03 · What You Need to Know
Understanding, Planning, and Constructing Joint Displays
What Exactly Is a Joint Display?
A joint display is a structured representation that brings quantitative and qualitative evidence together to facilitate integration.
It may contain statistical findings, qualitative themes or categories, illustrative evidence, and integrated interpretations. The arrangement allows researchers to examine how the strands relate rather than presenting their results as entirely separate accounts.
For example, a study of online student engagement might present survey findings concerning institutional support alongside qualitative interpretations of students' experiences accessing academic assistance.
A further column could explain whether the findings converge, complement one another, or reveal differences requiring investigation.
Guetterman, Fetters, and Creswell describe joint displays as important tools for integrating quantitative and qualitative results. Their methodological contribution lies in making relationships between strands explicit and supporting the development of integrated conclusions.
A joint display is therefore not simply a convenient table for shortening a results section.
How Is a Joint Display Different From an Ordinary Results Table?
An ordinary results table may summarize findings from one dataset or present quantitative and qualitative information without establishing a meaningful relationship.
A joint display is organized around an integration purpose.
Ordinary results table
Organizes or summarizes findings, potentially including separate quantitative and qualitative results without explicitly examining their relationship.
Mixed-methods joint display
Brings related quantitative and qualitative evidence into a structured comparison or connection that supports integrated analysis or interpretation.
For example, placing survey percentages in one column and interview quotations in another does not necessarily establish integration.
The researcher must explain why the findings belong together, what their relationship indicates, and how that relationship contributes to the overarching mixed-methods question.
Why Should You Consider Planning a Joint Display Before Analysis?
Early planning can reveal information requirements that may otherwise become apparent only after data collection is complete.
Suppose researchers intend to compare quantitative engagement scores with qualitative accounts from the same students. A participant-level joint display would require an appropriate mechanism for linking the records.
If the survey was irreversibly anonymous and no linkage procedure was established, the intended comparison may be impossible.
Similarly, a display comparing institutional contexts requires both strands to preserve relevant institutional information.
Sketching the display before collection can therefore help identify necessary variables, qualitative topics, sampling connections, and contextual details.
This is one practical application of planning mixed-methods integration before data collection.
Does Planning a Joint Display Mean Predetermining the Findings?
No. Researchers can plan the structure without specifying the eventual results.
For example, a preliminary display might include columns labeled quantitative finding, qualitative finding, relationship between strands, and integrated interpretation.
The rows might be organized around research questions, conceptual domains, or participant groups.
However, the actual findings and interpretations should remain open until the evidence has been analyzed.
Qualitative themes may differ from anticipated topics, and quantitative results may reveal unexpected patterns. The display should be revised when necessary to represent those findings accurately.
The distinction is between planning how integration will occur and predetermining what integration will show.
What Should a Joint Display Contain?
The contents depend on the research design and integration purpose. Common elements include:
-
Integration unit: The research question, concept, participant, case, group, time period, or other dimension organizing the comparison.
-
Quantitative evidence: Relevant estimates, statistical patterns, comparisons, or other quantitative results.
-
Qualitative evidence: Themes, categories, narrative interpretations, or other findings appropriate to the qualitative methodology.
-
Relationship between strands: An indication of convergence, complementarity, divergence, or another analytically meaningful relationship.
-
Integrated interpretation: A conclusion developed from considering the evidence together.
-
Qualifications: Relevant uncertainty, differences in sampling, measurement limitations, or unresolved explanations.
Not every display requires all these elements. A display used to explain participant selection may have a different structure from one used to compare final results.
The structure should serve the integration purpose rather than conform to a universal template.
What Types of Joint Displays Are Common?
Joint displays can be organized according to the design and the relationship between strands.
| Joint display type |
Typical structure |
Potential use |
| Convergent results display |
Quantitative findings alongside qualitative findings and integrated interpretations |
Examine convergence, complementarity, and divergence. |
| Explanatory sequential display |
Quantitative results connected to qualitative follow-up findings |
Show how qualitative evidence contributes to explaining selected quantitative patterns. |
| Exploratory sequential display |
Qualitative categories linked to quantitative constructs, items, or subsequent results |
Demonstrate how qualitative findings informed instrument or study development. |
| Case-level display |
Quantitative characteristics and qualitative accounts organized by participant or case |
Examine variation across linked cases. |
| Longitudinal display |
Quantitative and qualitative findings organized across time points |
Examine changes and contextual developments over time. |
| Embedded design display |
Primary study outcomes alongside supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence |
Interpret implementation conditions or contextual factors relevant to the larger study. |
These categories describe useful design patterns rather than an exhaustive or universally standardized taxonomy.
A single study may use several displays when different integration questions require different structures.
How Do Joint Displays Work in Convergent Mixed-Methods Research?
In a convergent design, quantitative and qualitative strands are generally collected during a broadly similar period and brought together after suitable analysis.
A joint display can organize findings around shared conceptual dimensions.
For example, a study might compare survey measures of academic support with qualitative accounts of feedback, consultation, and institutional accessibility.
The display can reveal where the strands offer compatible evidence, where they contribute different perspectives, and where apparent contradictions require closer examination.
However, the researcher should not assume that similar labels represent identical constructs.
A survey measure of overall institutional support may not correspond directly to interview accounts concerning one particular support service.
The legitimacy of the comparison depends on conceptual and contextual alignment.
How Do Joint Displays Work in Explanatory Sequential Research?
Explanatory sequential studies ordinarily begin with quantitative analysis and use a subsequent qualitative phase to investigate selected findings.
A joint display may present a quantitative pattern, the qualitative evidence collected to explore it, and the resulting integrated interpretation.
For example, survey findings might identify students who report high engagement despite limited institutional support.
Interviews with appropriately selected participants may reveal experiences involving independent study routines or informal peer assistance.
The display can connect these accounts to the quantitative profiles that motivated the follow-up.
However, the qualitative evidence should not automatically be presented as proof of a causal explanation.
The relationship between sampling integration and the joint display should be explicit, particularly when participant-level comparisons are intended.
How Do Joint Displays Work in Exploratory Sequential Research?
Exploratory sequential studies may use qualitative findings to inform a subsequent quantitative component.
A joint display can document how qualitative concepts were translated into questionnaire items, variables, intervention components, or other procedures.
For example, interviews with online students may identify experiences of belonging associated with teacher recognition, peer relationships, and institutional participation.
The display might connect these qualitative categories to proposed questionnaire dimensions and candidate items.
It may subsequently include evidence from instrument evaluation or quantitative findings.
However, the display should distinguish qualitative grounding from measurement validation.
Developing items from qualitative evidence does not automatically establish that the resulting instrument measures its intended constructs adequately.
What Is a Case-Level Joint Display?
A case-level display organizes evidence around individual participants, classrooms, institutions, or other defined cases.
For example, a study might link each student's engagement score with that student's interview account.
This can support examination of how qualitative experiences vary across quantitative profiles.
However, case-level integration requires a legitimate relationship between the records.
If quantitative and qualitative participants were recruited independently, the researcher should not construct a display implying that unrelated records belong to the same individual.
Privacy and confidentiality also require attention because combining multiple forms of information may increase the risk of identifying participants.
Can Joint Displays Include Raw Data?
Yes, when doing so serves the integration purpose and is consistent with ethical and methodological requirements.
A display may contain short qualitative excerpts, selected numerical values, or case-level observations.
However, including extensive raw data can make the display difficult to interpret.
Researchers should distinguish participant quotations from analytic findings. A quotation may illustrate an interpretation, but it does not necessarily represent the complete qualitative analysis.
Similarly, a single numerical value may require contextual information, such as the measure used, sample size, uncertainty, or comparison group.
The display should contain enough evidence to support interpretation without obscuring the analytic relationship.
Should Joint Displays Use Themes or Codes?
The choice depends on the qualitative methodology and integration purpose.
A study using reflexive thematic analysis may present developed themes and their interpretive meanings rather than merely listing initial codes.
A structured content analysis may use categories that have been systematically applied to the dataset.
Grounded theory may contribute conceptual categories or relationships relevant to the developing explanation.
Researchers should avoid treating all qualitative analytic products as interchangeable.
A list of frequently occurring codes is not automatically equivalent to a set of interpretive themes.
What Is a Meta-Inference Column?
A meta-inference column records conclusions developed from considering quantitative and qualitative evidence together.
It is often one of the most analytically important elements of a joint display.
For example, quantitative findings may indicate an association between reported institutional support and student engagement. Qualitative findings may suggest that students distinguish between formal support availability and assistance that is timely and accessible.
A meta-inference might propose that the quantitative construct of institutional support requires interpretation in relation to students' experiences of accessing that support.
The conclusion should remain appropriately qualified. The combined evidence may support a plausible interpretation without establishing causality.
A meta-inference column should therefore communicate what is learned from integration, not simply repeat the two preceding columns.
How Should Convergence Be Represented?
Convergence occurs when the strands provide broadly compatible evidence concerning a related phenomenon.
A joint display may identify convergence explicitly, but the researcher should explain the basis for the judgment.
For example, a survey finding that students value timely feedback may be compatible with interview accounts describing prompt responses as helpful for maintaining study momentum.
However, agreement should not automatically be treated as validation.
Both strands may rely on self-report, reflect similar response biases, or address related but nonidentical constructs.
Convergence is therefore an analytic relationship requiring interpretation rather than a simple label assigned whenever findings appear similar.
How Should Complementarity Be Represented?
Complementarity occurs when the strands contribute different but related forms of understanding.
For example, quantitative results may describe the frequency of reported difficulties accessing academic support, while qualitative findings explain how students experience those difficulties.
The findings do not need to be identical.
The display should clarify what each strand contributes and how their combination advances understanding.
Complementarity may be especially useful when one strand describes measured patterns and the other provides contextual or experiential depth.
How Should Divergence Be Represented?
Divergence occurs when the strands appear to support different or incompatible interpretations.
A joint display can make this visible by placing the findings together and recording possible explanations or unresolved questions.
For example, a survey may indicate high overall satisfaction with online learning, while interviews reveal dissatisfaction with particular support services.
The researcher should examine whether the strands measure the same phenomenon and whether sampling, timing, or contextual differences contribute to the apparent contradiction.
Some divergence may remain unresolved, and the display should permit that conclusion.
The appropriate response to conflicting quantitative and qualitative findings is critical examination rather than forced agreement.
Should You Include Statistical Significance in a Joint Display?
Statistical results may be included when they are relevant to the integration purpose.
However, a joint display should not reduce quantitative evidence to whether a p-value crosses a conventional threshold.
Effect estimates, uncertainty intervals, sample characteristics, and substantive importance may be more informative for interpreting relationships between strands.
For example, a statistically nonsignificant association does not necessarily establish the absence of a meaningful relationship, particularly when estimates are imprecise.
Similarly, a statistically significant result does not automatically indicate practical importance.
The quantitative information included should be sufficient for the intended interpretation and consistent with the underlying analysis.
Can Joint Displays Be Used During Analysis Rather Than Only in Reporting?
Yes. Joint displays can function as analytic tools.
Researchers may construct provisional displays to identify patterns, examine inconsistencies, and generate questions for further investigation.
For example, an initial display may reveal that qualitative findings concerning institutional support do not correspond closely to the quantitative measure used.
This observation may prompt the researchers to reconsider whether the strands address the same construct or whether a different comparison is warranted.
The display can therefore contribute to integration during mixed-methods analysis, rather than serving only as a presentation of completed conclusions.
How Should a Joint Display Be Planned Before Analysis?
Researchers can begin with a preliminary structure organized around the mixed-methods research question.
The structure should identify the intended integration unit, the types of quantitative and qualitative evidence expected, and the relationship to be examined.
For example, a preliminary display might contain the following columns:
| Integration dimension |
Quantitative evidence |
Qualitative evidence |
Integrated interpretation |
| Institutional support |
Relevant support measures or statistical findings |
Interpretations of students' support experiences |
To be developed from the actual findings |
| Academic engagement |
Engagement indicators and relevant comparisons |
Accounts of participation and study practices |
To be developed from the actual findings |
| Study flexibility |
Relevant quantitative indicators |
Experiences of managing study responsibilities |
To be developed from the actual findings |
This is a planning structure rather than a completed display. It identifies the information needed without predicting the findings.
Researchers should revise the structure if the actual evidence suggests that different dimensions or comparisons are more appropriate.
What If the Planned Joint Display Does Not Fit the Findings?
The display should be reconsidered rather than forcing the findings into its original categories.
For example, qualitative analysis may reveal that participants understand institutional support in ways not represented by the quantitative instrument.
The researcher may need to reorganize the display to distinguish formal support availability from experienced accessibility.
Alternatively, some intended comparisons may prove inappropriate because the strands address different units or time periods.
These limitations should be acknowledged rather than concealed.
A preliminary display is a planning aid, not a binding template that determines what the evidence must show.
How Many Joint Displays Should a Study Include?
There is no universal number.
A focused study may use one display to address its overarching mixed-methods question. A complex multiphase study may require several displays for different integration purposes.
Researchers should avoid creating multiple displays that repeat the same findings without adding analytic value.
Each display should have a clear function and contribute to a specific integration question.
More displays do not automatically indicate stronger integration.
What Are the Common Design Problems?
Joint displays can become difficult to interpret when they contain excessive text, unclear categories, unrelated findings, or unsupported conclusions.
Another common problem is presenting quantitative results and qualitative quotations without explaining the relationship between them.
Researchers may also obscure differences in sampling or measurement by placing findings in the same row as though they represented identical evidence.
Good display design requires conceptual clarity as well as visual organization.
Headings should identify what is being compared, and the relationship between strands should be evident without relying entirely on explanatory prose elsewhere.
How Do You Evaluate the Quality of a Joint Display?
A useful joint display should make the integration purpose explicit, represent each strand accurately, and support defensible conclusions.
Researchers should ask whether the evidence in each row is genuinely related, whether the qualitative findings retain their interpretive meaning, and whether quantitative results are reported with sufficient context.
The display should also make disagreement or uncertainty visible when relevant.
Finally, the integrated interpretation should contribute beyond repeating the separate findings.
Visual polish can improve readability, but it cannot compensate for weak integration or unsupported meta-inferences.
What Ethical Issues Arise in Joint Displays?
Displays involving linked participant-level information may increase identification risks.
For example, combining demographic characteristics, unusual survey scores, institutional roles, and detailed interview quotations could make a participant recognizable even when names are removed.
Researchers should consider data minimization, appropriate aggregation, quotation selection, and confidentiality safeguards.
Published displays should not reveal sensitive information beyond what participants consented to disclose and what applicable research governance permits.
These considerations are particularly important in small institutions or specialized professional communities.
How Should Joint Displays Be Reported in a Thesis or Journal Article?
The methods section should explain how the display was constructed, what evidence it connects, and how it contributed to integration.
The results or discussion should present the display in a form that allows readers to understand the relationship between strands.
Researchers should distinguish strand-specific findings from integrated interpretations and identify important qualifications.
If the display was used during analysis, the report may explain how it informed the development of meta-inferences.
Simply inserting a table labeled joint display is insufficient when the underlying integration procedures remain unclear.
Watch Out
Do not treat a joint display as evidence of integration merely because it contains quantitative and qualitative columns. Its methodological value depends on the relationships established, the reasoning used to interpret them, and the defensibility of the resulting meta-inferences.
