|
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
The purpose of phase two of the study was exploratory in nature and aimed to understand how the presidents share decision making. Qualitative data were collected through interviews and documents. Interviews were transcribed and coded. During
interview data collection and transcription, the researcher also collected documents. As previously explained, interviews and documents were analyzed using an iterative process, which helped inform and confirm codes and emerging themes. Then, the researcher reintroduced quantitative findings into the analysis. With the reintroduction of quantitative data, interviews and documents were analyzed again to refine codes and emerging themes. Both quantitative and qualitative data were mixed for interpretation and analysis.
Interview Protocol
An interview protocol was used to collect data on how the KCTCS president and college presidents share academic, administrative, and personnel decisions. Because data collection occurred in two phases, preliminary analysis of the survey administered in the first phase of the study was used to develop the interview protocol used in the second phase of the study. Specifically, data from phase one of the study was used to identify areas where decision making was perceived to be shared between the KCTCS president and college presidents. Moreover, the data revealed that there were some areas of dispersion in participant responses, so some of these decisions were included in the interview protocol for further exploration. The purpose of the interviews was to further explore their experiences of negotiating shared decision making between the system and colleges in the areas presidents in phase one said shared decision making occurs in KCTCS.
Additional research questions helped guide this study and aided in exploring presidential decision making in the community college system. These questions attended to the particular contextual and situational factors relevant to presidential decision
making based on the review of literature. For this reason, the researcher included interview questions pertaining to the third and fourth research questions of this study to explore how specific state contexts influence, as well as what the role of the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors is in decision making.
A semi-structured interview protocol permitted flexibility in exploring presidential decision making in a community college system because knowledge was limited. Also, a semi-structured interview protocol permitted the researcher to use and respond to the data gathered from the survey administered in phase one of the study, and thus garner a better understanding of presidential decision making. Merriam (1988) refers to different kinds of questions that can be used to gather different types of information from participants. Because the purpose of the interviews was to explore shared decision making between the KCTCS president and college presidents, the focus of the interviews was the experiences and behaviors of participants. The researcher also asked participants about internal and external influences on decision making, including the role of the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors in decision making, as well as the role of the legislature and CPE. Furthermore, in order to explore how shared decision making was negotiated within the system, the protocol was designed to include examples of decisions and hypothetical situations related to decision making for participants. The rationale for including these types of questions was to better understand the decision making process for shared academic, administrative, and personnel decisions.
The final product was a semi-structured interview protocol comprised of 22 questions. Of the 22 questions, 11 questions explored how the KCTCS president and college presidents share academic, administrative, and personnel decision making. Of
these 11 questions, 2 questions addressed academic decision making, 4 questions addressed administrative decision making, and 5 questions addressed personnel decision making. More specifically, 2 of the 5 personnel related questions were examples of decisions and hypothetical situations related to decision making for participants.
Furthermore, of the 22 total questions, 6 questions explored how internal and external agencies influenced academic, administrative, and personnel decision making, which answered the third research question guiding this study. Finally, of the 22 questions, 5 questions explored the role of the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors in academic, administrative, and personnel decision making, which answered the fourth research question guiding this study.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
