Generative Artificial Intelligence in Qualitative Data Analysis: Analyzing—Or Just Chatting?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers, engineers, and entrepreneurs are enthusiastically exploring and promoting ways to apply generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools to qualitative data analysis. From promises of automated coding and thematic analysis to functioning as a virtual research assistant that supports researchers in diverse interpretive and analytical tasks, the potential applications of GenAI in qualitative research appear vast. In this paper, we take a step back and ask what sort of technological artifact is GenAI and evaluate whether it is appropriate for qualitative data analysis. We provide an accessible, technologically informed analysis of GenAI, specifically large language models (LLMs), and put to the test the claimed transformative potential of using GenAI in qualitative data analysis. Our evaluation illustrates significant shortcomings that, if the technology is adopted uncritically by management researchers, will introduce unacceptable epistemic risks. We explore these epistemic risks and emphasize that the essence of qualitative data analysis lies in the interpretation of meaning, an inherently human capability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.265 | 0.367 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".