I take a multimethod approach to understanding the world and am especially interested in research design and qualitative methods. I am attentive to how people understand and tell their stories, and to how research evidence can be produced in ways that are transparent, ethical, and useful for real-world decision making.
My work has bridged academic research, applied program evaluation, and analysis of human services administrative data. I focus on generating evidence that reflects real-world organizational constraints while remaining rigorous and human-centered. This work has included assessing and improving federal performance data and measures; establishing conceptual frameworks and theories of change; developing program learning agendas; and overseeing traditional research and evaluation studies.
I completed my PhD in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University, where my goal was to produce research that could support greater equity in educational outcomes. My training combined deep engagement with scholarship on social and economic inequality with work on the Resilience in Survivors of Katrina (RISK) Project. The RISK team included both sociologists and clinical psychologists, which expanded my perspective beyond the study of formal institutions and highlighted the role of personal narratives, social support, and meaning-making in persistence and recovery after disaster-related trauma.
My academic work examined how people navigate education and work when opportunities are limited or uncertain. I focused on students who do not follow traditional college pathways, with particular attention to young mothers living on low incomes. I sought to understand how people make educational decisions in the context of disrupted lives and within an increasingly complex postsecondary system that includes community colleges, technical programs, and for-profit institutions. I also examined how employers interpret different types of educational credentials, helping to clarify what degrees signal in the labor market and how those signals shape opportunity.
Qualitative Interviewing and Program Evaluation Methods
Flexible Coding of In-Depth Interviews
A 21st Century Approach
Nicole M. Deterding and Mary C. Waters
2021. Sociological Methods and Research 50 (2): 708-739.
Plain Language Summary
Grounded Theory qualitative coding methods, rooted in the 1960s era of colored pens and index cards, often struggle to meet the demands of contemporary semi-structured interview research. We argue that the classic grounded theory framework is frequently a poor fit for today’s large-scale studies, which often involve multi-person teams and mixed-method designs. Drawing on years of experience with diverse datasets, we propose a "flexible coding" approach that leverages the power of modern qualitative data analysis (QDA) software to enhance rigor and transparency. By streamlining the organization and retrieval of data, this method allows researchers to manage complex projects more effectively while facilitating the reanalysis and secondary use of interview data.
Key Takeaways
-
Team-Friendly Methods: Offers strategies specifically designed for large-scale projects, multi-person research teams, and mixed-methods designs.
-
Software-Based Workflow: Flips line-by-line coding logic to question-first indexing for data search and reduction, using the organizational power of QDA software.
-
Transparency & Rigor: Provides a clear, step-by-step approach to coding that makes the analytical process more visible and easier for others to follow.
-
Data Longevity: Emphasizes organizing data in ways that facilitate secondary analysis and future use by other scholars.
-
American Sociological Association Professional Development Webinar series, December 2019.
Lessons from the Social Innovation Fund
Supporting Evaluation to Assess Program Effectiveness and Build a Body of Research Evidence
Lily Zandniapour and Nicole M. Deterding
2018. American Journal of Evaluation, 39 (1):27-41.
Plain Language Summary
As funders increasingly prioritize evidence-based social programs, the federal Social Innovation Fund (SIF) served as an important experiment in using "tiered evidence" funding to scale what works while supporting newer programs to build their proof. This work describes SIF's experience of overseeing more than 130 evaluations to explain how the SIF model translated ambitious federal goals into practical requirements, templates, and technical assistance for nonprofits. By examining the public-private partnership at the heart of SIF, we highlight how funders can effectively build the evaluation capacity of small and mid-sized organizations. Ultimately, these lessons provide a roadmap for evaluators and policymakers to produce credible findings that contribute to a more robust evidence base for addressing important social problems.
Key Takeaways
-
Bridging a Gap: Demonstrates how high-federal "evidence" goals were translated into concrete tools, templates, and requirements that work for nonprofit organizations.
-
Building Evaluation Capacity: Offers a blueprint for how funders can provide the technical assistance necessary for small and mid-sized nonprofits to conduct rigorous research.
-
The "Tiered Evidence" Model: Explains a tiered funding structure to scale proven programs while investing in the evidence base of emerging ones.
-
Actionable Evidence: Highlights the importance of producing findings that are not just scientifically credible, but also practically useful for improving program delivery and informing policy.
Building Evidence in Challenging Contexts
Introduction to the Special Section
Nicole M. Deterding and Anna R. Solmeyer
2018. American Journal of Evaluation, 39 (1): 24-26.
In 2017, I coordinated a two day, federal-wide innovative methods meeting and co-edited a special section in The Journal of American Evaluation focused on the practical and methodological hurdles to conducting rigorous program evaluations within real-world social service settings. Articles in the special section emphasize the importance of balancing scientific rigor with the flexibility needed to adapt to such "challenging contexts," so that research findings can more effectively inform policy and practice.
Meaning Making and Social Belonging
The Emotional Cost of Distance
Geographic Social Network Dispersion and Post-traumatic Stress in Survivors of Hurricane Katrina
Katherine Ann Morris and Nicole M. Deterding
2016. Social Science and Medicine, 165 (1):56-65.
Plain Language Summary
While social networks are a vital source of support after a disaster, mass displacement can geographically scatter these connections and hinder psychological recovery. We use a mixed-methods approach to show that geographic network dispersion is a significant predictor of post-traumatic stress among Hurricane Katrina survivors, even when accounting for their overall level of hurricane-related trauma, post-hurricane perceived support, demographics, and whether they returned to New Orleans. Qualitative interviews demonstrate that this "emotional cost of distance" stems from a diminished sense of belonging and the inability to fulfill meaningful social roles within a dispersed network. Ultimately, the findings emphasize that physical proximity to intimate ties is a critical, yet often overlooked, component of long-term mental health and community resilience.
Key Takeaways
-
The Value of Closeness: Demonstrates that the physical distance between survivors and their close social ties is a unique driver of PTSD, independent of the amount of support available.
-
Secondary Stressors: Frames geographic dispersion as a major "secondary stressor" of disasters that continues to impact mental health long after the physical danger has passed.
-
Mechanisms of Distress: Identifies "belonging" and "mattering" as key social-psychological links; survivors feel a loss of meaning and identity when they cannot physically show up for or fulfill obligations to their loved ones.
-
Limitations of Digital Connection: Suggests that while technology helps people stay in touch, it cannot fully replace the protective mental health benefits of face-to-face, localized social networks.
Instrumental and Expressive Education
College Planning in the Face of Poverty
Nicole M. Deterding
2015. Sociology of Education, 88 (4): 284-301.
Plain Language Summary
In the United States, a college degree is a near-universal aspiration, yet for many, completion remains elusive. This study follows 700 low-income mothers whose education at two Louisiana community colleges was upended by Hurricane Katrina, forcing them to navigate the difficult choice of whether and how to return to school. While few participants completed their degrees during the five-year study, their commitment to the goal remained remarkably resilient. Mixed survey and in-depth interview data reveal that the persistence of college plans is driven not only by the "instrumental" hope for economic security but by the "expressive" power of the student identity, which offers a sense of moral worth and upward momentum. By highlighting how higher education provides dignity and hope amid hardship, this work challenges traditional "human capital" models and shows that the symbolic meaning of college can be as influential as students' hope for financial return.
Key Takeaways
-
Resilience of Aspirations: Challenges the idea that a lack of re-enrollment and completion represents abandoned college plans.
-
The "Student" Identity: Identifies the moral and symbolic value of being a student as a key motivator that helps marginalized students maintain a sense of direction.
-
Instrumental vs. Expressive Logics: Distinguishes between education as a financial investment (skills/wages) and education as an emotional one (dignity/hope).
-
Impact of Displacement: Uses the context of Hurricane Katrina to show how major life disruptions reveal the deep-seated cultural meanings people attach to their educational plans.
Higher Education Institutions
Educational Authority in the "Open Door" Marketplace
Labor Market Consequences of For-profit, Nonprofit, and Fictional Educational Credentials
Nicole M. Deterding and David S. Pedulla (Equal Authorship)
2016. Sociology of Education, 89 (3): 155-170.
Plain Language Summary
As for-profit higher education became the fastest-growing sector of U.S. higher education, a central question remains: how do employers evaluate educational quality for emerging institutions? We conducted a field experiment, sending over 1,200 job applications to administrative positions across three major labor markets to test how employers value associate’s degrees from for-profit, nonprofit, and fictional institutions. The results show that while having a degree matters, employers treated all three types of schools essentially the same, with no measurable preference for one over the other. These findings suggest that for many entry-level roles, the "any degree" signal overrides institutional quality. The lack of employer sorting means that market competition alone is unlikely to drive improvements in program quality, leaving students to potentially pay a significant price premium for for-profit degrees that offer no additional labor-market advantage.
Key Takeaways
-
Testing "Educational Authority" as a Mechanism: Uses a fictional college as a control to demonstrate that the "signal" of institutional quality in the sub-baccalaureate market is remarkably weak.
-
The "Any Degree" Signal: Reveals that for entry-level administrative roles, employers prioritize the possession of a credential over the specific reputation or type of institution that granted it.
-
Price vs. Value: Highlights the financial risk for students who pay several times more for for-profit programs that yield the same callback rates as more affordable community colleges.
-
Market Competition Failure: Challenges the idea that employer demand will naturally improve education quality; if employers don't differentiate between schools, there is little market incentive for institutions to upgrade.
-
Understanding Employers' Responses to For-profit Colleges. ASA Work in Progress Blog, invited contribution.
-
Does it Matter Where You Get Your Two-year Degree? Poverty Research and Policy Podcast. Institute for Research on Poverty at University Wisconsin-Madison.
Widening the Net
National Estimates of Gender Disparities in Engineering
Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen and Nicole M. Deterding
2009. Journal of Engineering Education, 98 (3): 211-226.
Plain Language Summary
While much of the debate around gender equity in STEM focuses on women "leaking out" of the career pipeline, we use national data to show that women who enroll in engineering are as likely as men to persist and graduate. By analyzing retention rates across various engineering disciplines, we find that the primary driver of underrepresentation is not a lack of persistence, but a significant disparity in initial enrollment. In most fields, once women start an engineering major, they stay at rates comparable to their male peers. These findings suggest that the gender gap is rooted in the recruitment phase, necessitating new focus on expanding outreach in K-12 curricula, building stronger pathways from two-year colleges, and diversifying the pool of students who consider engineering in the first place.
Key Takeaways
-
Challenging the "Leaky Pipeline": Demonstrates that, at a national level, women are not dropping out of engineering majors at higher rates than men; this "leak" is not the primary cause of the gap.
-
Similar Persistence: Shows that women's persistence rates do not differ from men's across most engineering subfields, suggesting that once women enter the field, existing retention efforts and individual persistence have results.
-
The Enrollment Gap: Identifies initial recruitment and enrollment as the fundamental bottleneck for gender equity in the engineering profession.
-
Reframing the Solution: Pushes the policy conversation beyond improving campus climate to ensuring more women enter engineering pathways from the start.
AI Transparency: I sped drafting of plain language summaries with the assistance of Google Gemini. AI-drafted language was revised for accuracy, nuance, and voice by me.