AI-Assisted Qualitative Coding: Comparing Human to Machine Outputs

This study explores the application of generative AI in the qualitative coding of survey responses, comparing its performance to that of human coders. By using ChatGPT-4o, we aimed to automate the coding process traditionally performed manually, assessing the AI's ability to identify themes and patterns within textual data. Our findings reveal that while AI demonstrates remarkable efficiency and speed, it struggles with the nuanced understanding required for complex coding tasks. The AI frequently misinterpreted coding definitions and over-relied on certain codes, indicating a need for more balanced training data and iterative refinement. Despite these challenges, AI proved valuable in providing summative feedback and identifying overall trends, suggesting its potential as a complementary tool in qualitative research. The study underscores the importance of developing codebooks collaboratively with AI and highlights the necessity of human oversight to ensure accuracy and depth.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-07-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/procomm64814.2025.00051
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Natural Language Processing Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.96
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI-Assisted Qualitative Coding: Comparing Human to Machine Outputs

Timothy Ponce, Amy Hodges, Leslie Seawright
2 citations
Natural Language Processing Techniques
4.96
article

AI-Assisted Qualitative Coding: Comparing Human to Machine Outputs

Timothy Ponce, Amy Hodges, Leslie Seawright
article en
2 citations

Abstract

This study explores the application of generative AI in the qualitative coding of survey responses, comparing its performance to that of human coders. By using ChatGPT-4o, we aimed to automate the coding process traditionally performed manually, assessing the AI's ability to identify themes and patterns within textual data. Our findings reveal that while AI demonstrates remarkable efficiency and speed, it struggles with the nuanced understanding required for complex coding tasks. The AI frequently misinterpreted coding definitions and over-relied on certain codes, indicating a need for more balanced training data and iterative refinement. Despite these challenges, AI proved valuable in providing summative feedback and identifying overall trends, suggesting its potential as a complementary tool in qualitative research. The study underscores the importance of developing codebooks collaboratively with AI and highlights the necessity of human oversight to ensure accuracy and depth.

Missouri State University (US), The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Natural Language Processing Techniques
4.96
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

AI-Assisted Qualitative Coding: Comparing Human to Machine Outputs — Timothy Ponce, Amy Hodges, et al. · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS