Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Leech, N. L. (2012). Writing mixed research reports. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 866–881.

Abstract: For many researchers, writing the research report is among the most difficult steps. When writing about a mixed methods research study, researchers have had little guidance for how to structure the manuscript. Thus, the purpose of this article is to present multiple approaches to reporting information from a mixed research study. Recommendations for mixed research writing from the extant literature are delineated, and 12 themes that were identified across these texts are presented. The multitude of approaches and organizational possibilities for the mixed research report are explored. Emphasis is placed on allowing the researcher to be creative in her or his presentation of a mixed methods research report.

O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007a). Integration and publications as indicators of 'yield' from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147–163.

Abstract: A mixed methods study has the potential to produce knowledge that is unavailable to a qualitative study and a quantitative study undertaken independently. Any unique insight or ``yield'' from a mixed methods study may be difficult to assess in practice. However, given that integration of data or findings from different components of a study is a core characteristic of mixed methods research, two possible indicators of yield can be used: first, the extent to which researchers exploit the potential for integration in mixed methods studies; and second, the way in which this integration is communicated in peer-reviewed journal articles. Here, the authors apply these indicators to mixed methods studies in health services research in the United Kingdom.

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J., & Crandell, J. L. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6 (4), 317–333.

Abstract: Mixed methods–mixed research synthesis is a form of systematic review in which the findings of qualitative and quantitative studies are integrated via qualitative and/or quantitative methods. Although methodological advances have been made, efforts to differentiate research synthesis methods have been too focused on methods and not focused enough on the defining logics of research synthesis—each of which may be operationalized in different ways—or on the research findings themselves that are targeted for synthesis. The conduct of mixed methods–mixed research synthesis studies may more usefully be understood in terms of the logics of aggregation and configuration. Neither logic is preferable to the other nor tied exclusively to any one method or to any one side of the qualitative/quantitative binary.