As higher education researchers strive to better understand the ways in which educational programs and institutions can better meet evolving needs of students and employers, secondary data sources are an increasingly useful resources. Secondary data sources are previously collected data that another researcher can access and reanalyze to address a new research question (Elliot, 2016). Using government data (e.g., IPEDS), national data (e.g., NASSGAP), and/or institutional data, such as those generated by institutional research offices), is often more realistic than trying to gather similar data for an isolated study. Not only can these sources be useful in formalized research, but they have practical value as well. Let’s take an example from the college where I work.
Each year, 4-6 academic programs complete a comprehensive program review process. During this process, faculty and student support staff review the program to evaluate effectiveness. Faculty committees and program leadership gathers institutional data on student satisfaction, retention and completion rates, enrollment rates, student learning outcomes, and more. One component is a peer comparison. Faculty identify other programs they consider peers and research those programs to determine how our program compares. This is a useful approach for identifying gaps in our programs and ensuring our programs stay current in a rapidly changing market. While some program-specific data can be found on institutional websites, key performance indicators are not always easy to find. Data available through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (e.g. IPEDS) may provide a place to start. While IPEDS houses a massive amount of data on higher education institutions, an easy place to start is reviewing institutional profiles for peer schools. The institutional profile provides basic characteristics such as location, type of organizational control, award levels, % of students receiving financial aid, enrollment and completions by degree level and race/ethnicity, and HR data such as the number of faculty and staff in various positions. During the peer comparison part of comprehensive program review, faculty may first identify an institution they believe is a peer and then check IPEDS to compare similarities to ensure they select peer programs from an appropriately comparable institution.
But how do we identify which attributes to use to identify a peer? Stay tuned for my next blog post in which I will review some of the sources for comparing institutions and programs, as well as relevant contextual attributes.
Reference
Elliott, D. (2016). Secondary data analysis. In F. Stage & K. Manning (Eds.), Research in the college context, 2nd edition (pp. 175-184). Routledge.
