When mixed methods research (MMR) has a qualitatively driven analytic frame, integration techniques should align with the purposes and contributions of qualitative methods. This article describes two integration strategies that can be used within qualitatively driven MMR to deductively analyze qualitative data: (a) using quantitative variables as a coding framework, (b) using statistical findings to develop codes for qualitative analysis. The strategies capitalize on the strengths of qualitatively driven MMR while facilitating analytic integration. After describing the strategies, we provide examples within a study examining early childhood inclusive education. This discussion contributes to MMR by providing integration strategies that are necessarily grounded in an analytic frame and that allow rigorous qualitative analysis, facilitate systematic analytic integration, and promote richer understanding of phenomena.
Ahlgrim-DelzellL.RiveraC. (2015). A content comparison of literacy lessons from 2004 and 2010 for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Exceptionality, 23(4), 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064417
2.
AkinadeO. O.OyedeleL. O.AjayiS. O.BilalM.AlakaH. A.OwolabiH. A.ArawomoO. O. (2018). Designing out construction waste using BIM technology: Stakeholders’ expectations for industry deployment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.022
3.
AnnammaS. A.FerriB. A.ConnorD. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46-71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041.
4.
ArchibaldM. M.RadilA. I.ZhangX.HansonW. E. (2015). Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400205
5.
BalA.SullivanA. L.HarperJ. (2014). A situated analysis of special education disproportionality for systemic transformation in an urban school district. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513507754
6.
BartonE. E.SmithB. J. (2015). Advancing high-quality preschool inclusion, A discussion and recommendations for the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(2), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415583048
7.
BazeleyP. (2009). Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334443
8.
BazeleyP. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 63-73.
9.
BazeleyP. (2010). Computer-assisted integration of mixed methods data sources and analyses. In TashakkoriA.TeddieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Sage.
10.
BazeleyP. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814-828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426330
11.
BazeleyP. (2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Sage.
12.
BazeleyP.KempL. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811419514
13.
BhattacharyaK. (2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. Routledge.
14.
BradtJ.PotvinN.KesslickA.ShimM.RadlD.SchriverE.GracelyE. J.Komarnicky-KocherL. T. (2015). The impact of music therapy versus music medicine on psychological outcomes and pain in cancer patients: A mixed methods study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23(5), 1261-1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2478-7
15.
BronfenbrennerU. (1999). Experiments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models. In FriedmanS. L.WachsT. D. (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3-28). American Psychological Association Press.
16.
BronfenbrennerU.MorrisP. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In DamonW.LernerR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993-1023). Wiley.
17.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906290531
18.
CabreraN. L. (2011). Using a sequential exploratory mixed-method design to examine racial hyperprivilege in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(151), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.400
19.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015002195
20.
CollinsK. M. T. (2010). Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 353-377). Sage.
21.
CorriganJ. A.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2020). Toward a meta-framework for conducting mixed methods representation analyses to optimize meta-inferences. Qualitative Report, 25(3), 785-812.
22.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage.
23.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). Revisiting mixed methods and advanced scientific practices. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonJ. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 57-71). Oxford University Press.
24.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
25.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
26.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Sage.
27.
DicksonV. V.LeeC. S.RiegelB. (2011). How do cognitive function and knowledge affect heart failure self-care?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 167-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811402355
28.
Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, & the National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/DEC_NAEYC_EC_updatedKS.pdf
29.
DockettS.PerryB. (2004). Starting school: Perspectives of Australian children, parents and educators. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X04042976]
30.
FettersM. D. (2016). “Haven’t we always been doing mixed methods research?” Lessons learned from the development of the horseless carriage. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815620883
31.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
32.
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
33.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2017a). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817714066
34.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2017b). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new decade: Principles for bringing in the new and divesting of the old language of the field. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816682092
35.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). Wiley.
36.
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(6), 554-561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865
37.
HannahD. R.LautschB. A. (2011). Counting in qualitative research: Why to conduct it, when to avoid it, and when to closet it. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610375988
38.
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
39.
Hesse-BiberS.RodriguezD.FrostN. A. (2015). A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of mixed method and multi-method research (pp. 3-20). Oxford University Press
40.
KimY. H. (2009). An investigation into native and non-native teachers’ judgments of oral English performance: A mixed methods approach. Language Testing, 26(2), 187-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101010
41.
KramerJ. M.RoemerK.LiljenquistK.ShinJ.HartS. (2014). Formative evaluation of project TEAM (teens making environment and activity modifications). Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 258-272. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.4.258
42.
LuceroJ.WallersteinN.DuranB.AlegriaM.Greene-MotonE.IsraelB.KastelicS.MagaratiM.OetzelJ.PearsonC.SchulzA.VillegasM.White HatE. R. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816633309
43.
NzabonimpaJ. P. (2018). Quantitizing and qualitizing (im-)possibilities in mixed methods research. Methodological Innovations, 11(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799118789021
44.
ManzP. H.GernhartA. L.BracalielloC. B.PressimoneV. J.EisenbergR. A. (2014). Preliminary development of the parent involvement in early learning scale for low-income families enrolled in a child-development-focused home visiting program. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(3), 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815115573077
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
47.
MonrouxeL. V.ReesC. E. (2012). “It’s just a clash of cultures”: Emotional talk within medical students’ narratives of professionalism dilemmas. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17(5), 671-701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9342-z
48.
MoseholmE.FettersM. D. (2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799117703118
49.
NichiforM. A. (2016). Public reactions towards wind energy instalments. Case study: Romania and the Netherlands. Management & Marketing, 11(3), 532-543. https://doi.org/10.1515/mmcks-2016-0014
50.
O’CathainA. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Sage.
51.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ, 341, c4587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587
52.
OdomS.BuysseV.SoukakouE. (2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 344-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111430094
53.
OdomS.HornE.MarquartJ.HansonM.WolfbergP.BeckmanP.LieberJ.LiS.SchwartzI.JankoS.SandallS. (1999). On the forms of inclusion: Organizational context and individualized service models. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(3), 185-199.
54.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CombsJ. P. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. In TashakkoriA.TeddieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 397-430). Sage.
55.
PrattM. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academic of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557
56.
RavitchS. M.RigganM. (2012). Reason and rigor. Sage.
57.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Sage.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
60.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
61.
TsaoL. L.OdomS. L.BuysseV.SkinnerM.WestT.Vitztum-KomaneckiJ. (2008). Social participation of children with disabilities in inclusive preschool programs: Program typology and ecological features. Exceptionality, 16(3), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830802198203
62.
VoglS. (2018). Integrating and consolidating data in mixed methods data analysis: Examples from focus group data with children. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818796364
63.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
