A mixed methods joint display template for Notion

See inside the Mixed Methods Integration Board

The problem it solves

"Where is the integration?" is often the first question an examiner asks about a mixed methods thesis. Too many theses answer it with two results chapters and a discussion that mentions both. That is two studies side by side, not a mixed methods study.

Integration means the strands meet at named points: one shapes the sampling or the instrument of the other, or the two sets of results are brought together and compared (Fetters, Curry & Creswell, 2013). A joint display shows that meeting in one table (Guetterman, Fetters & Creswell, 2015).

The hard part is honesty. Some survey results never meet a theme. Some themes never meet a number. Sometimes the strands disagree, and the temptation is to leave that row out. But discordance is data, and an examiner who finds it hidden will ask why.

This board keeps every pairing on the record, with its fit, its handling and the conclusion you draw from both.

How it works: Pair → Judge → Conclude

1. Pair

   Put one quantitative result next to the qualitative finding it relates to, as one row of the joint display. A result or finding can sit in more than one row.

2. Judge

   Decide the fit: confirmation, expansion or discordance. If the strands disagree, write how you handled it, for example by re-examining the data or reporting it as a limitation.

3. Conclude

   Write the meta-inference: one or two sentences on what you now know from both strands that neither told you alone.

What the studio checks for you

Every joint display row, every result, every finding and the study itself carry a status worked out from what you enter. These are the main labels.

Integration status, per joint display row

• ⚪ Empty row: nothing linked yet.
• 🔗 Link both strands: only one side of the pair is linked. 🔗 Link to your study means the row is not tied to the study.
• 🟡 Judge the fit: both strands are linked but no fit is chosen.
• 🔴 Discordance unexplained: the fit is discordance and no handling is written.
• 🟠 Write the meta-inference: the fit is judged, but the conclusion from both strands is missing.
• ✅ Integrated: both strands, a fit, any discordance handled and a meta-inference written.

Integration flag, per result and per finding

• ⚠️ Not yet integrated: it is in no joint display row.
• 🟠 Rows in progress / 🟡 Partly integrated: it has rows, but not all of them are ✅.
• ⚠️ Give a reason for leaving it out: you set it aside without a reason.
• ➖ Not carried forward (reason given): set aside on the record, which is fine.
• ✅ Integrated: every row it appears in is ✅.

Integration health, per study

• ⚠️ Open flags: counts unexplained discordance, results not fully integrated and findings not fully integrated.
• ✅ … rows integrated · no open flags: every row is ✅ and nothing is left hanging.

When a row counts as integrated, and the 💡 prompts that suggest a connecting, building or merging point for each core design, are GradSummit conventions after Fetters et al. (2013). Other combinations are legitimate if you justify them.

The worked example

Fictional study

The worked example is fictional: the Brookfield study, mixed methods variant. It asks whether timely instructor feedback is linked to course completion among first-generation students in online programmes, as an explanatory sequential design with a survey of N = 412 and 12 follow-up interviews. It has 4 integration points, 6 quantitative results, 5 qualitative findings and 7 joint display rows. Four rows are ✅, including one where discordance was handled; one is 🔴, one 🟠 and one 🔗. Integration health reads ⚠️ Open flags: 1 unexplained discordance · 3 result(s) not fully integrated · 3 finding(s) not fully integrated. Clearing the example takes a few minutes.

Method and sources

The board follows Creswell & Plano Clark (2018) for the designs, Fetters, Curry & Creswell (2013) for the three levels of integration (design, methods, and interpretation and reporting) and for fit, Guetterman, Fetters & Creswell (2015) for joint displays, and Teddlie & Tashakkori (2009) for meta-inferences.

An integration method page takes you through choosing a design and its integration points, building the joint display, judging fit, handling discordance and writing the meta-inference, and lists the conventions the board uses.

What the studio does not do

• It does not judge the fit for you. You choose confirmation, expansion or discordance, and you defend it.
• It does not analyse either strand. Run your statistics and your qualitative analysis elsewhere; the board records the results.
• It checks that a handling and a meta-inference are written, not that they are good.
• Use short, de-identified quotes only, and keep identifiable data out of a workspace you share.

What you get

• A one-page PDF with your private link, sent by Gumroad straight after checkout. Click it, then Duplicate, and the studio is in your own Notion workspace, yours to keep.
• Simple mode: three steps, one small table each, with a plain instruction above every table. You can start in Notion for the first time today.
• A joint display, discordance to explain, integration checks from both sides, your design and integration points, and an integration method guide.
• Export views that turn your joint display, results and findings into clean CSV tables for an appendix.
• A Start here page, a method guide with full references, and a worked fictional example you can clear in a few minutes.
• Works on Notion's Free plan. No charts, no paid features and no Notion AI needed.

Related guides and templates

• Integration in mixed methods

  joint displays explained

• Mixed methods research designs

  the core types and when to use them

• Mixed Methods Design Selector

  a free tool to choose your design

• Mixed Methods Research Kit

  fillable templates for the whole study

Other research studios

• Methods Design Navigator

  Weigh candidate designs and draft the paragraph that defends yours. $12.

• Quantitative Analysis Plan Studio

  Plan each analysis before you see the data. Coming soon, $15.

• Qualitative Coding Studio

  Free. Code interviews, build themes and back every claim with quotes.