This is an excellent starting point! Choosing "comparison" as your display purpose immediately narrows down your options and helps focus the design. A joint display for comparison aims to highlight convergences, divergences, and unique insights between your qualitative and quantitative findings.

Let's break down how to create an effective joint display for comparison, integrating both qualitative (QL) and quantitative (QN) data.

---

1. Deepening the Purpose: Comparison

While "comparison" is the overall goal, let's consider what you'll be comparing and why it matters. This will dictate your display structure.

Specific Types of Comparison:

• Comparing Findings: Do the QL themes align with QN statistics? Do they contradict? Do they explain why a QN trend exists?


• Example: QL themes suggest "lack of support" as a barrier, while QN data shows a statistically significant correlation between low support scores and poor outcomes.


• Comparing Cases/Groups: How do QL experiences differ between groups identified by QN data (e.g., high vs. low performers, specific demographics)?


• Example: QN shows a gender difference in satisfaction scores. QL explains how men and women describe their satisfaction differently.


• Comparing Contexts/Conditions: How do findings vary across different settings or conditions, with both QL and QN contributing to the picture?


• Confirming/Disconfirming Findings (Triangulation): Do the different data sources validate or challenge each other? This is a strong form of comparison.

Your Goal: To create a visual representation that allows the reader to easily see and understand the relationship (alignment, divergence, explanation) between your QL and QN data points related to a specific research question or phenomenon.

---

2. Pre-Design Considerations

Before you even sketch, consider these questions:

• What specific research question(s) will this display address? This is crucial for focus.


• What are the key QL themes/findings you want to highlight? (e.g., specific codes, categories, narratives). Don't try to include everything.


• What are the key QN findings you want to highlight? (e.g., means, percentages, correlations, p-values, specific graphs). Again, focus.


• Who is your audience? (Academic, policy-makers, general public). This impacts complexity, jargon, and visual style.


• What's the overall narrative or "story" you want to tell? The display should guide the reader through this story.

---

3. Choosing the Right Display Structure for Comparison

Here are common and effective structures, with notes on how they facilitate comparison:

A. Table-Based Displays (Most Common and Versatile)

• Concept: Organizes data in rows and columns.


• How it aids comparison: Allows for direct side-by-side or integrated presentation of QL and QN elements within the same "cell" or adjacent cells.

1. Parallel Column Table:

• Structure: One column for QL findings, one for QN findings, rows representing specific themes, questions, or cases.


• Example:

| Topic/Theme | Qualitative Findings (Themes, Quotes) | Quantitative Findings (Statistics, Charts) | Relationship/Insight |
| :-------------- | :-------------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------- | :----------------------- |
| Access Barriers | Theme: "Long wait times," "Confusing paperwork." Quote: "I just gave up, it was too much hassle." | 70% reported "wait time" as major issue (SD=1.2). 65% rated "paperwork clarity" as poor (Mean=2.1 on 5-pt scale). | Convergent: QL explains why the QN problem exists. |
| Perceived Benefits | Theme: "Increased confidence," "Sense of community." Quote: "I feel much more capable now." | 85% reported "increased confidence" (p<.01). 60% rated "sense of belonging" as high. | Convergent: Both data types show strong positive impacts. |
| Staff Interaction | Theme: "Helpful, but overworked." Quote: "They try their best, but seem swamped." | Staff-to-client ratio is 1:30. 40% of staff report "high burnout" (survey data). | Divergent/Explanatory: QL adds nuance to an underlying QN issue not directly measured by client feedback. |

2. Matrix/Grid Table:

• Structure: Good for comparing multiple QL themes across different QN-defined groups or categories.


• Example: Comparing experiences of "Support Services" across different outcome groups.

| QL Themes (Experiences with Support) | High Outcome Group (QN: Mean Score > 80) | Medium Outcome Group (QN: Mean Score 50-79) | Low Outcome Group (QN: Mean Score < 50) |
| :------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------ |
| Accessibility & Ease | "Always there when I needed them," "Seamless process." (100% positive QL mentions) | "Sometimes hard to reach," "Minor delays." (60% positive, 40% mixed QL mentions) | "Couldn't get through," "Gave up trying." (90% negative QL mentions) |
| Quality of Interaction | "Really listened," "Tailored advice." | "Generally helpful," "Standard advice." | "Felt rushed," "Didn't understand my needs." |
| Impact on Motivation | "Empowered me," "Kept me going." | "Helped a bit," "Provided a boost." | "No difference," "Felt more frustrated." |
| Relevant QN Data (for context) | n=50, Avg. Support Use: 4.5 sessions | n=120, Avg. Support Use: 2.1 sessions | n=80, Avg. Support Use: 0.8 sessions |

B. Visual-Based Displays

• Concept: Uses charts, diagrams, or other visual metaphors to integrate data.


• How it aids comparison: Can visually show alignment, overlap, or gaps.

1. Quadrant Display:

• Structure: Two axes representing key QN variables (e.g., High/Low frequency, Positive/Negative impact). Populate each quadrant with summarized QL themes/quotes relevant to that space.


• Example: Understanding impact of a program (QN: participation frequency & outcome scores; QL: described experiences).


• X-axis: Low Program Frequency <---> High Program Frequency


• Y-axis: Negative Outcome <---> Positive Outcome


• Quadrant 1 (High Frequency, Positive Outcome): "Transformative," "Met all my goals," "Connected with others." (QL themes/quotes)


• Quadrant 2 (High Frequency, Negative Outcome): "Frustrating," "Didn't fit my needs," "Still stuck." (QL themes/quotes)


• Quadrant 3 (Low Frequency, Positive Outcome): "Brief but impactful," "Got what I needed quickly." (QL themes/quotes)


• Quadrant 4 (Low Frequency, Negative Outcome): "Didn't engage," "Lost interest," "Too busy." (QL themes/quotes)

2. Narrative Flow / Process Diagram:

• Structure: If your data describes a sequence or process, integrate QL and QN at each stage.


• Example: Patient journey through a healthcare system.


• Stage 1: Initial Contact: QN: 60% patients use online portal. QL: "Confusing website," "Long hold times on phone."


• Stage 2: Appointment Booking: QN: Average wait time 3 weeks. QL: "Frustrated by delays," "Had to call multiple times."


• Stage 3: Consultation: QN: 85% satisfaction with doctor. QL: "Doctor was empathetic," "Felt heard." (but 15% QL: "Felt rushed," "Limited time").


• Connecting Line: Arrows show flow, QL/QN boxes at each stage.

C. Hybrid Displays (Often the Most Powerful)

• Concept: Combines elements of tables with visuals.


• How it aids comparison: Leverages the clarity of tables with the impact of visuals.

Example: A central QN chart (e.g., a bar chart showing satisfaction scores by group) with surrounding text boxes or callouts containing QL quotes or summarized themes explaining the bars.

---

4. Key Elements to Include in Your Joint Display

Regardless of the structure you choose, ensure these elements are present:

• Clear Title: State the purpose (e.g., "Comparison of Patient Experiences and Outcomes").


• Brief Introduction/Context: A sentence or two explaining what the display shows and why (especially for non-academic audiences).


• Distinct Qualitative and Quantitative Sections/Elements: Clearly label which data is which.


• Raw Data (Selectively) or Summaries:


• Qualitative: Use compelling, concise direct quotes, or highly summarized themes. Don't include full transcripts.


• Quantitative: Use key statistics (means, percentages, counts), or simplified charts/graphs (e.g., small bar charts, pie charts). Avoid large, complex data tables.


• Connecting Narrative/Bridge Statements: This is CRITICAL for comparison. These are the sentences or phrases that explicitly link QL and QN data, explaining their relationship. Use phrases like:


• "This quantitative finding is further illuminated by..."


• "Qualitative data explains why we see this trend..."


• "In contrast to the survey results, interviews revealed..."


• "Both data sources confirm..."


• Interpretation/Synthesis Section (Optional but Recommended): A small concluding paragraph or section below the display that summarizes the key comparative insights.


• Legend/Key: If using colors, symbols, or specific abbreviations.


• Source/Methodology Note (Brief): E.g., "(n=15 interviews, n=200 survey respondents)"

---

5. Design Principles for Effectiveness

• Clarity and Simplicity: Avoid clutter. Use clear fonts and sufficient white space.


• Focus: Only include data directly relevant to the comparison you want to make.


• Consistency: Use consistent terminology, colors, and formatting.


• Visual Hierarchy: Use headings, bold text, and varying font sizes to guide the reader's eye to the most important information.


• Color-Coding (Judiciously): Can be used to highlight specific themes or to distinguish QL from QN.


• Iterate: Create a draft, get feedback, and refine. It's rare to get it perfect on the first try.

---

Example Scenario: Developing a Joint Display

Let's imagine you've conducted a mixed-methods study on employee well-being in a remote work environment.

• Research Question: How do perceived opportunities for social connection influence employee well-being in a remote setting?


• Qualitative Data: Interview themes from 20 employees (e.g., "Isolation," "Team bonding," "Virtual fatigue," "Work-life blur").


• Quantitative Data: Survey results from 150 employees (e.g., mean scores on "Social Connection Scale," "Well-being Index," frequency of virtual social events, correlation between connection and well-being).


• Display Purpose: Comparison (specifically, to show how QL experiences explain QN well-being scores).

---

Proposed Display: A Narrative Matrix Table with Integrated QN Data

Title: Exploring the Impact of Social Connection on Remote Employee Well-being

Key Theme (Qualitative)	Illustrative Qualitative Quote(s)	Relevant Quantitative Findings	Comparative Insight/Explanation
1. Sense of Isolation	"Some days, I feel like I'm on an island. It's just me and my screen."	Social Connection Scale: Avg. score 2.8/5 (Lower than avg. in hybrid teams). Well-being Index: Employees with low connection scores reported 25% lower well-being.	Convergence: QL describes the feeling of isolation, directly linking to lower QN well-being scores, suggesting a significant impact.
2. Importance of Team Bonding	"Our Friday virtual coffee breaks are non-negotiable. It's the only time we really just chat."	Virtual Social Events: 80% attendance rate for voluntary team social events. Correlation: Positive correlation between frequency of informal virtual interactions and team cohesion (r=.58, p<.01).	Convergence/Explanation: QL highlights the perceived value of informal social interactions, aligning with QN data showing their high uptake and positive impact on team cohesion.
3. Virtual Fatigue vs. Connection	"Another video call? I'm exhausted by the end of the day. But sometimes it's for something good, like a team brainstorming."	Video Call Hours: Avg. 6 hours/day. Survey: 65% reported "moderate to high virtual fatigue." Connection vs. Fatigue: No direct negative correlation between social video call frequency and well-being if perceived as "optional."	Nuance/Divergence: While QN shows high fatigue, QL reveals that not all virtual interactions contribute negatively. Deliberate social connection (like team bonding) can still be a positive, even amidst general fatigue.
4. Work-Life Integration Challenges	"The lines are so blurred now. It's hard to switch off when your office is also your home."	Work-Life Balance Score: Avg. 3.1/5. Hours Worked: Avg. 45 hours/week (up 10% pre-pandemic).	Contextual: QL shows how remote work creates challenges to work-life boundaries, which QN data on increased hours and lower balance scores supports. Less about direct connection, more about the context in which connection happens.

Summary/Interpretation:
This display illustrates that while remote employees experience significant isolation and virtual fatigue (QL & QN), structured and informal social connections remain highly valued and positively impact well-being (QL & QN). The challenge lies in fostering genuine connection without exacerbating virtual fatigue and work-life balance issues.

---

By following these steps, focusing on your specific comparative purpose, and keeping your audience in mind, you can create a powerful and insightful joint display. Good luck!