This convergent parallel design mixed methods case study of four community colleges explores the relationship between organizational capacity and implementation of data-driven decision making (DDDM). The article also illustrates purposive sampling using replication logic for cross-case analysis and the strengths and weaknesses of quantitizing qualitative data in a mixed methods design. The findings suggest that community colleges’ organizational capacity for data-driven decision making is a function of human and social capital, but not physical capital. Methodologically, the data analyses suggest that researchers considering quantitizing qualitative data should consider an exploratory sequential design to better understand the phenomenon under study before reducing qualitative data to numbers.
AbbottD. V. (2008). A functionality framework for educational organizations: Achieving accountability at scale. In MandinachE. B.HoneyM. (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 257–276). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
2.
AllenL.KazisR. (2007). Building a culture of evidence in community colleges: Lessons from exemplary institutions. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
3.
BeckerG. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BiswasR. R. (2006). A supporting role: How accreditors can help promote the success of community college students. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
5.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. E. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
6.
ChristT. W. (2009). Designing, teaching, and evaluating two complementary mixed methods research courses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 292–325. doi:10.1177/1558689809341796
7.
ChristT. W. (2010). Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical, and evaluative considerations. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 643–676). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CoburnC. E.BueschelA. C. (Eds.). (2012). The practice of data use [Special issue]. American Journal of Education, 118(2). doi:10.1086/663313
9.
CoburnC. E.TurnerE. O. (Eds.). (2011). Research on data use [Special issue]. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9(4). doi:10.1080/15366367.2011.626729
10.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
11.
CollinsK. M. T. (2010). Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 353–377). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DatnowA.ParkV.WohlstetterP. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.
15.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored-design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
16.
FinkA. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
FlanaganJ. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 1–33.
18.
FreedJ. E.KlugmanM. R. (1997). Quality principles and practices in higher education: Different questions for different times. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.
19.
GoodmanR. M.McLeroyK. R.StecklerA. B.HoyleR. H. (1993). Development of level of institutionalization scales for health promotion programs. Health Education & Behavior, 20(2), 161–178. doi:10.1177/109019819302000208
HittM. A.IrelandR. D. (2002). The essence of strategic leadership: Managing human and social capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 3-14. doi:10.1177/107179190200900101
22.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
23.
HuberG. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
24.
HuntingtonR. B.ClaggettC. A. (1991, November). Increasing institutional research effectiveness and productivity: Findings from a national survey. Paper presented at the Northeast Association for Institutional Research, Cambridge, MA.
25.
JangE. E.McDougallD. E.PollonD.HerbertM.RussellP. (2008). Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221–247. doi:10.1177/1558689808315323
26.
KerriganM. R.SlaterD. (2010). Collaborating to Create Change: How El Paso Community College Improved the Readiness of Its Incoming Students Through Achieving the Dream. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
27.
KvaleS. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
MandinachE. B.HoneyM. (Eds.). (2008). Data-driven school improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
MertensD. M. (2011). Publishing mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 3–6. doi:10.1177/1558689810390217
31.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
MorestV. S.JenkinsD. (2007). Institutional research and the culture of evidence at community colleges (Culture of Evidence Series). New York, NY: Community College Research Center.
33.
MortimerK. P.SathreC. O. (2010). The art and politics of academic governance: Relations among boards, presidents, and faculty. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
34.
NeuendorfK. A. (2002). Reliability. In The content analysis guidebook (pp. 141–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CollinsK. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316.
36.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.DickinsonW. B. (2008). Mixed methods analysis and information visualization: Graphical display for effective communication of research results. The Qualitative Report, 13(2), 204–225.
37.
Ordonez de PablosP. (2004). Measuring and reporting structural capital: Lessons from European learning firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5 (4) 629–647. doi:10.1108/14691930410567059
38.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
PetersonM. W.WhiteT. H. (1996). Faculty and administrator perceptions of their environment: Different views or different models of organization? In FinneganD. E.WebsterD.GamsonZ. F. (Eds.), Faculty and faculty issues in colleges and universities (2nd ed., pp. 297–317). Boston, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.
40.
PetridesL. A.McClellandS. I.NodineT. R. (2004). Using external accountability mandates to create internal change. Planning for Higher Education, 33(1), 44–50.
41.
RosenS. (1989). Human capital. In EatwellJ.NewmanP.MilgateM. (Eds.), Social economics: The new Palgrave (pp. 136–155). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
42.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
RutschowE. Z.Richburg-HayesL.BrockT.OrrG.CernaO.CullinanD.KerriganM. R.JenkinsD.GoodenS.MartinK. (2011). Turning the tide: Five years of Achieving the Dream in community colleges. New York: MDRC.
44.
RyanG.BernardH. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.
45.
SandelowskiM.VolisC. I.KnaflG. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222. doi:10.1177/15586689093344210
46.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47.
SharpJ. L.MobleyC.HammondC.WithingtonC.DrewS.StringfieldS.StipanovicN. (2011). A mixed methods sampling methodology for a multisite case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 34–54. doi:10.1177/1558689811417133
48.
SmartJ. C.KuhG. D.TierneyW. G. (1997). The roles of institutional cultures and decision approaches in promoting organizational effectiveness in two-year colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 68(3), 256–281.
49.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. doi:10/1177/2345678906292430
51.
TierneyW. G. (2008). The impact of culture on organizational decision making: Theory and practice in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
52.
TurnerE. O.CoburnC. E. (Eds.). (2012). Interventions to promote data use [Special issue]. Teachers College Record, 114(11).
What statistical analysis should I use? Statistical analyses using Stata. (n.d.). Retrieved October11, 2009, from UCLA: Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group website: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/whatstat/whatstat.htm
55.
YinR. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
YoungV. M. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112, 521–548.
