What Makes a Good Response? An Empirical Analysis of Quality in Qualitative Interviews

There are now multiple proposals for systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) to conduct automated qualitative interviews, but most of the current solutions rely on proprietary LLMs, which compromises reproducibility and data security. They also rely on LLMs for all interview tasks, which limits standardisation of question wording as well as control over question order. To address these issues, we introduce the AInterviewer platform, an opensource solution based on a multi-agent pipeline that combines controlled question administration of survey software with the flexibility of LLMs. AInterviewer is an interdisciplinary effort designed to implement best practices of qualitative interviewing in social science, and it can run with locally hosted models to ensure security, transparency, and reproducibility. Our platform provides a web-based GUI supporting each phase of data collection: from interview guide design and pilot testing to interview distribution and data collection monitoring.

Large language model chatbots have been proposed as AI-interviewers for collecting qualitative interview data at scale, potentially bridging social science's longstanding divide between the breadth of surveys and the depth of qualitative interviews. This paper provides the first direct empirical comparison of data quality in AI-led and human-led interviews. In a randomized experiment (N = 41), university students were interviewed via synchronous text chat by either trained non-expert interviewers or a locally hosted AI system; we evaluate exposure, specificity, and relevance. Median interview duration was similar across conditions, but AI-interviewers asked more than twice as many questions per interview and elicited roughly 65 percent more respondent text per interview. Per-question responses were longer with human interviewers, though not after multiple-testing correction; only AI-condition participants skipped questions. Responses were almost uniformly on-topic in both conditions; for specificity we detect no difference, but the design cannot exclude one of up to three quarters of a point. These results were obtained with a small, locally hosted open-weight model (7B parameters), which addresses concerns about data security, GDPR compliance, and scientific reproducibility. Our findings support the viability of AI-interviewing for large-N qualitative data collection.

Assessing whether qualitative responses collected from semi-structured questions are ready for a particular analysis goal is a persistent challenge. Manual qualitative analysis is interpretive and labor-intensive, while existing automated methods often lack a dataset-level perspective for deciding whether a response set supports a researcher-selected analytical lens. We introduce QuAD, a framework for quantitative pre-analysis assessment of qualitative response datasets. QuAD compares a reconstructed intrinsic cluster distribution reconstructed from responses with an extrinsic, researcher-defined analytical lens derived from metadata. QuAD is structured into a four-quadrant assessment whose metrics are read jointly, from lens-level relations to within-cluster variation, to provide fitness-for-purpose signals for revealing general patterns and unique insights. Because this assessment relies on lens-conditioned inter-response dissimilarity, we propose a content-aware multi-agent system with two-stage instruction generation and adaptive anchors to improve scoring consistency. We validate QuAD through controlled experiments on synthetic data, including robustness and baseline comparisons, and a real-world social survey case study. The case study shows how QuAD quantitatively assesses whether a selected analysis axis is promising and also surfaces representative or unusual responses for human interpretation.