Designing Mixed Methods Studies in Institutional Research

Mixed methods research, one of the most powerful and flexible approaches available to institutional researchers, integrates both quantitative and qualitative approaches, allowing us to develop a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of complex issues in higher education.

Quantitative methods help us answer questions about what is happening—patterns, frequencies, or measurable outcomes. But qualitative methods help us explore why those patterns exist. By weaving the two together, we can see both the map and the terrain, gaining insights that numbers alone can’t provide.

Understanding the Qualitative Dimension

Let’s focus on the qualitative side of mixed methods. In institutional research, qualitative inquiry is often used to uncover the stories, experiences, and perspectives behind institutional data trends. When a campus climate survey shows differences in student belonging across groups, for example, qualitative follow-up can help us understand why those differences exist and how students experience the campus environment.

Two of the most common techniques for collecting qualitative data in higher education are interviews and focus groups.

• Interviews allow researchers to engage one-on-one with participants, exploring their experiences in depth. This method can be especially valuable when studying topics like faculty mentoring, student persistence, or leadership experiences.
• Focus groups, on the other hand, bring participants together to discuss a shared topic. The group setting often sparks new ideas, collective reflection, and dialogue that might not emerge in individual interviews. Institutional researchers frequently use focus groups to better understand issues like advising satisfaction, program effectiveness, or the impact of institutional initiatives.

If you’re considering incorporating focus groups into your own research, I recommend the book Using Focus Groups to Listen, Learn, and Lead in Higher Education by Danner, Pickering, and Paredes (2018). The text offers practical guidance for designing, conducting, and analyzing focus groups specifically within higher education contexts.

Making Sense of Qualitative Data

Once qualitative data have been collected—whether through interviews, focus groups, or open-ended survey questions—the next step is analysis. This process involves organizing, coding, and interpreting the text to identify recurring themes, patterns, or concepts.

Smaller datasets can be analyzed manually using color coding, margin notes, or spreadsheets. However, as datasets grow larger, specialized software becomes invaluable for managing and analyzing the data efficiently. Common tools include:

• NVivo, a robust subscription-based software for coding and identifying themes.
• SPSS Text Analytics, which integrates with SPSS for analyzing text responses.
• Dedoose and AWS SageMaker, cloud-based tools designed for collaborative qualitative work.
• R and RShiny, free and open-source tools that provide customizable approaches for text analysis.
• ChatGPT, increasingly used to assist with initial coding or summarization of qualitative data.

While these tools can save time, they cannot replace completely the human researcher. Qualitative analysis requires interpretation, contextual understanding, and attention to nuance. Software can help organize the data, but it cannot understand the data in the way a researcher can.

For example, I recently experimented with uploading a three-hour congressional hearing on education policy into ChatGPT to see what themes it might generate. While it did produce a helpful overview, it completely missed a critical exchange about Brown v. Board of Education—a moment central to the discussion. This experience reminded me that technology is useful but imperfect. Qualitative inquiry depends on thoughtful human interpretation, not just automated processing.

Bringing It All Together

In mixed methods research, findings from qualitative data complement quantitative findings. Numbers might tell us that graduation rates improved after the implementation of a new student support initiative, but interviews with students and staff can help us understand how and why that improvement occurred. This combination—quantitative breadth with qualitative depth—is what makes mixed methods research so valuable in institutional settings. Qualitative inquiry remains a cornerstone of rigorous, meaningful institutional research.

Even small-scale interviews or open-ended questions can add significant richness to the data and help tell a more complete institutional story. Whether analyzing focus group transcripts, reviewing student feedback, or assessing program outcomes, qualitative inquiry will remain a vital part of an institutional researcher’s toolkit.