(b) concurrent nested, and (c) concurrent transformative designs. In each of

(b) concurrent nested, and (c) concurrent transformative designs. In each of these designs, the quantitative and qualitative data are collected during the same stage, although priority may be given to one form of data over the other. The purpose of concurrent triangulation designs is to use both qualitative and quantitative data to more accurately define relationships among variables of interest. In concurrent nested designs, both qualitative and quantitative data are collected during the same stage, although one form of data is given more weight over the other (Creswell et al., 2003). Similar to sequential nested designs, concurrent transformative designs are theoretically driven to initiate social change or advocacy, and these designs may be used to provide support for various perspectives. Integrative mixed methods designs–Within the context of these design approaches, the need persists for a methodology that affords a rigorous and integrative analysis of qualitative textual evidence and quantitative numeric data (Schwandt, 1994). Given the noted strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative and quantitative approaches, it would be advantageous to have a truly integrative methodology for the concurrent use of both methods in a manner that offers the descriptive richness of text narratives and the precision in measurement and hypothesis testing afforded by quantitative approaches (Carey, 1993; Hanson et al., 2005). Regarding such integrative designs, Creswell et al. (2003) haveJ Mix Methods Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 11.Castro et al.Pageindicated that, “there is still limited guidance for how to conduct and analyze such transformations [the qualitative uantitative exchange of data] in practice” (p. 229).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptIntegrative mixed methods paradigm–Figure 1 presents a paradigm for an IMM research approach. A core feature of this approach is parallelism in study design, where integration begins with a unified conceptualization of information as “research evidence,” which can take the form of verbal text narrative evidence (qualitative) or numeric data evidence (quantitative). This IMM design is closest in form to a “concurrent triangulation” design as described by Creswell et al. (2003),Hanson et al. (2005), and Plano Clark et al. (2008). Based on a specified theory or conceptual framework, a core category or construct, such as machismo, can be featured as a study’s core construct. The basic IMM design proceeds in six Cynaroside site stages: (a) parallelism in study development, (b) evidence gathering, (c) processing/ conversion, (d) data analyses, (e) interpretation, and (f) integration. In principle, a wellcrafted study with this design would allow “seamless” data conversions, for example, the conversion of qualitative thematic categories into numeric thematic variables (Castro Coe, 2007). Then, via recontextualization this conversion would relate statistically derived Flavopiridol site results back to their original qualitative context (Morse, 1994), thus allowing a rich interpretation of the quantitatively derived results. Generally, the greater the qualitative?quantitative parallelism that is designed a priori into a study, the easier to transform, transfer, and interpret textual and numeric data forms across modalities (Plano Clark et al., 2008). Under a full integrative perspective, the principal aim is to examine research evidence gathered using both data forms, to gene.(b) concurrent nested, and (c) concurrent transformative designs. In each of these designs, the quantitative and qualitative data are collected during the same stage, although priority may be given to one form of data over the other. The purpose of concurrent triangulation designs is to use both qualitative and quantitative data to more accurately define relationships among variables of interest. In concurrent nested designs, both qualitative and quantitative data are collected during the same stage, although one form of data is given more weight over the other (Creswell et al., 2003). Similar to sequential nested designs, concurrent transformative designs are theoretically driven to initiate social change or advocacy, and these designs may be used to provide support for various perspectives. Integrative mixed methods designs–Within the context of these design approaches, the need persists for a methodology that affords a rigorous and integrative analysis of qualitative textual evidence and quantitative numeric data (Schwandt, 1994). Given the noted strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative and quantitative approaches, it would be advantageous to have a truly integrative methodology for the concurrent use of both methods in a manner that offers the descriptive richness of text narratives and the precision in measurement and hypothesis testing afforded by quantitative approaches (Carey, 1993; Hanson et al., 2005). Regarding such integrative designs, Creswell et al. (2003) haveJ Mix Methods Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 11.Castro et al.Pageindicated that, “there is still limited guidance for how to conduct and analyze such transformations [the qualitative uantitative exchange of data] in practice” (p. 229).NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptIntegrative mixed methods paradigm–Figure 1 presents a paradigm for an IMM research approach. A core feature of this approach is parallelism in study design, where integration begins with a unified conceptualization of information as “research evidence,” which can take the form of verbal text narrative evidence (qualitative) or numeric data evidence (quantitative). This IMM design is closest in form to a “concurrent triangulation” design as described by Creswell et al. (2003),Hanson et al. (2005), and Plano Clark et al. (2008). Based on a specified theory or conceptual framework, a core category or construct, such as machismo, can be featured as a study’s core construct. The basic IMM design proceeds in six stages: (a) parallelism in study development, (b) evidence gathering, (c) processing/ conversion, (d) data analyses, (e) interpretation, and (f) integration. In principle, a wellcrafted study with this design would allow “seamless” data conversions, for example, the conversion of qualitative thematic categories into numeric thematic variables (Castro Coe, 2007). Then, via recontextualization this conversion would relate statistically derived results back to their original qualitative context (Morse, 1994), thus allowing a rich interpretation of the quantitatively derived results. Generally, the greater the qualitative?quantitative parallelism that is designed a priori into a study, the easier to transform, transfer, and interpret textual and numeric data forms across modalities (Plano Clark et al., 2008). Under a full integrative perspective, the principal aim is to examine research evidence gathered using both data forms, to gene.