Qualitative analysis of open-ended interviews plays a central role in ethnographic and economic research by uncovering individuals' values, motivations, and culturally embedded financial behaviors. While large language models (LLMs) offer promising support for automating and enriching such interpretive work, their ability to produce nuanced, reliable interpretations under inherent task ambiguity remains unclear. In our work we evaluate LLMs on the task of identifying the top three human values expressed in long-form interviews based on the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values framework. We compare their outputs to expert annotations, analyzing both performance and uncertainty patterns relative to the experts. Results show that LLMs approach the human ceiling on set-based metrics (F1, Jaccard) but struggle to recover exact value rankings, as reflected in lower RBO scores. While the average Schwartz value distributions of most models closely match those of human analysts, their uncertainty structures across the Schwartz values diverge from expert uncertainty patterns. Among the evaluated models, Qwen performs closest to expert-level agreement and exhibits the strongest alignment with expert Schwartz value distributions. LLM ensemble methods yield consistent gains across metrics, with Majority Vote and Borda Count performing best. Notably, systematic overemphasis on certain Schwartz values, like Security, suggests both the potential of LLMs to provide complementary perspectives and the need to further investigate model-induced value biases. Overall, our findings highlight both the promise and the limitations of LLMs as collaborators in inherently ambiguous qualitative value analysis.
Figures & tables
Table 1
Figure 1. Global Level Distribution Analysis. Schwartz value distributions across all interview corpus, with prompting variance for each LLM, are compared to the experts’ distribution.
As qualitative researchers show growing interest in using automated tools to support interpretive analysis, a large language model (LLM) is often introduced into an analytic workflow as is, without systematic evaluation of interpretive quality or comparison across models. This practice leaves model selection largely unexamined despite its potential influence on interpretive outcomes. To address this gap, this study examines whether LLM-as-judge evaluations meaningfully align with human judgments of interpretive quality and can inform model-level decision making. Using 712 conversational excerpts from semi-structured interviews with K-12 mathematics teachers, we generated one-sentence interpretive responses using five widely adopted inference models: Command R+ (Cohere), Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google), GPT-5.1 (OpenAI), Llama 4 Scout-17B Instruct (Meta), and Qwen 3-32B Dense (Alibaba). Automated evaluations were conducted using AWS Bedrock's LLM-as-judge framework across five metrics, and a stratified subset of responses was independently rated by trained human evaluators on interpretive accuracy, nuance preservation, and interpretive coherence. Results show that LLM-as-judge scores capture broad directional trends in human evaluations at the model level but diverge substantially in score magnitude. Among automated metrics, Coherence showed the strongest alignment with aggregated human ratings, whereas Faithfulness and Correctness revealed systematic misalignment at the excerpt level, particularly for non-literal and nuanced interpretations. Safety-related metrics were largely irrelevant to interpretive quality. These findings suggest that LLM-as-judge methods are better suited for screening or eliminating underperforming models than for replacing human judgment, offering practical guidance for systematic comparison and selection of LLMs in qualitative research workflows.
Songhee Han, Jueun Shin, Jiyoon Han +2
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
Large language models are increasingly evaluated through the values they endorse, but such evaluations presuppose that models can identify the value expressed in a concrete situation. We study this prerequisite as controlled top-1 recognition over Schwartz's ten basic values. Our evaluation set contains 1,000 Russian situational texts, balanced across the ten values and independently labeled by two human annotators per item. We evaluate 21 instruction-tuned LLM runs under a fixed ranked-response protocol; 20 runs with reliable outputs form the semantic panel. Pooled Acc@1 is 0.683 and Acc@3 is 0.892, showing that models often locate the correct motivational region while ranking close alternatives unstably. Adjacent values account for 50.9% of semantic errors, compared with 24.4% under a checkpoint-specific null. Eight directed confusions recur across checkpoints and human-confirmed subsets. Several are strongly asymmetric, including Universalism to Benevolence, Tradition to Conformity, and Security to Power, whereas Stimulation-Hedonism forms a bidirectional boundary. Their severity is checkpoint-specific and can bias higher-order value profiles. The results motivate value-recognition evaluation that combines exact accuracy, ranked recovery, and directed error analysis.
Andrei Chetvergov, Stepan Ukolov, Timofei Sivoraksha +5
Ivannikov Institute for System Programming of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia · Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia
This paper examines the opportunities, limitations, and practical considerations associated with the use of large language models (LLMs) in qualitative research. Drawing on a multidisciplinary perspective that combines expertise in qualitative methods and explainable AI, the paper argues that responsible integration of LLMs into qualitative workflows requires researchers to engage critically with a curated set of technical parameters, that is, context window constraints, temperature and top-p sampling settings, user and system prompt design, and model documentation in the form of system cards. The paper situates these considerations within the epistemological commitments of qualitative research, including reflexivity, positionality, and interpretive judgment, and discusses how the opacity of contemporary LLMs differs from earlier natural language processing tools such as topic models and lexicon-based sentiment analyzers.
Henry Salgado, Meagan R. Kendall, Martine Ceberio +1