| Last update: 2026/10/13 |
Can Artificial Intelligence guarantee the quality of qualitative research? Or are digital tools fundamentally incapable of judging meaning and lived experience? These critical questions were at the heart of a recent panel hosted by the Institute for Social and Cultural Studies (ISCS), which featured the unveiling of QualiDesk, a new software tool designed to redefine the relationship between researchers, methodology, and technology.
The session, titled “Qualitative Research in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” was held on September 8, 2026, organized by the Department of Cultural Studies at ISCS. The panel featured distinguished scholars—Dr. Mehri Tayebinia, Dr. Reza Mahouzi, Dr. Abbas Kazemi, and Dr. Khadijeh Keshavarz—who gathered to address a fundamental tension in the humanities: the conflict between machine-driven speed and the necessity of human interpretation.
QualiDesk: A Path-Tracker for Interpretation
QualiDesk, developed using Python and the Streamlit framework, is not merely an analytical tool; it functions as a “path-tracker” for the interpretive process. Dr. Mehri Tayebinia, the software’s designer, explained that the tool is rooted in Grounded Theory principles. She emphasized that instead of blind automation, QualiDesk provides an environment where AI plays a strictly supportive role, acting as a research assistant rather than a substitute for the human intellect.
Human-Centric AI
A major highlight of the session was how QualiDesk differs from existing analytical software. While common misconceptions suggest AI might replace researcher judgment, QualiDesk insists on active researcher intervention. The software provides full transparency by documenting the entire analytical workflow: it records whether a suggestion was proposed by the AI, and whether the researcher accepted, modified, or rejected that suggestion.
Dr. Tayebinia clarified the software’s limitations, noting: “AI can never guarantee the quality of research, but it can significantly enhance credibility and confirmability for evaluators by documenting the analytical path taken by the researcher.”
The Limits of Technology
During the Q&A, faculty members engaged in a rigorous debate regarding validity. Experts emphasized that concepts such as “transferability” are essentially beyond the reach of AI. Transferability, they argued, stems from lived experience and human judgment in the field—a realm where no software has yet been able to penetrate.
The consensus of the meeting provided a clear message to the academic community: the future of qualitative research does not lie in the total domination of tools, but in the intelligent design of the relationship between the researcher, methodology, and technology.
As Dr. Tayebinia concluded, “AI can support analysis, and methodologies may evolve, but the path to meaning must remain human. The responsibility of interpretation rests solely with the researcher, and it must be defensible.”
View: 29 Time(s) |
Print: 12 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
Latest content