Understanding digital repositories through mixed methods

Understanding digital repositories through mixed methods

Carolina Mayen Huerta, Research Data Specialist, at DCC has written a blog giving an overview of the DCC's three-phase mixed-methods approach: combining evidence, expertise, and stakeholder engagement to ensure that recommendations are both rigorous and practical for a recent consultancy project with the Pacific Community (SPC) Digital Library.

Evaluating a digital repository requires more than reviewing technology or documentation alone. To understand how a service operates in practice, it is necessary to examine both the formal structures that support it and the experiences of the people who use and manage it.

Our Approach

At the DCC, repository evaluations are designed to draw on multiple sources of evidence. Desk research establishes a baseline understanding of the service, stakeholder consultations provide insight into operational realities and user experiences, and validation workshops test emerging findings with those closest to the service. Together, these activities create a robust evidence base for analysis, planning, and decision-making.

Our recent evaluation of the Pacific Community (SPC) Digital Library is a good example of how this works in practice. Rather than focusing solely on technical performance or user feedback, the evaluation was designed as a three-phase process that brought together documentary evidence, stakeholder perspectives, and collaborative validation.

Phase 1: Desk research and benchmarking

The first phase established a baseline understanding of the Digital Library. We reviewed available documentation, examined repository workflows, metadata practices, governance arrangements, and system functionality, and benchmarked the service against internationally recognised frameworks for trustworthy digital repositories and FAIR-enabling practices.

This stage allowed us to understand how the service was designed, how it aligned with established good practices, and where further investigation was needed. Importantly, it also informed the design of the next phase by highlighting areas that required deeper exploration through stakeholder engagement.

Phase 2: Stakeholder consultation and thematic analysis

The second phase formed the core of the evaluation. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from across SPC, including repository managers, librarians, technical staff, publication officers, and users of the service.

These conversations helped us move beyond documented processes to understand how the Digital Library operates in practice. Interviews provided insight into day-to-day workflows, organisational culture, user experiences, and perceptions of the service's role within the wider digital ecosystem.

The interview data were then analysed using a structured thematic approach, enabling us to identify recurring patterns, common challenges, and areas where perspectives differed. This qualitative analysis added depth and context that would not have been possible through desk research alone.

Phase 3: Validation and roadmap deve​lopment

A key feature of the methodology was the final validation stage. Rather than treating evaluation as a one-way process, we returned to stakeholders through a series of workshops to test emerging findings and discuss priorities.

These workshops served two important purposes. First, they allowed participants to validate, challenge, and refine the conclusions. Second, they created space for collaborative prioritisation and roadmap development, helping ensure that recommendations were grounded in operational realities and organisational needs. This validation phase transformed the evaluation from a purely analytical exercise into a collaborative planning process.

Why mixed methods matter

Each phase generated a different type of evidence. Desk research provided context and benchmarking. Interviews revealed lived experience and operational realities. Workshops brought collective reflection and validation.

Taken together, these methods created a richer and more reliable understanding than any single approach could achieve on its own. This is a hallmark of DCC's evaluation work: combining evidence, expertise, and stakeholder engagement to ensure that recommendations are both rigorous and practical.

For organisations seeking to strengthen digital services, repositories, or research infrastructure, the value of a mixed-methods approach lies not only in the quality of the findings but also in the confidence that comes from understanding a service from multiple perspectives.

Want to learn more about our consultancy work?

Check out the Consultancy webpage for case studies of previous projects and details of how to get in touch.