A Human-Centered Workflow for Using Large Language Models in Content Analysis

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for scaling qualitative analysis, but existing applications often provide limited methodological transparency regarding how qualitative methods are translated into computational procedures. This paper presents an auditable and privacy-preserving computational operationalization of inductive and latent Thematic Analysis (TA). This paper first derives five design principles from the methodological requirements of TA and the conditions introduced by LLM-based inference: preserving interpretative context, maintaining traceable relationships between empirical material and analytical outputs, representing analytical constructs and reasoning explicitly, constraining LLM inference to interpretative tasks, and enabling privacy-preserving local deployment. Second, it presents a proof-of-concept for a two-phase workflow that operationalizes these principles by combining interpretative LLM inference with deterministic procedural control to generate codes, analytical justifications, themes, and theme descriptions while preserving explicit links to the source material. Third, it proposes an evaluation framework combining structural comparison with human-led TA and independent expert assessment of analytical quality. The evaluation is conducted on semi-structured Danish interview transcripts. and the results shows that the workflow produces code-level outputs with coverage broadly comparable to human annotations and highly rated analytical justifications, while generating a more compressed thematic structure characterized by fewer and broader themes. The findings demonstrate the feasibility of auditable LLM-supported TA through a modular workflow designed to scale to larger datasets, accommodate different LLMs, and support transfer across research domains, with domain adaptation primarily requiring adjustments to the prompting strategy.

Large language models are increasingly used for qualitative data analysis, but many workflows obscure how analytic conclusions are produced. We present QualAnalyzer, an open-source Chrome extension for Google Workspace that supports atomistic LLM analysis by processing each data segment independently and preserving the prompt, input, and output for every unit. Through two case studies -- holistic essay scoring and deductive thematic coding of interview transcripts -- we show that this approach creates a legible audit trail and helps researchers investigate systematic differences between LLM and human judgments. We argue that process auditability is essential for making LLM-assisted qualitative research more transparent and methodologically robust.

Political scientists are rapidly adopting large language models (LLMs) for text annotation, yet the sensitivity of annotation results to implementation choices remains poorly understood. Most evaluations test a single model or configuration; how model choice, model size, learning approach, and prompt style interact, and whether popular "best practices" survive controlled comparison, are largely unexplored. We present a controlled evaluation of these pipeline choices, testing six open-weight models across four political science annotation tasks under identical quantisation, hardware, and prompt-template conditions. Our central finding is methodological: interaction effects dominate main effects, so seemingly reasonable pipeline choices can become consequential researcher degrees of freedom. No single model, prompt style, or learning approach is uniformly superior, and the best-performing model varies across tasks. Two corollaries follow. First, model size is an unreliable guide both to cost and to performance: cross-family efficiency differences are so large that some larger models are less resource-intensive than much smaller alternatives, while within model families mid-range variants often match or exceed larger counterparts. Second, widely recommended prompt engineering techniques yield inconsistent and sometimes negative effects on annotation performance. We use these benchmark results to develop a validation-first framework - with a principled ordering of pipeline decisions, guidance on prompt freezing and held-out evaluation, reporting standards, and open-source tools - to help researchers navigate this decision space transparently.