We show in this methodological article how formative joint displays can be used to integrate multiple data facets. Joint displays in the published literature are intended to be polished research products that illustrate the connections between quantitative and qualitative inferences. However, we contend using joint displays formatively during analysis can yield more comprehensive metainferences. Accordingly, we introduce a process called joint display coding to formalize the process toward these metainferences. Our approach draws upon the “text-in-context” coding approach and intersects it with a crossover analysis. We showcase an example of joint display coding using a descriptive study of U.S. institutional webpages in higher education. Integrated themes were developed by blending the structural and textual facets of webpage data.
AlexanderE.EpplerM. J.BrescianiS. (2019). Visual replay methodology: A mixed methods approach for group discussion analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816664479.
2.
BazeleyP. (2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Sage.
3.
BazeleyP. (2019). Integration in theory and practice [Keynote]. Inaugural Australasia & Pacific Regional Mixed Methods International Research Association Conference.
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.
6.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877.
7.
CastroF. G.KellisonJ. G.BoydS. J.KopakA. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382916.
8.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage.
9.
CreamerE.EdwardsC. (2019). Embedding the dialogic in mixed method approaches to theory development. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1598357.
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
11.
DickinsonW. B. (2010). Visual displays for mixed methods findings. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (2nd ed, pp. 469–504). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0007-5.
12.
DufourÉ.DuhouxA.BolducJ. (2019). Measured and perceived effects of audit and feedback on nursing performance: a mixed methods systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-0956-1.
13.
EckertS. A. (2013). What do teaching qualifications mean in urban schools? A mixed-methods study of teacher preparation and qualification. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112460279.
14.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.
15.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.
16.
FettersM. D.FreshwaterD. (2015). The 1 + 1 = 3 integration challenge. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815581222.
17.
FowlerR. (1985). Power. In van DijkT. A. (Ed), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 61–82). Academic Press.
18.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151.
19.
GlaserB.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.
20.
GriffinM. A. (2007). Specifying organizational contexts: Systematic links between contexts and processes in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 859–863.
21.
GuettermanT.CreswellJ. W.KuckartzU. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXQDA software to represent the results of mixed methods research. In McCruddenMatthew TS. G. (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: current perspectives on cognition, learning and instruction (pp. 145–175). Information Age Publishing.
22.
HaggertyJ. L.RobergeD.FreemanG. K.BeaulieuC.BrétonM. (2012). Validation of a generic measure of continuity of care: when patients encounter several clinicians. Annals of Family Medicine, 10(5), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1378.
23.
HattaT.NaritaK.YanagiharaK.IshiguroH.MurayamaT.YokodeM. (2020). Crossover mixed analysis in a convergent mixed methods design used to investigate clinical dialogues about cancer treatment in the Japanese context. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 84–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818792793.
HitchcockJ. H.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2020). Developing mixed methods crossover analysis approaches. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819841782.
26.
HodgeB.KressG. (1993). Language as ideology. Routledge.
27.
JohnsonR. E.GroveA. L.ClarkeA. (2019). Pillar integration process: A joint display technique to integrate data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817743108.
28.
JohnstonA. C.AkarsuM.MooreT. J.GuzeyS. S. (2019). Engineering as the integrator: A case study of one middle school science teacher's talk. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 418–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20286.
29.
KnoblauchH.BaerA.LaurierE.PetschkeS.SchnettlerB. (2008). Visual analysis. New developments in the interpretative analysis of video and photography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3). https://10.17169/fqs-9.3.1170.
30.
KressG. (1985). Ideological structures in discourse. In van DijkT. A. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 27–42). Academic Press.
31.
MaxwellJ.ChmielM.RogersS. E. (2015). Designing integration in multimethod and mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223–239). Sage.
32.
MessacarC. (2015). Transfer literacy: Assessing informational symmetries and asymmetries. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/70862.
33.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
34.
NowellLWhiteDEMrklasKNorrisJM (2015). Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0007-5.
35.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806299094.
36.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.DickinsonW. B. (2008). Mixed methods analysis and information visualization: Graphical display for effective communication of research results. Qualitative Report, 13(2), 204-225.
37.
ReepingD. (2019). Identifying asymmetries in web-based transfer student information that is believed to be correct using fully integrated mixed methods [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech]. VTechWorks. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/95944.
38.
ReepingD.EdwardsC. (2020). Advancing 1+ 1= 1 fully integrated designs using a five formative figures approach. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 12(3), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v12n3a1.
39.
ReepingD.KnightD. B. (2021). Information asymmetries in web‐based information for engineering transfer students. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(2), 318–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.2038.
40.
RollingJ. H.Jr (2010). A paradigm analysis of arts-based research and implications for education. Studies in Art Education, 51(2), 102-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2010.11518795.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
43.
SandelowskiM.LeemanJ.KnaflK.CrandellJ. L. (2013). Text-in-context: a method for extracting findings in mixed-methods mixed research synthesis studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(6), 1428–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12000.
44.
SaundersB.SimJ.KingstoneT.BakerS.WaterfieldJ.BartlamB.BurroughsH.JinksC. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8.
45.
SpezialeH.S.CarpenterD.R. (2007). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative (4th ed). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
46.
StenvollD.SvenssonP. (2011). Contestable contexts: The transparent anchoring of contextualization in text-as-data. Qualitative Research, 11(5), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111413242.
47.
VoglS. (2019). Integrating and consolidating data in mixed methods data analysis: Examples from focus group data with children. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818796364.
48.
YinR. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41–47.
49.
YoungS. D.JaganathD. (2013). Online social networking for HIV education and prevention. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 40(2), 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318278bd12.
