Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Integrating Energy Efficiency into Software Development: Developer Perspectives and Requirements

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Software developers treat energy efficiency as a byproduct, not a goal, and will accept AI tools only if the tools prove their own net energy savings.

desk verdict Useful requirements-elicitation study; the abstract overstates how strongly the identified transparency concerns drive acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22168 v1 pith:3W46YRWQ submitted 2026-07-24 cs.SE

Anika Hennig , Leonie Schulte , Philipp M. Zähl , Mathias Eggert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords greensoftwareengineeringenergyefficiencydeveloperperceptionsAI-assistedtoolssemi-structuredinterviewsqualitativecontentanalysistechnologyacceptancesustainable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to explain why energy-efficient software development, despite technical advances, is rarely adopted in practice, and to derive what tool support developers would actually use. Based on ten semi-structured interviews with professional developers, it argues that energy efficiency is not an explicit goal in everyday work: it occurs mostly as a side effect of performance optimisation, resource-saving habits, and clean code. The study identifies barriers — limited awareness, release pressure, unclear customer value, and a perceived cost-benefit imbalance — that keep energy from becoming a design objective. It then finds that an AI-assisted energy-optimisation tool would be accepted only if it gives concrete, explainable suggestions, integrates into existing development environments, and transparently accounts for its own energy use against the savings it delivers. The paper's central claim is that sustainable software development will succeed when energy awareness is embedded in existing workflows rather than imposed as an additional responsibility.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a qualitative empirical study: ten semi-structured interviews with professional developers working in companies of different sizes, analysed through structured qualitative content analysis. This interview corpus is the evidence base that surfaces barrier and requirement categories. The explanatory lens is a technology-acceptance model, which separates perceived usefulness from perceived ease of use; the paper maps developer statements onto these two dimensions to show what makes an energy-optimisation tool worth adopting. The combination of the interview categories and the acceptance lens is what produces the design requirements.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a larger, pre-registered survey or a workplace observational study with a balanced international sample of developers. If developers in that sample report energy efficiency as an explicit goal in daily work, or show willingness to adopt AI optimisation tools without transparency conditions, then the paper's central claims about absence and conditionality would be falsified. A controlled experiment could also measure adoption of an energy dashboard across two framings — performance versus environment — to test the claim that energy concerns are always secondary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that energy efficiency in software development is currently a second-order effect. Developers interviewed for this study pursue functionality, performance, and timely delivery; energy savings happen incidentally when those primary goals are reached — for example, when cleaner code or better resource use also reduces consumption. The authors find that developers' mental model equates energy efficiency with runtime performance, even though research shows the two do not always scale together. When asked about AI-assisted optimisation tools, the same developers condition their acceptance on transparency: they want the tool to disclose what data it uses, whether its own ener

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ten developers recruited through the authors' professional networks — nine male, mostly German, averaging 7.5 years of experience — offer a sufficiently representative range of perspectives to ground generalisable requirements for AI-assisted energy-efficiency tools.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If energy efficiency is only ever a byproduct of performance work, then tooling that frames energy savings as an extension of performance tuning will meet less resistance than tooling that asks developers to adopt a separate sustainability goal.
  • Acceptance of AI-assisted tools depends on net-energy accounting: developers will want evidence that the tool's own computing and training footprint is smaller than the savings it creates.
  • Explainability is a precondition for trust: each optimisation suggestion must come with a justification the developer can verify, or the tool will not be used on production code.
  • Integration into existing IDEs and CI/CD pipelines, with non-disruptive feedback, is a necessary condition for regular use; pop-ups and additional workflow steps are explicitly rejected.
  • The perceived cost-benefit imbalance means tools must produce measurable impact reports that developers can show to management and customers to justify the effort.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A broader inference is that the transparency conditions developers set for energy tools — data use, training-data disclosure, net-energy proof — will likely apply to any AI-assisted code tool, so these findings may generalise beyond energy efficiency to trust in AI pair-programming generally.
  • A testable extension would be to run a field experiment where one group of developers receives energy tips framed as performance gains and another as environmental gains, predicting higher uptake in the performance-framed group based on the interviews.
  • Since the equation of energy efficiency with runtime performance appears to be a common mental model, an intervention that corrects this misconception could yield energy savings without requiring developers to change their other priorities.
  • The findings were gathered in one country via personal networks; a quantitative survey with a balanced sample could show whether the cost-benefit barrier and transparency demands hold across regions with different energy prices and regulatory cultures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative interview study (n=10) with professional software developers, conducted within the European GreenCode project. The authors use semi-structured interviews, Mayring's structuring content analysis, and a subsequent interpretive pass through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to answer two research questions about the current role of energy efficiency in development and about requirements/barriers for AI-assisted energy-optimization tools. The main reported findings are that energy efficiency is rarely an explicit development goal and is mostly achieved as a by-product of performance work; that developers see barriers in limited awareness, time pressure, and weak economic incentives; and that tool requirements center on actionable, explainable suggestions and seamless IDE/CI integration. For AI-assisted tools, the paper claims that acceptance strongly depends on transparency about data use, net energy savings relative to the AI's own consumption, and disclosure of training data.

Significance. If the findings are taken as hypothesis-generating, the study is a useful and methodologically transparent contribution to the green-software-engineering literature. Its strengths include a clearly described qualitative design, a published interview guide, an OSF repository for anonymized transcripts and coding guideline, an intercoder reliability check (74.85%), and an unusually candid limitations section. The study fills a real gap by shifting attention from technical optimization techniques to the workflow-level requirements and barriers perceived by practitioners. However, the main acceptance claim in the abstract goes beyond what this design can support; because that claim is central to the paper's contribution, it needs to be tempered or re-derived from the reported categories.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §IV.G; Table III] The abstract's strength claims ("typically" and "strongly depends") exceed the evidence. Table III assigns "energy savings through performance focus" to only four of ten participants (I02, I04, I08, I10), while three (I01, I07) say energy is not a topic and three (I05, I06, I09) say it is present only at company level; "typically" is an overquantification. Similarly, the interview guide (Table I) contains open questions ("Is there anything that would discourage you?"; "Imagine you had a tool...") and never asks participants to rank, weigh, or trade off transparency dimensions. Table IX reports a "Higher energy and resource consumption than savings" subcategory (six participants) and a "Data protection concerns" subcategory; that supports identifying these as salient themes, but not the claim that acceptance "strongly depends" on these factors. Recommend replacing "typically" with "often"
  2. [Abstract; §IV.G; Table IX] The abstract lists "disclosure of the training data used" as one of three transparency requirements. This specific dimension is not present in the reported category system. Table IX and the text of §IV.G document data-protection worries about source-code access (I03, I05, I07, I08/I09) and concerns about AI-generated content entering future training data (I07, I09); neither is a requirement that the tool disclose its own training data to the developer. If such a requirement was voiced, it should be supported with a coded subcategory and illustrative excerpt; otherwise the abstract should be aligned with the actual findings.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.A; Table II] I04 is described in the text as a research associate at a university, but Table II lists the company size as "Large." Clarify the organization type and whether "company size" is the appropriate label for a university position.
  2. [§IV.G; Table IX] The interviewee numbers for data protection are inconsistent: the text says I03, I05, I07, I09, while Table IX says I03, I05, I07, I08. Please align.
  3. [§V.E] Minor language error: "the findings not fully reflect" should read "the findings do not fully reflect."
  4. [§III.A] The statement that sample sufficiency was "assessed retrospectively based on the recurrence of the main categories across the final interviews" is too brief. Specify the recurrence criterion or label the check as informal; otherwise the saturation claim is not verifiable.
  5. [§IV.A; Abstract] The abstract says energy savings are "typically achieved indirectly through performance optimization." As noted in the major comment, Table III gives this position to only four participants. In the results section this is presented carefully; consider using "often" or "in some cases" in the abstract to match the data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: qualitative findings summarize interview data; no fitted-input prediction or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper is an interview-based qualitative study; it contains no mathematical derivation, fitted parameters, or predictive model whose outputs could reduce to its inputs. The central findings (energy efficiency is rarely explicit; barriers include awareness and time pressure; developers want actionable, integrated tool support; acceptance of AI-assisted tools depends on transparency, net energy benefit, and training-data disclosure) are inductive categories reported from semi-structured interviews (Section IV, Tables III–IX). The Technology Acceptance Model is invoked only as a post-hoc interpretive lens (Section III.C, V.B), not as a source of the empirical claims, and the categories were developed openly from the data before TAM interpretation. No uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is used to force a conclusion; references are to external literature. The limitation section explicitly acknowledges sampling bias, small n, and transferability limits (Section V.E), which weakens the 'strongly depends' acceptance claim, but that is an evidentiary/overreach concern, not circularity. In short, the derivation chain is self-contained and descriptive; no step equates a prediction with an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims depend on the trustworthiness of self-reported interview data and the adequacy of a small convenience sample. No free parameters or invented entities are involved.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Participant self-reports accurately reflect actual development practices.
    The analysis rests on interview data as a valid proxy for developers' real work behavior (Section III.A).
  • domain assumption A sample of 10 interviews is sufficient for category saturation.
    Authors cite the 15±10 guideline and assess saturation retrospectively (Section III.A).
  • domain assumption Mayring's qualitative content analysis yields valid categories from the transcripts.
    The entire category system depends on this methodological commitment (Section III.C).
  • domain assumption TAM is an appropriate interpretive lens for the identified requirements.
    Used later to structure interpretation; if inappropriate, the theoretical framing weakens but the empirical results remain (Section III.C).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating Energy Efficiency into Software Development: Developer Perspectives and Requirements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3W46YRWQ

@misc{pith2026260722168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating Energy Efficiency into Software Development: Developer Perspectives and Requirements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3W46YRWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22168}
}
read the original abstract

In the context of the growing energy footprint of information and communication technology, industry optimization efforts have primarily focused on hardware, while the impact of software on energy consumption is often overlooked. Although technical approaches for optimizing software energy consumption have been developed in research, their adoption in everyday development practice remains limited. This study investigates how software developers perceive energy efficiency in their daily work and which requirements and barriers they formulate for AI-assisted tools supporting energy-aware development. As part of the European GreenCode project, ten semi-structured interviews with professional software developers were conducted and analyzed using qualitative content analysis following Mayrings methodology. The identified requirements were subsequently partly interpreted through the lens of the Technology Acceptance Model. The results indicate that energy efficiency rarely plays an explicit role in daily development activities. Instead, energy savings are typically achieved indirectly through performance optimization. Identified barriers to the explicit consideration of energy efficiency include limited awareness and a strong focus on timely delivery. The interviews further revealed requirements for practical tool support, such as actionable optimization suggestions and seamless integration into common development environments. Furthermore, the acceptance of AI-assisted optimization tools strongly depends on transparency regarding the use of data, the actual energy savings compared to the energy consumption of the tool itself, and the disclosure of the training data used. This study contributes a developer-centered perspective on requirements for energy-aware software development tools and provides insights for designing AI-assisted solutions that align with real-world development practices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Energy Efficient Software Development: An Integrated Approach for Green Computing and En- hanced Software Performance,

    S. A. Kile, I. I. Iliyas, and J. Y . Bassi, “Energy Efficient Software Development: An Integrated Approach for Green Computing and En- hanced Software Performance,”BIMA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2536-6041), vol. 8, no. 4B, pp. 212–224, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.56892/bima.v8i4B.1198

    work page doi:10.56892/bima.v8i4b.1198 2025

  2. [2]

    Tactics for Software Energy Efficiency: A Review,

    J. Balanza-Martinez, P. Lago, and R. Verdecchia, “Tactics for Software Energy Efficiency: A Review,” inAdvances and New Trends in Environ- mental Informatics 2023, V . Wohlgemuth, D. Kranzlm¨uller, and M. H¨ob, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 115–140

    2023

  3. [3]

    Understanding Green Software Development: A Conceptual Framework,

    L. Ardito, G. Procaccianti, M. Torchiano, and A. Vetr `o, “Understanding Green Software Development: A Conceptual Framework,”IT Profes- sional, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 44–50, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1109/MITP.2015.16

    work page doi:10.1109/mitp.2015.16 2015

  4. [4]

    A systematic literature review on green software metrics,

    P. Bozzelli, Q. Gu, and P. Lago, “A systematic literature review on green software metrics,” 2014

    2014

  5. [5]

    Software Development Life- cycle for Energy Efficiency: Techniques and Tools,

    S. Georgiou, S. Rizou, and D. Spinellis, “Software Development Life- cycle for Energy Efficiency: Techniques and Tools,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1–33, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1145/3337773

    work page doi:10.1145/3337773 2020

  6. [6]

    Methods of Improving Software Energy Efficiency: A Systematic Literature Review and the Current State of Applied Methods in Practice,

    W. Wysocki, I. Miciuła, and P. Plecka, “Methods of Improving Software Energy Efficiency: A Systematic Literature Review and the Current State of Applied Methods in Practice,”Electronics, vol. 14, no. 7, p. 1331, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/electronics14071331

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics14071331 2025

  7. [7]

    Green coding: an empirical approach to harness the energy consumption ofsoftware services,

    M. C. Belgaid, “Green coding: an empirical approach to harness the energy consumption ofsoftware services,” 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Guldner, R

    A. Guldner, R. Bender, C. Calero, G. S. Fernando, M. Funke, J. Gr ¨oger et al., “Development and evaluation of a reference measurement model for assessing the resource and energy efficiency of software products and components—Green Software Measurement Model (GSMM),”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 155, pp. 402–418, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.futur...

    doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.01.033 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Ranking programming languages by energy efficiency,

    R. Pereira, M. Couto, F. Ribeiro, R. Rua, J. Cunha, J. P. Fernandes et al., “Ranking programming languages by energy efficiency,”Science of Computer Programming, vol. 205, p. 102609, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2021.102609

    2021

  2. [10]

    Carbon Footprint Evaluation of Code Generation through LLM as a Service,

    T. Vartziotis, M. Schmidt, G. Dasoulas, I. Dellatolas, S. Attademo, V . D. Leet al., “Carbon Footprint Evaluation of Code Generation through LLM as a Service,” in2024 Stuttgart International Symposium on Automotive and Engine Technology, A. C. Kulzer, H.-C. Reuss, and A. Wagne...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Advancing Carbon-Efficient Software De- velopment: A Sustainable Path Forward,

    S. Gupta and A. Gupta, “Advancing Carbon-Efficient Software De- velopment: A Sustainable Path Forward,” inProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Net- working. Hyderabad India: ACM, Jan. 2025, pp. 325–330, doi: 10.1145/3700838.3703670

    2025

  4. [12]

    Can LLMs Generate Green Code - A Comprehensive Study Through LeetCode,

    J. F. Tuttle, D. Chen, A. Nasrin, N. Soto, and Z. Zong, “Can LLMs Generate Green Code - A Comprehensive Study Through LeetCode,” in2024 IEEE 15th International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference (IGSC), Nov. 2024, pp. 39–44

    2024

  5. [13]

    Should AI Optimize Your Code? A Comparative Study of Current Large Language Models Versus Classical Optimizing Compilers,

    M. R. Rosas, M. T. Sanchez, and R. Eigenmann, “Should AI Optimize Your Code? A Comparative Study of Current Large Language Models Versus Classical Optimizing Compilers,” Jun. 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Large Language Models for Code Generation: The Practitioners Perspective,

    Z. Rasheed, M. Waseem, K. K. Kemell, A. Ahmad, M. A. Sami, J. Rasku et al., “Large Language Models for Code Generation: The Practitioners Perspective,” Jan. 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Do Generative AI Tools Ensure Green Code? An Investigative Study,

    S. Sikand, R. Mehra, V . S. Sharma, V . Kaulgud, S. Podder, and A. P. Burden, “Do Generative AI Tools Ensure Green Code? An Investigative Study,” inProceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Responsi- ble AI Engineering, ser. RAIE ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for...

    2024

  8. [16]

    GREEN-CODE: Optimizing Energy Efficiency in Large Language Models for Code Generation,

    S. Ilager, L. F. Briem, and I. Brandic, “GREEN-CODE: Optimizing Energy Efficiency in Large Language Models for Code Generation,” Jan. 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results,

    F. D. Davis, “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results,” Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, 1986

    1986

  10. [18]

    Interactions between environmental sustainability goals and software product quality: A mapping study,

    G. A. Garcia-Mireles, M. A. Moraga, F. Garcia, C. Calero, and M. Piattini, “Interactions between environmental sustainability goals and software product quality: A mapping study,”Information and Software Technology, vol. 95, pp. 108–129, Mar. 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    ENeRgy sustaInability COding, a practical use case,

    B. Lange, “ENeRgy sustaInability COding, a practical use case,” 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Green Coding: Energy consumption in different pro- gramming languages and algorithms,

    Taha Khudher, “Green Coding: Energy consumption in different pro- gramming languages and algorithms,”Mid Sweden University, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Practices of Energy Consumption for Sustainable Software Engineering,

    A. C. Moises, A. Malucelli, and S. Reinehr, “Practices of Energy Consumption for Sustainable Software Engineering,” in2018 Ninth International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference (IGSC), Oct. 2018, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/IGCC.2018.8752151

    2018

  14. [22]

    Energy Efficient Coding Practices for Sustainable Software Development,

    R. Manimegalai, S. Sandhanam, A. Nandhini, and P. Pandia, “Energy Efficient Coding Practices for Sustainable Software Development,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Science, Engineer- ing and Technology Practices for Sustainable Development, ICSETPSD 202...

    2023

  15. [23]

    GUIDELINES FOR SUSTAINABLE SOFTW ARE,

    V . Salmikuukka, “GUIDELINES FOR SUSTAINABLE SOFTW ARE,” 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Empirical evaluation of two best practices for energy-efficient software development,

    G. Procaccianti, H. Fern ´andez, and P. Lago, “Empirical evaluation of two best practices for energy-efficient software development,”Jour- nal of Systems and Software, vol. 117, pp. 185–198, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2016.02.035

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Generating Energy-efficient code with LLMs,

    T. Cappendijk, P. d. Reus, and A. Oprescu, “Generating Energy-efficient code with LLMs,” Nov. 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.10599

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kruglov and G

    A. Kruglov and G. Succi,Developing Sustainable and Energy-Efficient Software Systems, ser. SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-11658- 2

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Evaluat- ing Code Sustainability: A Comprehensive Study of Metrics and Tools,

    R. Tiwari, S. Thombre, D. Patel, K. Tilokani, and S. Amritkar, “Evaluat- ing Code Sustainability: A Comprehensive Study of Metrics and Tools,” in2023 IEEE Engineering Informatics. Melbourne, Australia: IEEE, Nov. 2023, pp. 1–7, doi: 10.1109/IEEECONF58110.2023.10520542

    2023

  20. [28]

    Metrics of energy consumption in software systems: a systematic literature review,

    S. Ergasheva, I. Khomyakov, A. Kruglov, and G. Succil, “Metrics of energy consumption in software systems: a systematic literature review,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 431, no. 1, p. 012051, Feb. 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Enhancing Energy-Awareness in Deep Learning through Fine-Grained Energy Measurement,

    S. Rajput, T. Widmayer, Z. Shang, M. Kechagia, F. Sarro, and T. Sharma, “Enhancing Energy-Awareness in Deep Learning through Fine-Grained Energy Measurement,”ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1–34, Nov. 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Learn to Code Sustainably: An Empirical Study on Green Code Generation,

    T. Vartziotis, I. Dellatolas, G. Dasoulas, M. Schmidt, F. Schneider, T. Hoffmannet al., “Learn to Code Sustainably: An Empirical Study on Green Code Generation,” inProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code. Lisbon Portugal: ACM, Apr. 2024,...

    2024

  23. [31]

    A Comprehensive Review of Green Computing: Past, Present, and Future Research,

    S. G. Paul, A. Saha, M. S. Arefin, T. Bhuiyan, A. A. Biswas, A. W. Reza et al., “A Comprehensive Review of Green Computing: Past, Present, and Future Research,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 87 445–87 494, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Brinkmann and S

    S. Brinkmann and S. Kvale,Doing Interviews, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Conducting semi-structured interviews,

    W. C. Adams, “Conducting semi-structured interviews,” inHandbook of Practical Program Evaluation, K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, and J. S. Wholey, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015, pp. 492–505

    2015

  26. [34]

    Transkription,

    T. Dresing and T. Pehl, “Transkription,” inHandbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, ser. Springer Reference Psychologie, G. Mey and K. Mruck, Eds. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Using chat gpt to clean qualitative interview transcriptions: A usability and feasibility analysis,

    Z. Taylor, “Using chat gpt to clean qualitative interview transcriptions: A usability and feasibility analysis,”American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 153–160, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    ”Conversing

    A. S. Hayes, “”Conversing” With Qualitative Data: Enhancing Qualita- tive Research Through Large Language Models (LLMs),”International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 24, pp. 1–19, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Mayring,Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken

    P. Mayring,Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Intercoder- ¨ubereinstimmung analysieren,

    S. R ¨adiker and U. Kuckartz, “Intercoder- ¨ubereinstimmung analysieren,” inAnalyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2019, pp. 207–222

    2019

  31. [39]

    Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies,

    C. MacPhail, N. Khoza, L. Abler, and M. Ranganathan, “Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies,” Qualitative Research, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 198–212, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Coding in- depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement,

    J. L. Campbell, C. Quincy, J. Osserman, and O. K. Pedersen, “Coding in- depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement,”Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 294–320, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.