Qualitative Research and the Challenges of Complexity

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 621)

Abstract

Will the research agendas of this 21st century be able to handle with rigor the complexity and uncertainty of our world? Will they accommodate the leaps into the unknown of today’s creative and innovative processes? Should we care about it? Our answer is yes, because the social, economic, and political problems we confront today are becoming increasingly complex and nondeterministic. As this happens, and even their formulation becomes elusive, our traditional theories, methods, and instruments fail. We argue that the qualitative approaches inspired by the design disciplines are ideal to handle these situations, provided we carefully take into account some principles of the philosophy of science. We believe that the researchers willing to confront the growing complexity of our day, in all its richness and diversity, will have much advantage in following these approaches.

Keywords

Complexity Creativity Design Ethics Explanatory research Qualitative research Projective research Relevance Rigor Wicked problems 

References

  1. 1.
    Hawking, S.: What is Complexity? The Washington Center for Complexity. http://www.complexsys.org/downloads/whatiscomplexity.pdf
  2. 2.
    Rittel, H., Webber, M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4(1), 155–169 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pickering, A.: Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brey, P.: Philosophy of technology meets social constructivism. J. Soc. Phil. Technol. 2, 3–4 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Figueiredo, A.D., Cunha, P.R.: Action research and design in information systems: two faces of a single coin. In: Kock, N. (ed.) Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods, pp. 61–96. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Archer, B.: The nature of research in design and design education. In: Archer, B., Baynes, K., Roberts, P. (eds). The Nature of Research into Design and Technology Education. Loughborough University (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, J.C.: How my thoughts about design methods have changed during the years. Des. Methods Theor. 11, 1 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cross, N.: Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Des. Issues 17(3), 49–55 (2001). Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figueiredo, A.D.: On the historical nature of engineering practice. In: Williams, B., Figueiredo, J., Trevelyan, J. (eds.) Engineering Practice in a Global Context: Understanding the Technical and the Social, pp. 7–32. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewin, K.: Action research and minority problems. J. Soc. Issues 2, 34–46 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Popper, K.: Models, instruments and truth: the status of the rationality principle in the social sciences. In: The Myth of the Framework, pp. 154–184. Routledge, London (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Popper, K.: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge, London (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peirce, C.: Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In: Hartshorne, C., Weiss. P. (eds.), vol. 1–6. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1931–1958)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cross, N.: Natural intelligence in design. Des. Stud. 20, 25–39 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Andel, P.: Serendipity: expect also the unexpected. Creativity Innov. Manage. 3, 20–32 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Figueiredo, A.D., Campos, J.: The serendipity equations. In: Proceedings of ICCBR 2001. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stacey, R.: Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    LeMoigne, J.-L.: Les Épistémologies Constructivistes, 2nd edn. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M.: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications, London (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Corbusier, L.: Vers Une Architecture. Flammarion, Paris (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cross, N.: Designerly Ways of Knowing. Birkauser, Basel (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Descartes, R.: Discours de la Méthode. Librarie Philosophique J. Vrin, Paris (1961)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gasson, S.: Emergence in Organizational ‘Problem-solving’: Theories of Social Cognition’ (2006). http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/gasson/papers/probsolv.pdf
  28. 28.
    Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R.: The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn. Deakin University Press, Geelong (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stringer, E.T.: Action Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Aken, J., Chandrasekaran, A., Halman, J.: Conducting and publishing design science research. J. Oper. Manage. 47–48, 1–8 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vaishnavi, V.K., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35, 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Edelson, D.C.: Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. J. Learn. Sci. 11(1), 105–121 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barab, S., Squire, K.: Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. J. Learn. Sci. 13(1), 1–14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown, A.L.: Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J. Learn. Sci. 2, 141–178 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S.: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, K.D., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roberts, R.M.: Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science. Wiley, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eco, U.: Serendipities: Language and Lunacy. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Engenharia InformáticaCISUCCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations