For example, if I were analyzing factors affecting viral suppression, would I first report on any significant associations in the quantitative analyses, then report on emergent qualitative themes, and then report on how the two align and either confirm/contradict one another, or should I report on qualitative themes (e.g. HAART regimens are more easily managed when PLHIV aren't worried about their housing situation) and then only the quantitative findings that directly relate to these themes (e.g. housing stability is/is not significantly associated with viral suppression)? Suggested sources to consult are very welcome - thank you in advance for your assistance.
With this design, you usually work with the "results" from each separate study, and then compare them. Several people (including myself) have suggested using a matrix or cross-tabulation of the results from the two studies. Here is a link to my own discussion of this topic.
Preprint Commentary: After Triangulation, What Next?
Heather - David is correct. With convergent design, the two data sets are treated independently of each other until triangulation occurs. There is an assumption that both data sets will complement each other equally. I see that you want to prioritise the qualitative phase data - but that should not be a 'forced' process.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Invertebrate Zoology
- Arthropods
- Insects