REVIEW 2 cited by
CollabCoder: A Lower-barrier, Rigorous Workflow for Inductive Collaborative Qualitative Analysis with Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Collaborative Qualitative Analysis (CQA) can enhance qualitative analysis rigor and depth by incorporating varied viewpoints. Nevertheless, ensuring a rigorous CQA procedure itself can be both demanding and costly. To lower this bar, we take a theoretical perspective to design the CollabCoder workflow, that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) into key inductive CQA stages: independent open coding, iterative discussions, and final codebook creation. In the open coding phase, CollabCoder offers AI-generated code suggestions and records decision-making data. During discussions, it promotes mutual understanding by sharing this data within the coding team and using quantitative metrics to identify coding (dis)agreements, aiding in consensus-building. In the code grouping stage, CollabCoder provides primary code group suggestions, lightening the cognitive load of finalizing the codebook. A 16-user evaluation confirmed the effectiveness of CollabCoder, demonstrating its advantages over existing software and providing empirical insights into the role of LLMs in the CQA practice.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Shape of Agency: Designing for Personal Agency in Qualitative Data Analysis
Five qualitative researchers' interviews and prototype feedback suggest that designing for personal agency (action, choice, narrative, space) can make computational thematic analysis tools more acceptable to domain experts.
-
Large Language Model for Qualitative Research -- A Systematic Mapping Study
A systematic map of eight studies shows LLM-assisted qualitative analysis is mostly comparable to manual methods, with prompt dependence and hallucination as recurring limitations.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.