2005). The sorting techniques: A tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Systems, 22(3), 94-107.
62.
RynesS.BartunekJ.DaftR. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340-355. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069460
63.
SchenkS. (2011). Safe hands: Building integrity and transparency at FIFA. Transparency International.
64.
Shannon-BakerP. (2015). “But I wanted to appear happy”: How using arts-informed and mixed methods approaches complicate qualitatively driven research on culture shock. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400204
65.
Shannon-BakerP.EdwardsC. (2018). The affordances and challenges to incorporating visual methods in mixed methods research. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 935-955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772671
66.
SilverM. S. (2008). On the design features of decision support systems: The role of system restrictiveness and decisional guidance. In BursteinF.HolsappleC. W. (Eds.), Handbook on decision support systems 2: Variations (pp. 261-291). Springer.
67.
SuthersD.HundhausenC. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2
68.
TubaroP.RyanL.D’AngeloA. (2016). The visual sociogram in qualitative and mixed-methods research. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 180-197. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3864
69.
TufteE. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.
70.
TurnerJ. R. (2014). Handbook of project-based management (Vol. 92). McGraw-Hill.
71.
TurnerJ. R.MüllerR. (2006). Choosing appropriate project managers: Matching their leadership style to the type of project. Project Management Institute.
72.
TurnerR.ZolinR. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21289
73.
Van AkenJ. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field- tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x
74.
Van de VenA. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford Universiy Press.
75.
WallK.HigginsS.RemediosR.RaffertyV.TipladyL. (2013). Comparing analysis frames for visual data sets using pupil views templates to explore perspectives of learning. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812450211
76.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
77.
Wenger-TraynerB.Wenger-TraynerE.CameronJ.Eryigit-MadzwamuseS.HartA. (2017). Boundaries and boundary objects: An evaluation framework for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 321-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817732225
