Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Using ChatGPT for Thematic Analysis

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

arxiv 2405.08828 v1 pith:HU6FF6J4 submitted 2024-05-13 cs.HC

Using ChatGPT for Thematic Analysis

classification cs.HC
keywords researchanalysisthematicchatgptpotentialriskstoolsacademic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The utilisation of AI-driven tools, notably ChatGPT, within academic research is increasingly debated from several perspectives including ease of implementation, and potential enhancements in research efficiency, as against ethical concerns and risks such as biases and unexplained AI operations. This paper explores the use of the GPT model for initial coding in qualitative thematic analysis using a sample of UN policy documents. The primary aim of this study is to contribute to the methodological discussion regarding the integration of AI tools, offering a practical guide to validation for using GPT as a collaborative research assistant. The paper outlines the advantages and limitations of this methodology and suggests strategies to mitigate risks. Emphasising the importance of transparency and reliability in employing GPT within research methodologies, this paper argues for a balanced use of AI in supported thematic analysis, highlighting its potential to elevate research efficacy and outcomes.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Automating Quality Assessment with NLP of LLM-Generated Defeaters

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    BERT embeddings and meta-classifiers trained on 172 expert-annotated defeaters from two assurance cases achieve F1≈0.84 in predicting quality ratings, outperforming the low inter-rater agreement (κ<0.442) between huma...