Overview
Mixed-methods joint displays connect separately reviewed quantitative and qualitative evidence while preserving each source and counting unit.
Theoretical foundation
Integration can examine convergence, complementarity or divergence. It does not make one strand automatically validate the other.
Algorithm and computation
Subgroup analysis joins qualitative responses to the immutable dataset through stable internal row identity. The researcher chooses distinct responses or code assignments as the counting unit and selects exactly one code or theme. Joint displays retain source identifiers and researcher interpretation.
Required data
Completed strand-specific evidence, a stable shared respondent identity where subgroup integration is used, and an explicit integration question.
Assumptions
The subgroup variable is ethically and methodologically appropriate, and each strand has been analysed on its own terms.
Available settings
Grouping variable; code or theme; distinct-response or assignment counting; missing-group inclusion.
Worked example
A synthetic joint display compares the proportion of comments carrying a reviewed theme across regions alongside a separately calculated quantitative summary.
Limitations and non-claims
Joint displays are descriptive integration tools. They do not establish causality or repair weak evidence in either strand.
Validation notes
Owner scoping, stable joins, denominators and counting-unit distinctions are covered by qualitative tests.
How Surv.lytics computes Mixed-methods joint displays
{'counting_unit': 'responses'}Was this article helpful?
Your response helps the methodology team improve this documentation.