Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Document analysis. Merriam (1988) highlights that determining the authenticity and accuracy of documents is part of the research process. This involves determining the reasons for which the document was produced, how content may be biased or distorted, how the document was originally used or for what reasons the document was originally intended, and whether its selection is biased. The documents gathered for the purposes of this study provided insight into presidential decision making in KCTCS. The guidelines provided by Merriam and outlined above were used in the selection of documents reviewed for this study.
Documents obtained electronically via websites for the system and colleges, the Council on Postsecondary Education, Kentucky revised statutes, and the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce that were relevant to presidential decision making in KCTCS were analyzed. The researcher organized and prioritized documents as primary and secondary documents. Documents written by the system and for the system were labeled as primary documents because these documents more directly informed decision making. Documents written about the system, such as news articles and status reports, were labeled as secondary documents.
During interview coding, the research read and coded documents, beginning with primary documents. Codes and emerging themes identified from interview data analysis were used as a guide for analyzing documents. Following the reading and coding of documents, the researcher confirmed and refined codes as needed. Likewise, emerging
themes identified through interview analysis were applied to additional readings of documents to gather additional evidence and provide explanation.

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

Triangulation of the three data sources was accomplished by examining evidence from surveys, interviews, and documents to build coherent themes related to presidential decision making within the system. Following coding and analysis of interview transcripts and documents, the researcher reintroduced quantitative findings into the analysis. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) suggest that mixing quantitative and qualitative data provides the researcher a better understanding of the phenomenon than if only quantitative or qualitative data were used. The reintroduction of quantitative data aided in confirming or disconfirming codes and emerging themes identified in the interview transcripts and documents. Moreover, since survey data were used to develop the interview protocol, the reintroduction of survey data into the interpretation of qualitative data was warranted to provide a more complete picture of presidential decision making in KCTCS. With the reintroduction of quantitative data, interviews and documents were analyzed again to refine codes and emerging themes. Alongside this second analysis of qualitative data using survey data, the researcher looked for evidence that might contradict previously established codes and themes.