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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three paradigms for LLM-assisted qualitative analysis of interview data. (a) The traditional human researcher approach processes documents sequentially. (b) Holistic LLM analysis loads all documents into a single context window for parallel processing. (c) The proposed atomistic LLM analysis processes each document independently, row-by-row, and aggregates AI-generated codes into evidential themes.
Figure 3: Atomistic analysis workflow in QualAnalyzer. Each row represents an analytic unit (Data) with optional contextual fields (Context 1–2). QualAnalyzer concatenates these fields into a predefined prompt template, runs the model iteratively (row-by-row and output-by-output), and writes responses back into structured Output columns (e.g., score and rationale). This tabular schema supports reproducible runs, side-by-side model comparisons, and downstream validation. The two header styles illustrate supported input formats: (top, red) one row per complete document (e.g., a student essay) and (bottom, gray) chunked analysis of longer sources, where a single record is segmented and each transcript chunk is coded independently.
Figure 4: System architecture of QualAnalyzer. The researcher configures tasks through a Chrome Extension side panel (1). Analysis modules define job logic and pass it to the orchestrator (2), which executes jobs by reading data from Google Sheets and sending requests to the selected LLM (3). Progress and results return to the side panel in real time (4).
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.
Nadia Jul Jeldtoft, Tariq Yousef
Department of Culture and Language 2Department of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Southern Denmark
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
While many researchers use Large Language Models (LLMs) through chat-based access, their real potential lies in leveraging LLMs via application programming interfaces (APIs). This paper conceptualizes LLMs as universal text processing machines and presents a comprehensive workflow for employing LLMs in three qualitative and quantitative content analysis tasks: (1) annotation (an umbrella term for qualitative coding, labeling and text classification), (2) summarization, and (3) information extraction. The workflow is explicitly human-centered. Researchers design, supervise, and validate each stage of the LLM process to ensure rigor and transparency. Our approach synthesizes insights from extensive methodological literature across multiple disciplines: political science, sociology, computer science, psychology, and management. We outline validation procedures and best practices to address key limitations of LLMs, such as their black-box nature, prompt sensitivity, and tendency to hallucinate. To facilitate practical implementation, we provide supplementary materials, including a prompt library and Python code in Jupyter Notebook format, accompanied by detailed usage instructions.
Ivan Zupic
School of Creative Management Goldsmiths, University of London