*3.2. Data Collection and Analysis*

To ensure a comprehensive dataset to gain insights into the organizational aspects of developing, implementing, and supporting general education programs in alignment with the case university's overarching goals, multiple data collection methods were employed. (1) Various university documents were collected, including policies, strategic plans, regulations, and minutes of general education-related meetings. These documents offered insights into the formal roles, responsibilities, and organizational design of the general education program. They provided a foundational understanding of how the goals and objectives of general education were structured, as well as how resources and responsibilities were allocated within the university environment. (2) External reports from reputable sources, such as university rankings and external quality evaluations, were gathered to display the external perceptions and recognition of the case university's general education initiatives. (3) The researchers employed a participant observation approach in which they directly observed the implementation of general education programs, interactions among institutional leaders, stakeholders, and the general environment and culture surrounding general education within the case university. (4) Focus groups and discussions involving faculty, administrators, and students were conducted in the university's natural setting to gain different perspectives and insights related to general education and to triangulate the findings the researchers had obtained from other data. By engaging these stakeholders, the interdependence between individuals and the organization was explored, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of personal and professional growth opportunities for students.

Data collected through various methods were rigorously analyzed and carefully integrated to gain a comprehensive understanding of the establishment and implementation of general education within the new research university. (1) University documents and external reports were subjected to a thorough content analysis. Recurring themes, goals, and strategies contained in these documents were identified. The structural and political frames were used to examine how the university formally outlined its approach and resources to general education. The insights gained in this part shed light on the goals and structural dimensions of the general education at the case university. (2) Participant observation data in the form of researcher notes, narrative descriptions, audio and video documents, and visual documents and comments were analyzed through iterative coding and thematic analysis. This qualitative approach allowed the researchers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the general education program in the university context. Observations were viewed through the lens of both human resources and symbolic frames. The human resources frame shed light on how individuals' interactions and behaviors contributed to the program's effectiveness in fostering holistic student growth. The symbolic frame, on the other hand, provided insights into the cultural nuances and institutional values that manifested in the observed practices. The findings with this lens are presented in the implementation, structural, pedagogical, and integrative dimensions of the general education at the case university. (3) Data collected in the focus groups and discussions were subjected to thematic coding and qualitative analysis to identify recurring themes and underlying patterns in participants' narratives. Findings from the focus groups were viewed with structural, human resources, and symbolic frames to gain insights related to general education and to triangulate the findings that the researchers had obtained from other data.

Integrating data from these different sources was a meticulous process that involved triangulation to ensure credibility and validity. Findings from each method were crossreferenced to provide a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the multiple dimensions of the general education program. Findings from university documents and external reports provided context for the observed practices and discussions. Similarly, participant observation and focus group data enriched each other by offering different perspectives on the same phenomenon. The integration of these data sources facilitated a holistic analysis that culminated in a coherent interpretation of the complex organizational dynamics that shape general education at the research university.
