1x4 — Mario Cardano: Qualitative research and the enlightenment of argumentation
Even this time, this conversation is contributing to the attempt of limiting the wide and deep multi-dimension of design research. Hence, qualitative research that is as “rigorous” as quantitative one — explain us the chairman of this discussion — are two words which represent an entire mixed bunch of activities for designers and that can not be avoided. So DT-Conversation is lucky to encompass this crucial issue with professor Mario Cardano.
Mario Cardano teaches Qualitative Methods for Social Research and Sociology of Health at the Department of Cultures, Politics and Society of the Università di Torino. He is also director of the Qualitative Research Lab where several practitioners from Italian universities are reunited, on one hand to promote and consolidate the qualitative research and, on the other to provide scientific-methodological consulting.
The professor Cardano is deepening subjects such as Methods and epistemologies of qualitative research, Argumentation theory, Sociology of health, Mental health, up to Disability Studies. I take this occasion to thank him for all its precious works, such as La ricerca qualitativa; Metodologia della ricerca psicosociale; and his just published publication with Rutledge: Defending Qualitative Research. Design, Analysis and Textualisation.
Enjoy!
Professor Cardano, first of all, please might you introduce us to the qualitative research state of the art? What its strengths and weaknesses are? And what could actually affect its outcomes?
“Ok, starting from the strengths of qualitative research, a first aspect that should be considered, is the qualitative research’s capacity of making flourish the unexpected. For instance, within the social research, a foundational need is the accounting of phenomena that are not observable, such as cognitive and emotional processes which actually lead people. And thus, you need to recognize the subjects cooperation degree through which you should direct your attention. Here we can pinpoint out another strength, or rather the capacity to strictly correlate the analyzed case with further information discovered during the research. From this viewpoint, you have not a unique answer but a particularly rich harvest of information that make the study deeper. Considering the weaknesses instead, what the hardcore part of the critics is used to support, is that the outcomes of qualitative research are not generalizable. Hence, if you consider as generalization only the statistic one, the qualitative research can not draw the required resources for defending the legitimation of the extension of its outcomes of course. But, if you are accounting generalization as the extension of a few observations to other analogous ones, that has not been observed yet, the qualitative research can leverage different tools from the statistics. To conclude, for instance, you can use the argumentation theory that leverages logic and critic processes, which I am now really engaged with. Through the usage of that methodology, you can obtain outcomes as much satisfying as the statistic ones without using them.”
Ok, according to your studies, in order to define and bring out the difference from other types of research, when does a data could be acknowledged as qualitative?
“Good question, there are several differences we can talk about, but I identify three key aspects that distinguish the qualitative research, and thus also qualitative data. The first one refers to the adaptation of data collection procedures to the context where the research is done. In other words, within qualitative research, the method adapts to the object of study and not vice versa — as occurs instead within quantitative research. Therefore, firstly, data is accounted as qualitative if has been gathered through a flexible way. Secondly, the qualitative research goes for investigating the irreducible particularities and nuances which characterizes the object of study, thus it favours few case studies that allow you a great depth of analysis; and not, again, as the quantitative research that favour a large number of cases. The third and last aspect, it refers to the multi-vocality through which the empiric documentation is built. Namely, the pairing of multiple voices such as the one of researchers but also the participants and other subjects who were involved in the study. Such polyphony ascribes a strong peculiarity to the qualitative data.”
Professor Cardano, continuing to identify the differences that characterize qualitative research, does a true competition with the quantitative one exist? And is it plausible to consider the qualitative as a thinking “enzyme”?
Answering in order, despite the critical stances, I think there is not a true competition between them. Moreover, there are some methods through which they can talk well to each other. Let’s say that, if you know there is a statistic correlation between “sex” and shoe “size”, that doesn’t open up to a great manoeuvre space to the shoe market. But, starting from this information, what qualitative research can activate is a really deep procedure of analysis. That is more complex to unfold of course, given the methodologies which conceive the background of this type of studies, such as the sociologic ones, that allows you to discover the functioning scheme within a determined context. And in respect to that, you have to encompass that doesn’t exist just one single qualitative research theory. What today represent the mainstream, especially within the English-speaking countries, is the Grounded Theory which was born around the ’60s. So that methodology is based on the assumption that you have to build theories rooted within the empiric documentation, without moving from ex-ante theorization. Despite that position, that has been rounded over time, I move from another theoretical stance that fully-recognizes the value of a starting position as a leading viewpoint for the whole research activity. Hence, based on the object of study, you can advance a certain stance, namely the so called reasoned theoretical sampling. In this perspective, one’s can order the abductive inferential approach — which is a classic within the qualitative research, such as the pop Sherlock Holmes who has an horizon respect to which to construct creatively the studied object. Therefore, strictly speaking, you can’t do good qualitative research without a theory that populates your research context.”
Now we connect with the today economy. Regarding that designers are increasingly committed to services and businesses, and they should deal with the comprehension of complex systems. In such a dimension, how much qualitative research help them?
“If you start straight from the most original feature of the qualitative research, or the understanding of how actually it works a determined event in a determined circumstances and if in that case, design has the necessity of understanding how people relate and react to determined products, services, or specific innovations, and there is also the need of going over synthetic judgment to encompass the core reasons why people are moved toward specific directions — often contradictory, facts which are hard to obtain by cold numbers — the qualitative research is essential then. The latter are information that emerges casually, often accidentally throughout the research unfolding. They are a creative and abductive foundation-based kind of data. They are complex information because of their indirect way of acquisition. And concerning that, qualitative research helps exactly to dig and discover the unexpected. The non-told, the non-expressed.”
Professor, concluding right down on this aspect of suddenness, the new technologies, in the case of research we can wonder the big data, can go to facilitate — if not to substitute — the qualitative research methodology?
“The use of big data takes account of a strong aspect, especially within the practical side of research, or rather to obtain a huge amount of information nearly for free. If you go down on the internet, you can have instant access to an informative mass which does not require any precise investment because they are right there, effectively wrapped. The flip side of this approach refers to the fact they could be information that doesn’t suit your purposes. By this viewpoint, the big data analysis is a really good opening point of course, mainly for the understanding of macro-trends or macro-topics which refers to a determined audience or market. In this way, you can accomplish the operation of “rounding” to achieve plausible research questions. Then, as aforementioned, in order to intercept the “why” about precise instances, the qualitative research thanks to its dialectic and interlocutor practice it is the most powerful tool for its deepening.”
