There are plenty of justifications for qualitative methods if you search on the web. You may also look for qualitative type study articles on e.g sciencedirect.com .... however, as a qualitative specialist myself, i would say that qualitative research is a different phenomenon. It provides all of the inductive reasoning one would need. Its analysis also goes down to such deep levels uncovering layers of new or hidden data and findings thereof. If you are looking to go deeper into data analysis then qualitative is highly recommended.

If you gave equal emphasis to the two methods and conducted them separately, then your original justification for collecting qualitative data should also apply to publishing those results by themselves. In other words, the design you proposed implies that the qualitative portion of the project should have been self-sufficient and able to stand on its own.

What is your reason for wanting to do this? What was the original purpose framing the mixed methods design? I suggest the original research purpose/aim should drive not just carrying out the research but also the way it is disseminated.

If this was proposed and carried out with the intent of conducting (and reporting) a mixed methods study, with integrated results, I believe publishing a portion now could create some challenges later on - if, for instance, you then want to integrate the qual and quan for a future paper, this might be viewed as piecemeal or duplicate publication. If you have distinct qual and quan arms - so basically are gathering two types of data to address the same/similar question - then one report from each segment may make the most sense. I am not certain it is appropriate in this potential manuscript to describe the qualitative report as part of a "mixed methods study" since you would be presenting it as a stand alone qualitative work.

David L Morgan You're right, thank you! However, the proposed design wasn't sequential or exploratory when each strand could be self-sufficient. On the other hand, yes, each strand has equal emphasis and the main reason for doing mixed methods was not to supplement one source of data with another one but rather to bring both QUAL and QUAN into a dialogue.

Sheryl Chatfield Thank you for your questions and comment! The original design was proposed, approved of by the Research Ethics Committee and being conducted with a) concurrent QUAN and QUAL data collection; b) equal prioritisation of both types of data; c) to gain a better understanding of the studied phenomenon and the social reality with respect to selected research venues.

"I believe publishing a portion now could create some challenges later on - if, for instance, you then want to integrate the qual and quan for a future paper, this might be viewed as piecemeal or duplicate publication"- I totally agree with you! I believe I just needed to hear an external opinion on my current publication strategy. Thank you for this!

"I am not certain it is appropriate in this potential manuscript to describe the qualitative report as part of a "mixed methods study" since you would be presenting it as a stand alone qualitative work."- and this, this is valuable, thank you!

I appreciate the challenge in trying to demonstrate evidence of research productivity when you are focusing on longer duration studies. Is your method and/or other elements of the research process unique enough to warrant a "how to" paper? This is one way that scholars sometimes demonstrate productivity before the research itself is entirely completed. It is also a lot more acceptable to present partial findings than to publish them. This is another way to add credits to your CV, and you can get useful feedback from conference attendees to help refine a manuscript. Best of luck with your study!

Sheryl Chatfield One of the types of motivation for me to do a mixed method was to triangulate data (i.e., I employ semi-structured interviews, web surveys for two different samples, classroom observations and some document analysis). Since the phenomenon I am researching is in need of hearing individuals' narratives in connection to numerical data that survey may provide the study with, each research method resulting in generated data is self-sufficient to warrant unique evidence. I am presenting some findings from the available QUAL data next week at one conference and eager to hear the feedback from the attendees. Thank you, Sheryl!

This sounds like a super interesting study, especially since you have data from three countries. I am certain it will be well received by your audience.

Since you are using a mixed methods design, you should stick with the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria proposed by O’cathain et al. (2008, p. 97). According to the six GRAMMS criteria, you should:

1. describe the justification for using mixed methods research to the research question;

2. describe the mixed methods research design in terms of the purpose, priority and sequence of methods;

3. describe each method in terms of sampling, data collection and analysis;

4. describe the integration of the quantitative and qualitative components;

5. describe any limitation of one method associated with the presence of the other method; and

6. describe any insights gained from mixing or integrating methods.

With the six GRAMMS criteria in mind, you cannot do mixed methods research and then report the findings of only one of its approaches to data collection (i.e., qualitative or quantitative)—albeit being initial findings. For further insights, you could check out the methodological review study by Fàbregues et al. (2020).

Fàbregues, S., Hong, Q. N., Escalante-Barrios, E. L., Guetterman, T. C., Meneses, J., & Fetters, M. D. (2020). A methodological review of mixed methods research in palliative and end-of-life care (2014–2019). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 3853. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113853

O’cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074

Good luck,