Qualitative Research

Since late 2022, a Limitations section has become mandatory at many top-tier NLP conferences. The growing number of accepted papers at these venues has resulted in a vast corpus of self-reported limitations that cannot all be manually reviewed, yet remains systematically unanalyzed. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct a large-scale analysis of the Limitations sections from ACL and EMNLP papers published between 2020 and 2025 to understand what researchers disclose about their own work. To do so, we implement a novel human-AI framework for iterative hybrid qualitative coding. This framework enables us to investigate trends in self-reported limitations over time, their correlations with specific paper attributes, and the writing patterns that recur around these disclosures. Our findings offer a critical reflection on the diverse reported challenges as well as the self-reporting practices of researchers in the NLP community.

Qualitative research is widely used in the human and social sciences, characterized by a deep understanding of phenomena through the interpretation of meanings and contexts. Among qualitative data analysis methods, content analysis stands out as a consolidated technique, which allows for the systematic description and interpretation of textual contents. However, as data volume increases, the time required for organization, reading, and categorization becomes a significant challenge, potentially delaying research development. Therefore, this work aimed to develop a web application to support content analysis, based on Bardin's methodology, targeted at academic researchers. The methodology adopted a mixed approach, combining bibliographic research on content analysis with semi-structured interviews with four experienced researchers, aiming to identify real needs and requirements. Based on these inputs, the Cortex software was developed to assist the researcher in the pre-analysis and material exploration stages, generating suggestions for indices, indicators, and categories with full traceability to original documents. The results demonstrate that Cortex is capable of guiding the researcher through the entire methodological workflow, from corpus configuration to results exportation, acting as a methodological collaborator without replacing the researcher's interpretative autonomy.

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic 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.

Understanding agent behavior requires methods that scale to thousands of trajectories and surface new patterns in long, often unfamiliar tasks where pre-built classifiers fall short. We propose to bring grounded theory into agent trajectory analysis: a six-decade-old qualitative method from the social sciences, with a principled saturation criterion and an auditable trail from data to theory. We propose AutoTraceGT (Automated Trace analysis through Grounded Theory), the first multi-agent pipeline that automates grounded theory on agent trajectories. It iteratively performs open, axial, and theoretical coding until saturation, producing a behavioral taxonomy tailored to each task. Across six trajectory corpora, AutoTraceGT produces codebooks that recover 73-91 percent of the failure modes in human-annotated taxonomies and surface additional patterns that those taxonomies miss. The emergent theoretical narrative aligns with prior expert accounts. Used as a deductive feature space, the codebook outperforms zero-shot and few-shot LLM baselines on downstream failure prediction. These results suggest Grounded Theory offers a scalable analytic tool for ML researchers and agent developers studying what agents actually do.

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.

Prior work on LLM-generated text has demonstrated quantitative and qualitative departures from text produced by humans. LLM-generated texts differ from human writing in style, resulting in a characteristic textual "feel," while the semantic range of LLMs is much restricted compared to that of humans. In this contribution, I note simple but consistent patterns in the statistical distribution of n-grams within LLM-generated text. Via qualitative analysis of these n-grams, I reveal deficiencies in LLM style. Because higher-order n-grams correlate to semantic content, I conclude that questions of style and semantics are not cleanly separable.

For a second time, the android robot Andrea was set up at a public museum in Germany for six consecutive days to have conversations with visitors, fully autonomously. Building on previously gathered qualitative results, the robot was now capable of engaging in multi-lingual conversation with the visitors about the museum context. The robot was prepared with context information about the museum in general and its surrounding exhibits this time. The robot featured a slightly artificial sounding voice that was previously evaluated as congruent with its gender-ambiguous but very humanlike design. Three experimental conditions were implemented, in which either (1) the robot simulated no emotions, (2) the robots emotions were determined by ChatGPT 4.1, or (3) the WASABI emotion simulation architecture simulated the robot's emotion dynamics. An extended version of the TAM2 questionnaire was employed to let 73 visitors report on several factors of their opinion about the android robot Andrea after having experienced it. In result, the statistical analysis suggests that these first two approaches to implementing emotions into the chat architecture of our android robot Andrea did not yield any positive effects on the subjective evaluations by the visitors and were not detectable on a conscious level.

While traditional hub capacity planning models optimize effectively for quantitative inputs, they often fail to digest qualitative business context. We propose a novel framework where a large language model (LLM) agent iteratively proposes hub capacity decisions guided by natural-language business context descriptions. The key mechanism is a chain-of-thought reasoning protocol: the LLM constructs a structured decision table that maps each contextual item to specific capacity adjustments based on the implied direction and magnitude of changes. The new capacity decision is then validated through a feedback loop with an optimization model, which provides routing-based performance metrics to guide the agent's selection. On a real-world 13-hub freight network in the southeastern US, our framework achieves a 2.8% optimality gap relative to the hidden ground-truth, a significant improvement over the 11.0% gap produced by the traditional optimization model without textual business inputs. This demonstrates that LLMs can serve as a contextual bridge, integrating qualitative business insights into Operations Research workflows.

Ray Kurzweil described a thesis of accelerating returns, which is the most influential narratives in discussions of technological progress. Its central claim is that advances in multiple technological fields, especially compute, artificial intelligence, brain science, and biotechnology, interact in such a way that progress becomes self-amplifying and approximately exponential. This paper gives a simple mathematical interpretation of that claim and then argues that, even if such acceleration is real, it does not by itself resolve the central problem of scientific discovery. The reason is that accelerating returns apply most naturally to executional and infrastructural capability, whereas genuine discovery often depends on a different capacity: qualitative reasoning about when a current framework is structurally inadequate and what conceptual move is needed next. Recent ARC-AGI-3 results sharpen this distinction: humans solve the benchmark at ceiling, whereas frontier AI systems remain below 1%, indicating that the gap between current AI and human flexible reasoning is still very large. At the same time, Demis Hassabis has emphasized that humans must retain their sense of meaning and what they choose to focus their lives on, a reminder that the future of AI is not only a technical forecast but also a question of what forms of human understanding are worth preserving and transmitting. This paper positions the Qualitative Engine for Science (QES) [3] as a response to that missing capacity. In this view, the Kurzweil theory helps explain why quantitative capability may accelerate, while QES addresses the central problem in scientific discovery that acceleration alone does not solve. Its value does not depend on when AGI arrives, but on the fact that the processes of scientific discovery themselves constitute a form of human wisdom worth preserving, organizing, and making accessible.

Qualitative coding is central to social science, but expert annotation is difficult to scale. LLMs offer a possible extension, yet require careful validation when the target construct is interpretive, theoretically loaded, and only indirectly expressed. We study this problem in a difficult case: detecting whether authors treat Bayesian models as descriptions of mental and neural mechanisms (realism) or as useful mathematical tools (instrumentalism). Our method combines a theory-driven codebook, expert-coded reference annotations, a diagnostic-gated prompt-optimization search yielding a shared zero-shot prompt for three frontier LLMs (GPT-5.1, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro Preview), and multi-rater reliability analysis. The final prompt achieved a held-out combined reliability score of 0.76 (harmonic mean of ICC = 0.79 and $α$ = 0.74), with all diagnostics satisfied. Deployed on 6,858 quotes from 210 articles, the three LLMs reached substantial quote-level agreement (ICC = 0.80; $α$ = 0.76; combined = 0.78) and near-perfect article-level rank stability ($r$ = 0.96-0.97 across rater pairs). The corpus was predominantly weakly realist, but article-level stances were rarely uniform: only 1.4% of articles used a single band, while 59.5% spanned four or more. Low-level perception/motor articles scored 8.8 Realism points higher than high-level cognition articles ($p < .001$, $d = 0.60$), quantifying a long-held qualitative intuition. We present this as an expert-led case study; the framework is intended to generalize to similar theoretically demanding tasks, not to all qualitative analysis.

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.

The integration of AI tools in academic settings has introduced a distinct form of strain that existing frameworks like technostress and digital fatigue have not yet fully addressed. This study develops a conceptual model and identifies the dimensions that define AI fatigue as a form of strain arising from sustained academic use of AI tools. Using grounded theory analysis of open-ended responses from 1,054 university students across three universities in the Philippines, the study examined the cognitive, motivational, emotional, physical, and attentional pressures students experienced during AI-supported academic work. Analysis produced five dimensions of AI fatigue, namely Cognitive Overload, Motivational Disengagement, Moral Unease, Physical Strain, and Attentional Drift, each consisting of two indicators grounded in participant accounts. The findings also yielded the AI Fatigue Model, a stage-based framework that explains how these pressures accumulate and reinforce one another across repeated AI interaction in academic tasks. These contributions establish a conceptual and exploratory foundation for AI fatigue as a distinct construct and provide a basis for future instrument validation, scale development, and cross-contextual inquiry in academic settings where AI now mediates student learning.

The rapid emergence of AI technologies is reshaping translation practices and theory across the board. This paper deals with the impact of AI in language access. This area is characterized by the need to serve broad and diverse user populations, within a context where efficiency and access are shaped by legal mandates, ethical and commercial tensions, and safety concerns. This paper reports on the attitudes and perceptions of language access managers towards the AI and the human value in the AI age. Methodologically, this paper presents an analysis of a subset of a broader study on language access and technology, specifically a qualitative thematic analysis of ten semi-structured interviews with language access managers in the USA working in healthcare, court, public service and local government contexts. The results indicate that language access managers show conditional optimism towards the inevitable AI implementations, are strongly risk aware, and deeply committed to the human value and human oversight of AI implementations and output.

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.

Qualitative analysis plays a pivotal role in understanding the human and social aspects of software engineering. However, it remains a demanding process shaped by the subjective interpretation of individual researchers and sensitive to methodological choices such as prompt design. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising opportunities to support this type of analysis, although their reliability in reproducing human qualitative reasoning under varying prompting conditions remains largely untested. This study presents a controlled empirical evaluation of three LLMs -- Claude Haiku, DeepSeek-Chat, and Gemini 2.5 Flash -- across two prompt engineering strategies (zero-shot and multi-shot closed coding), using Cohen's kappa as the primary agreement metric over ten independent runs per configuration. Results suggest that multi-shot prompting significantly improves agreement for Claude Haiku (Delta kappa = +0.034, Wilcoxon p = 0.004) but not for DeepSeek-Chat or Gemini 2.5 Flash. Intra-model stability varies substantially -- DeepSeek-Chat and Claude Haiku exhibit the lowest variance (SD approx. 0.017), while Gemini 2.5 Flash is the least stable (SD = 0.038). A systematic over-prediction of "Sharing Negative Feedback" is identified across all models (bias ratios up to 5.25x), alongside consistent under-prediction of "Expressing Concerns." Collectively, these findings provide empirical evidence for prompt engineering guidelines in LLM-assisted qualitative coding for software engineering research.

Discovering governing differential equations from observational data is a fundamental challenge in scientific machine learning. Existing symbolic regression approaches rely primarily on quantitative metrics; however, real-world differential equation modeling also requires incorporating domain knowledge to ensure physical plausibility. To address this gap, we propose DoLQ, a method for discovering ordinary differential equations with LLM-based qualitative and quantitative evaluation. DoLQ employs a multi-agent architecture: a Sampler Agent proposes dynamic system candidates, a Parameter Optimizer refines equations for accuracy, and a Scientist Agent leverages an LLM to conduct both qualitative and quantitative evaluations and synthesize their results to iteratively guide the search. Experiments on multi-dimensional ordinary differential equation benchmarks demonstrate that DoLQ achieves superior performance compared to existing methods, not only attaining higher success rates but also more accurately recovering the correct symbolic terms of ground truth equations. Our code is available at https://github.com/Bon99yun/DoLQ.

Open-ended surveys offer valuable insights, but they are notoriously difficult to analyze at scale. Building on previous work that employed traditional machine learning to classify text ("So Many Responses, So Little Time: A Machine-Learning Approach to Analyzing Open-Ended Survey Data") [1], this study investigates how different large language models (LLMs) understand and analyze NSSE open-ended survey responses. We focus on several cutting-edge LLMSs-OpenAI's GPT series, Twitter-roBERTa-base model, and Meta's LLaMA-and compare their performance to the previous machine learning models in tasks like sentiment analysis and thematic classification. Our research analysis assesses model agreement, classification accuracy, and interpretability of reasoning. The findings reveal that current LLMs routinely beat classic machine learning models in classification accuracy, particularly in understanding complex mood and theme patterns in student replies. While LLMs have superior accuracy, they differ greatly in how explicitly and consistently they justify their predictions and apply category boundaries. These distinctions highlight crucial trade-offs when using LLMs for qualitative analysis: increased predictive strength comes with issues in consistency and explainability. Our findings illustrate the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing various LLMs for large-scale qualitative research, and we provide practical advice for researchers looking to balance automation and interpretive rigor.

This discussion paper reflects on how quantitative approaches to historical linguistics interact with dataset properties. Drawing on two worked examples, we examine English data using quad-based concept modelling of Early Modern English discourse in EEBO-TCP (c. 1470s-1690s; 765M words) alongside SynFlow analysis of scientific writing in Royal Society Corpus 6.0.4 (1750-1799; drawn from a 78.6M-token open corpus). Through parallel comparison, the paper explores how each approach operationalises concepts, the data assumptions they entail, and the diachronic interpretations they support. We argue that comparative methodological reflection clarifies the limits of purely lexical, frequency-based approaches and highlights how dataset structure shapes the kinds of semantic change that quantitative methods can reliably detect.

There has been intense debate among qualitative researchers about whether generative AI is suitable for qualitative research. In this paper, we summarize the broader ongoing discussion of generative AI in qualitative research and its implications for software engineering researchers. The qualitative research approach, small-q (positivist or post-positivist) or Big Q (non-positivist), is among the major criteria for determining whether generative AI can be used in qualitative research. In addition to research philosophy and research approach, skills, ethics, and personal preferences also play a role in researchers' decisions about whether to use AI in qualitative research.

Written reflection assignments give students valuable opportunities for critical self-assessment, meaning making, and learning processing. Additionally, such reflections provide rich data for qualitative education research. However, qualitative data can be time-consuming to analyze. It is even more time-intensive to qualitatively compare findings between different groups of participants, usually limiting comparison to, at most, one variable (e.g., binary gender). Large language models (LLMs) have recently begun to be critically evaluated for use as qualitative research assistants. Using a longitudinal case of written student reflections (n=151) from a study abroad program, we investigate how LLM-assisted sentiment analysis can enable longitudinal mixed-methods research combining computational and thematic analyses. First, statistical testing is used to quantitatively compare sentiment differences according to seven different student identity/lived experience variables. Then, these results inform qualitative data analysis to investigate the reasons underlying these differences. For the case of undergraduate students studying abroad, we found that prior experience living abroad was the only personal variable impacting students' sentiments of their verbal language and communication behaviors. This workflow has implications for how qualitative researchers can more easily probe multiple variables when comparing participants from different demographic groups.

Analyzing the reasoning patterns of students in science classrooms is critical for understanding knowledge construction mechanism and improving instructional practice to maximize cognitive engagement, yet manual coding of classroom discourse at scale remains prohibitively labor-intensive. We present an automated discourse analysis system (ADAS) that jointly classifies teacher and student utterances along two complementary dimensions: Utterance Type and Reasoning Component derived from our prior CDAT framework. To address severe label imbalance among minority classes, we (1) stratify-resplit the annotated corpus, (2) apply LLM-based synthetic data augmentation targeting minority classes, and (3) train a dual-probe head RoBERTa-base classifier. A zero-shot GPT-5.4 baseline achieves macro-F1 of 0.467 on UT and 0.476 on RC, establishing meaningful upper bounds for prompt-only approaches motivating fine-tuning. Beyond classification, we conduct discourse pattern analyses including UTxRC co-occurrence profiling, Cognitive Complexity Index (CCI) computation per session, lag-sequential analysis, and IRF chain analysis, revealing that teacher Feedback-with-Question (Fq) moves are the most consistent antecedents of student inferential reasoning (SR-I). Our results demonstrate that LLM-based augmentation meaningfully improves UT minority-class recognition, and that the structural simplicity of the RC task makes it tractable even for lexical baselines.

Hospital Quality Improvement (QI) plays a critical role in optimizing healthcare delivery by translating high-level hospital goals into actionable solutions. A critical step of QI is to identify the key modifiable contributing factors, a process we call QI factor discovery, typically through expert-driven semi-structured qualitative tools like fishbone diagrams, chart reviews, and Lean Healthcare methods. AI has the potential to transform and accelerate QI factor discovery, which is traditionally time- and resource-intensive and limited in reproducibility and auditability. Nevertheless, current AI alignment methods assume the task is well-defined, whereas QI factor discovery is an exploratory, fuzzy, and iterative sense-making process that relies on complex implicit expert judgments. To design an AI pipeline that formalizes the QI process while preserving its exploratory components, we propose viewing the task as learning not only LLM prompts but also the overarching natural-language specifications. In particular, we map QI factor discovery to steps of the classical AI/ML development process (problem formalization, model learning, and model validation) where the specifications are tunable hyperparameters. Domain experts and AI agents iteratively refine both the overarching specifications and AI pipeline until AI extractions are concordant with expert annotations and aligned with clinical objectives. We applied this "Human-AI Spec-Solution Co-optimization" framework at an urban safety-net hospital to identify factors driving prolonged length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmissions. The resulting AI-for-QI pipelines achieved $\ge 70\%$ concordance with expert annotations. Compared to prior manual Lean analyses, the AI pipeline was substantially more efficient, recovered previous findings, surfaced new modifiable factors, and produced auditable reasoning traces.

Qualitative coding relies on a researcher's application of codes to textual data. As coding proceeds across large datasets, interpretations of codes often shift (temporal drift), reducing the credibility of the analysis. Existing Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis (CAQDAS) tools provide support for data management but offer no workflow for real-time detection of these drifts. We present Co-Refine, an AI-augmented qualitative coding platform that delivers continuous, grounded feedback on coding consistency without disrupting the researcher's workflow. The system employs a three-stage audit pipeline: Stage 1 computes deterministic embedding-based metrics for mathematical consistency; Stage 2 grounds LLM verdicts within $\pm0.15$ of the deterministic scores; and Stage 3 produces code definitions from previous patterns to create a deepening feedback loop. Co-Refine demonstrates that deterministic scoring can effectively constrain LLM outputs to produce reliable, real-time audit signals for qualitative analysis.

Firearm violence is a pressing public health issue, yet research into survivors' lived experiences remains underfunded and difficult to scale. Qualitative research, including in-depth interviews, is a valuable tool for understanding the personal and societal consequences of community firearm violence and designing effective interventions. However, manually analyzing these narratives through thematic analysis and inductive coding is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have opened the door to automating this process, though concerns remain about whether these models can accurately and ethically capture the experiences of vulnerable populations. In this study, we assess the use of open-source LLMs to inductively code interviews with 21 Black men who have survived community firearm violence. Our results demonstrate that while some configurations of LLMs can identify important codes, overall relevance remains low and is highly sensitive to data processing. Furthermore, LLM guardrails lead to substantial narrative erasure. These findings highlight both the potential and limitations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding and underscore the ethical challenges of applying AI in research involving marginalized communities.

As robots increasingly enter the workforce, human-robot interaction (HRI) must address how implicit social biases influence user preferences. This paper investigates how users rationalize their selections of robots varying in skin tone and anthropomorphic features across different occupations. By qualitatively analyzing 4,146 open-ended justifications from 1,038 participants, we map the reasoning frameworks driving robot color selection across four professional contexts. We developed and validated a comprehensive, multidimensional coding scheme via human--AI consensus ($κ= 0.73$). Our results demonstrate that while utilitarian \textit{Functionalism} is the dominant justification strategy (52%), participants systematically adapted these practical rationales that align with existing racial and occupational stereotypes. Furthermore, we reveal that bias frequently operates beneath conscious rationalization: exposure to racial stereotype primes significantly shifted participants' color choices, yet their spoken justifications remained masked by standard affective or task-related reasoning. We also found that demographic backgrounds significantly shape justification strategies, and that robot shape strongly modulates color interpretation. Specifically, as robots become highly anthropomorphic, users increasingly retreat from functional reasoning toward \textit{Machine-Centric} de-racialization. Through these empirical results, we provide design implications to help reduce the perpetuation of societal biases in future workforce robots.

Qualitative content analysis of open-ended survey responses is a commonly used research method in science education. However, traditional coding approaches are often time-consuming and prone to inconsistency, especially when applied to large datasets. Existing solutions from Natural Language Processing such as supervised classifiers, topic modeling techniques, and generative large language models have limited applicability in analysis of open-ended survey responses, since they demand extensive labeled data, disrupt established qualitative workflows, and/or yield variable results. In this paper, we introduce a text embedding-based classification framework called Deductive Semantic Content Analysis (DeSCA) that requires only a handful of examples per category to run, is transparent and replicable, and fits well with standard qualitative workflows. When benchmarked against human analysis of a physics education survey consisting of 2899 open-ended responses, the method described by our framework achieves high agreement with expert human coders across ten embeddings models on a simulated exhaustive coding task, using approximately 1-2% of the total dataset for training. The method achieves lower agreement on a complete selective coding task; this performance, however, improves with fine-tuning of the text embedding model, which can be done with a small amount of additional data. We unpack these results in terms of the theoretical assumptions of text embeddings, and further demonstrate how embeddings can be used to audit previously-analyzed datasets for coding consistency. These findings demonstrate that text embedding-assisted coding can flexibly scale to thousands of responses without sacrificing interpretability, opening avenues for deductive qualitative analysis at scale.