Sequential Mixed-Methods Pipeline

Research Methodology

A pragmatic, sequential mixed-methods design — moving from theoretical scoping to deep analytical interventions across six structured phases.

01
Phase 1 | Theoretical Grounding

Literature Review

Our theoretical framework, grounded in a pragmatic paradigm (Islam, 2022), identified three core dimensions of exclusion guiding the entire project design.

Socio-economic

Gender · Race · Finance

AI Literacy

Self-Efficacy Gaps

Structural

Policy & Funding

Read Full Literature Review
02
Phase 2 | Market Intelligence

Data Scraping

Live PhD listings were collected programmatically to build a structured market analysis dataset of the AI postgraduate landscape in the UK.

2,643
Listings Collected
Live
Data Source
FindAPhD
Platform

Listings were scraped from FindAPhD.com to capture a representative snapshot of AI PhD opportunities across UK institutions. Data points included funding status, eligibility criteria, stipend information, grade requirements, and supervisor details — enabling systematic market analysis of structural access barriers.

View Market Findings
03
Phase 3 | Intervention + Sample

Training Intervention

The "Getting Started in AI" course, run by the Jean Golding Institute (JGI), served as the core intervention. Participants were self-selecting undergraduates who attended the programme.

2
Training Sessions
30
Max per Cohort
A&B
Cohorts per Session

Eligibility Criteria

Aged 18 or over
Undergraduate students at the University of Bristol
Confirmed attendees of the "Getting Started in AI" training

Session 1

Cohorts A & B
  • AI concepts & foundations
  • Pre-training survey completed
  • Post-training survey window opens
View Course Materials

Session 2

Cohorts A & B
  • Applied AI skills
  • Interview invitations issued
  • Post-training survey reminder
View Course Materials

All confirmed attendees were contacted by email about optional surveys. Time was allocated within sessions for completion. The research team supervised both cohorts and confirmed no significant differences in delivery between them.

04
Phase 4 | Pre / Post Measurement

Quantitative Surveys

A longitudinal pre- and post-test design tracked quantitative shifts in student attitudes and AI literacy before and after training.

Hypotheses Tested

H1 Does the AI training programme increase attendees' interest in AI study?
H2 Does the AI training programme increase attendees' AI literacy?
H3 Is there any difference in interest in AI study based on SES?
H4 Do STEM students show higher AI literacy than non-STEM students before and after training?

AI-LITS (Short Version)

AI Literacy Scale (Hornberger et al., 2025) — measured pre/post training; question order randomised in post-survey to reduce recognition bias.

DAISY SES Indicators

Ethnic background, gender, caregivers' education, and current occupation — based on DAISY (2022) and Census 2021 categories.

Likert Scales

Five-point agreement scales measuring attitudes towards using and studying AI, and motivation for attending the training.

View Quantitative Findings
05
Phase 5 | Qualitative Depth

Semi-structured Interviews

Survey participants were invited to attend structured online interviews (up to 60 mins) via Microsoft Teams following Session 2.

60
Mins Max
MS Teams
Platform
3
Research Questions

Research Questions

RQ1 What do participants perceive as barriers and enablers for studying AI following the training?
RQ2 How do career expectations influence choices around postgraduate study after training?
RQ3 How does institutional policy impact interest in AI studies after attending the training?

Each interviewer was accompanied by an observer taking field notes. Interviews were automatically transcribed in Microsoft Teams, then reviewed and corrected by hand before analysis.

View Qualitative Findings
06
Phase 6 | Triangulation

Data Analysis Strategy

The final phase synthesised both data streams to triangulate findings across quantitative and qualitative sources.

Thematic Analysis

Deductive approach (Clarke & Braun, 2017) applied to interview transcripts. Shared codebook reviewed asynchronously and in dedicated meetings.

Content Analysis

Abductive approach (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017) applied to free-text survey responses; frequency analysis across the dataset.

Descriptive Stats

Mean, mode, and range compared pre- and post-training survey scores across AI literacy items and agreement scales.

Note: The JGI training focused on AI literacy rather than all barriers identified in the literature. This partial misalignment meant some codes (e.g., gender inequality, confidentiality concerns) were not addressed in post-training interviews, and admission policy questions could not be explored with an undergraduate sample.

Ethical Compliance

Approved by the University of Bristol Faculty of Science and Engineering Ethics Committee (Ref: 29619). The average pre-training survey took approximately 25 minutes; interviews lasted up to one hour. All data will be anonymised and securely held in accordance with the committee's requirements.

Anonymisation: 31/03/2026 GDPR Compliant Ethics Ref: 29619