How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

Qualitative researchers increasingly encounter interaction corpora whose scale exceeds what manual coding alone can address, and large language models (LLMs) are frequently proposed as analytic assistants. The open questions are not whether LLMs can participate in qualitative analysis but to what extent, in what phases, and under what safeguards. This article provides a detailed procedural account of a multi-phase human-LLM collaborative pipeline that adapted open, axial, and selective coding to develop a hierarchical codebook from 45,000 messages exchanged between K-12 educators and a generative AI platform. Across three phases, LLMs generated candidate labels and structured annotations at scale, while human researchers retained conceptual authority over category definitions, merging decisions, and interpretive frameworks. The resulting instrument was then tested through systematic human coding, in which three trained coders with educational domain expertise applied the codebook to an independent sample of 2,560 messages, established reliability through iterative calibration using set-valued agreement measures appropriate for multi-label annotation, and extended the instrument with five codes that the LLM-assisted phases had not surfaced. The final codebook comprises 72 items within 19 categories and six domains. We reflect on the methodological decisions the pipeline required, including the choice of a conversational unit of analysis, the treatment of the LLM as a labeling instrument rather than an interpretive agent, the measurement of intercoder agreement under multi-label coding, and the conditions under which human domain expertise remained decisive. The account is offered as an auditable template for qualitative researchers considering LLM assistance in codebook development while preserving human interpretive authority.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for qualitative data analysis (QDA), yet their outputs often miss the depth and nuance of human analysis. We argue this gap reflects a missing credibility practice from human QDA: peer debriefing, in which an analyst seeks feedback from a disinterested peer and uses it to refine their coding. To bring this practice into LLM-assisted QDA, we propose Agent-as-Peer-Debriefer, a multi-agent QDA framework that builds peer debriefing into key coding steps. In our framework, a Hierarchical Coding Agent follows the standard QDA process to generate codes, sub-themes, and themes, along with self-explanations and reflection memos. It then shares these outputs with three Peer-Debriefing Agents, each applying a distinct analytical perspective (Theory-Driven, Data-Driven, or Applied) and refining the codes by keeping, renaming, reassigning, merging, or splitting them. These perspectives are drawn from established human QDA practices that generalize across domains and datasets. To evaluate the framework, we test it on three datasets across two domains with three LLMs, measuring semantic similarity to human-annotated codes. Across all settings, perspective-based, peer-debriefing refinement aligns more closely with human codes than a single-LLM baseline, and an ablation further shows the gain is not merely from additional refinement. The three perspectives also produce distinct trade-offs, showing that the choice of perspective is a meaningful and controllable design decision. More broadly, these findings suggest that simulating peer debriefing with explicit perspectives is a promising route to more credible LLM-assisted QDA.