REVIEW 1 cited by
GenAI Is No Silver Bullet for Qualitative Research in Software Engineering
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
GenAI Is No Silver Bullet for Qualitative Research in Software Engineering
read the original abstract
Qualitative research gives rich insights into the quintessentially human aspects of software engineering as a socio-technical system. Qualitative research spans diverse strategies and methods, from interpretivist, in situ observational field studies, to deductive coding of data from mining studies. Advances in large language models and generative AI (GenAI) have prompted claims that artificial intelligence could automate qualitative analysis. Such claims are overgeneralizing from narrow successes. GenAI support must be carefully adapted to the data of interest, but also to the characteristics of a particular research strategy. In this Frontiers of SE paper, we discuss the emerging use of GenAI in relation to the broad spectrum of qualitative research in software engineering. We outline the dimensions of qualitative work in software engineering, review emerging empirical evidence for GenAI assistance, examine the pros and cons of GenAI-mediated qualitative research practices, and revisit qualitative research quality factors, in light of GenAI. Our goal is to inform researchers about the promises and pitfalls of GenAI-assisted qualitative research. We conclude with future plans to advance understanding of its use in software engineering.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
An Empirical Study of Model Context Protocol Applications
A large-scale study of 1,723 MCP host applications finds partial convergence on file-based configuration (85.2%) and official SDKs (81.1%), but only 37.2% gate tool execution behind a blocking approval step.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.