STUDYING FAMILY-EMBEDDED ENROLLMENT DECISIONS: METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS FROM PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH
Keywords:
mixed methods, enrollment decisions, family influence, higher education research, methodologyAbstract
Research on university enrollment decisions have always relied heavily on survey-based and quantitative approaches which has modeled student choice as an individual and rational like process. While these mentioned methods can provide valuable insights into general patterns of the university choice decisions, yet they often struggle to capture the socially embedded nature and aspect of decision-making processes in a family-oriented context and backgrounds. This article reflects on the methodological implications of studying enrollment decisions in private higher education systems in Tashkent where families play a non-ignorable and active role. Drawing on mixed-methods doctoral research which was conducted among students enrolled in private universities and students in the last year of their schooling in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the paper examined how combining quantitative and qualitative approaches enables a more accurate representation of family involvement in the decision-making process, perceived value construction, and legitimacy assessment of the private institutions. Rather than just presenting new empirical findings, the article focused on methodological lessons related to the data design, interpretation, and contextual sensitivity of the matter. The paper argues that mixed-methods research offers advantages for studying enrollment decisions in collectivist and transitional higher education systems and will provides guidance for future research in similar contexts.
References
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution (2nd ed.). Brill.
https://brill.com/view/title/37219
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015). Higher education consumer choice. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137370184
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 8.
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466–479.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610683711
Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413–434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x
Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40–45.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210415523
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2015). Factors affecting university choice in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 285–300.






Azerbaijan
Türkiye
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Korea
Japan
India
United States of America
Kosovo