In chapter seven, specifically between pages 228 and 229, the textbook authors encourage us to use joint displays so that we can visually compare our qualitative and quantitative results. To me, Morgan's cross-tabulation proposal seems to align with this. By doing so, it offers a way to systematically compare results using convergence, complementarity, and divergence. Both seem to suggest that visual frameworks help us (and the reader) to make sense of complex integration through that visual medium. To me, this really helps as well.

In chapter seven, the authors of the textbook outline a few helpful strategies. For example: merging, connecting, and embedding. These all help demonstrate how results can relate through what they call complementarity. Ultimately, this is where one method elaborates or enhances the finding of another (p. 222). It really helped me to see how this article expanded the framing of convergence, complementarity, and divergence as distinct interpretive logics. To me, this really helps because I can now see (as they suggest) how integration is multi-dimensional.

I read the other article first, so a lot of what I'm going to refer to comes from my understanding of that other article. However, this time I'm going to pivot just a little. Over there, I alluded to chapter three, but I did that for another reason. Here, I'm going to look specifically at how chapter three cautioned us to avoid vague or overloaded terms. This is such a term. In that chapter, they also mention how poorly defined terms lead to misalignment between our purpose, design, and interpretation. This makes sense thinking back. At the beginning, I conflated triangulation, and because of that, my alignment was a struggle. It still is, but it's better. In chapter seven, they encourage us to use a term like convergent design (p. 73).