A note on merging findings with regard to mixed methods research: for Housing Studies students

A note on merging findings with regard to mixed methods research: for Housing Studies students

 

Regarding the context of doing a Housing Studies dissertation project with the research philosophy and the research approach of mixed methods research, please advise three main ways on how to mix or combine quantitative and qualitative research findings, notably in the dissertation report chapter [chapter 5] of "discussion of findings", after chapter 4 "presentations of research findings".

 

For a Housing Studies dissertation, Chapter 5 should not simply repeat Chapter 4. Its central task is integration: interpret the quantitative and qualitative findings together, explain what they mean for your housing research questions, and show how the combination produces insights neither strand could provide alone.

1. Use an integrative narrative

Organise Chapter 5 by themes, research questions, or housing issues—not by data type. For each theme, first state the quantitative result, then bring in the qualitative evidence that explains, contextualises, or qualifies it. This is commonly called an integrative narrative and is a recognised way to discuss convergence and divergence between the two strands.

For example, if survey results show that private rental tenants report higher housing stress, interview material can explain the mechanisms: insecure tenancies, rent increases, poor maintenance, or limited bargaining power. The discussion should then state explicitly whether the qualitative findings confirm, enrich, or challenge the quantitative result.

A useful structure for each section is:

• Quantitative finding: what the survey/statistical analysis shows.
• Qualitative explanation: what interviews, focus groups, or textual data reveal about why and how this occurs.
• Integrated interpretation: what the combined evidence means for the research question.
• Link to literature: whether the integrated finding supports, extends, or contradicts prior housing research.

2. Build joint displays

Use one or more joint-display tables in Chapter 5 to make the integration visible and transparent. A joint display juxtaposes quantitative and qualitative results for the same research question, theme, variable, group, or case, and then states the integrated inference.

Housing theme	Quantitative finding	Qualitative finding	Integrated interpretation
Housing affordability	62% of respondents spend over 30% of income on housing	Interviewees describe cutting food, transport, or healthcare spending to pay rent	Affordability stress is not only a financial measure; it produces trade-offs in daily living and wellbeing
Estate maintenance	Residents rate maintenance satisfaction as low	Residents link poor repairs to distrust of management and reduced use of communal space	Physical conditions interact with institutional trust and social participation
Tenure insecurity	Renters report greater perceived insecurity than owners	Renters explain insecurity through short leases, eviction fears, and weak complaint channels	Insecurity is experienced as both a legal/economic condition and a psychological/social condition

This approach avoids the common weakness of presenting survey results in one section and interview themes in another without connecting them. It also makes clear how you arrived at your meta-inferences—the conclusions that go beyond either dataset alone.

3. Triangulate convergence, complementarity, and dissonance

For every major finding, deliberately assess the relationship between the two datasets:

• Convergence: both strands point to the same conclusion, increasing confidence in the finding.
• Complementarity: the qualitative data explain, illustrate, or add depth to a quantitative pattern.
• Dissonance or discrepancy: the strands conflict; this should be analysed rather than hidden, because it may reveal measurement limitations, subgroup differences, context-specific processes, or a more complex housing phenomenon.

For instance, survey data may show that most public-housing residents are satisfied with their estates, while interviews reveal dissatisfaction among particular groups—such as elderly residents, families with children, or residents facing accessibility barriers. Rather than treating this as a failure, discuss how the aggregate result conceals differentiated experiences and identify the conditions under which satisfaction varies.

Practical Chapter 5 structure

A strong mixed-methods discussion chapter could follow this sequence:

1.    Introduction: restate the purpose and explain how the chapter integrates both strands.

2.    Discussion by research question or theme: use the integrative-narrative approach.

3.    Joint displays: include tables or figures that connect quantitative results, qualitative themes, and integrated interpretations.

4.    Convergence and dissonance: explicitly discuss agreement, complementarity, and contradictions.

5.    Meta-inferences: state the overarching conclusions that emerge only from combining the datasets.

6.    Implications: connect integrated findings to housing policy, planning, estate management, tenant welfare, or future research.

The key principle is that Chapter 5 should produce integrated interpretations, not a parallel summary of “survey findings” followed by “interview findings.” Mixed methods research is defined by the integration of findings and the drawing of inferences from both approaches.