We Reject the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Reflexive Qualitative Research
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8243153 |
|---|---|
| Authors | T Jowsey (0000-0003-1499-9225, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia), Braun (0000-0002-3435-091X, University of Auckland-City Campus, New Zealand), Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke (0000-0001-9405-7363, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK), D Lupton (0000-0003-2658-4430, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia), M Fine (0000-0001-5941-7247, City University of New York Graduate Center and the University of South Africa) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Publication date | 2025-12-17 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Qualitative Inquiry (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1077-8004 • E-ISSN: 1552-7565 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/10778004251401851 |
| OpenAlex | W4417449885 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 25 |
| References cited | 19 |
Four hundred and nineteen experienced qualitative researchers from 32 countries invite readers of Qualitative Inquiry to consider their position on use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for qualitative research. We hold the position that analytic approaches such as reflexive thematic analysis are human research practices requiring a subjective, positioned, and reflexive researcher and therefore the use of GenAI in such approaches is not methodologically congruent. We additionally reject GenAI for reflexive qualitative approaches on the grounds of social and environmental justice
Generative grammar · Position (finance · Position paper · Qualitative property · Qualitative research · Reflexivity · Thematic analysis · Computational and Text Analysis Methods · Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods · Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Comparing Bertopic Outputs With Human-Coded Themes
Designing semi-structured interview guides for interpretative phenomenological analysis and reflexive thematic analysis
Letting AI into analysis
For collective creativity, bold claims and discomfort
When Everything Becomes Data
Towards a methodologically congruent framework for GenAI use in nonpositivist qualitative research
AI and Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative Ethics and the AI War Machine
Intersecting vulnerabilities, diverging pathways
Rethinking Studentification
‘What’s occurring in the Qualitative AI space and why it matters’
Making inclusive learning
Should Generative AI be Used in Reflexive Qualitative Research
What’s the Use of Qualitative Interviews
The Cyrano effect
Thinking the unthinkable
Automating the qualitative interview? Using Gen AI chatbots in social science research
Acceleration and Recursion in AI-Mediated Qualitative Research
Can Machines Perform a Qualitative Data Analysis? Reading the Debate With Alan Turing
Reconfiguring Reflexivity in the Era of AI
Enacting AI disclosure in scholarly publishing
In Relation, Not Replacement
Narrative-Integrated Thematic Analysis (Nita)
Why We Should Reject to Reject the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Qualitative Analysis
Reflexive Qualitative Research and Generative AI
Introduction to Phenomenology
Data Grab
Qualitative and quantitative methods
Time and the Other
Towards a digital planetary health perspective
Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis
Large Language Models Outperform Expert Coders and Supervised Classifiers at Annotating Political Social Media Messages
Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability
AI Empire
| Unique citing works | 25 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 25 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 20 |