Can machines perform a qualitative data analysis? Reading the debate with Alan Turing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04121v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 09:41:03 GMT
• Title: Can machines perform a qualitative data analysis? Reading the debate with Alan Turing
• Abstract summary: This paper reflects on the literature that rejects the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in qualitative data analysis.<n>It illustrates through empirical evidence as well as critical reflections why the current critical debate is focusing on the wrong problems.<n>The paper builds on the seminal work of Alan Turing and reads the current debate using key ideas from Turing "Computing Machinery and Intelligence"
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper reflects on the literature that rejects the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in qualitative data analysis. It illustrates through empirical evidence as well as critical reflections why the current critical debate is focusing on the wrong problems. The paper proposes that the focus of researching the use of the LLMs for qualitative analysis is not the method per se, but rather the empirical investigation of an artificial system performing an analysis. The paper builds on the seminal work of Alan Turing and reads the current debate using key ideas from Turing "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". This paper therefore reframes the debate on qualitative analysis with LLMs and states that rather than asking whether machines can perform qualitative analysis in principle, we should ask whether with LLMs we can produce analyses that are sufficiently comparable to human analysts. In the final part the contrary views to performing qualitative analysis with LLMs are analysed using the same writing and rhetorical style that Turing used in his seminal work, to discuss the contrary views to the main question.

Related papers

• Multimodal QUD: Inquisitive Questions from Scientific Figures [63.41049609329304]
  We generate inquisitive questions that reach the depth of questions humans generate when engaging with scientific papers.<n>We extend the linguistic theory of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) from being text-only to multimodal.<n>We show that fine-tuning a VLM on MQUD shifts the model from generating generic low-level visual questions to content-specific grounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T14:25:23Z)
• Machine Bullshit: Characterizing the Emergent Disregard for Truth in Large Language Models [57.834711966432685]
  Bullshit, as conceptualized by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, refers to statements made without regard to their truth value.<n>We introduce the Bullshit Index, a novel metric quantifying large language model's indifference to truth.<n>We observe prevalent machine bullshit in political contexts, with weasel words as the dominant strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T07:11:57Z)
• Do LLMs Understand Your Translations? Evaluating Paragraph-level MT with Question Answering [68.3400058037817]
  We introduce TREQA (Translation Evaluation via Question-Answering), a framework that extrinsically evaluates translation quality.<n>We show that TREQA is competitive with and, in some cases, outperforms state-of-the-art neural and LLM-based metrics in ranking alternative paragraph-level translations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T09:24:54Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Interactive Topic Models with Optimal Transport [75.26555710661908]
  We present EdTM, as an approach for label name supervised topic modeling. EdTM models topic modeling as an assignment problem while leveraging LM/LLM based document-topic affinities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T13:57:27Z)
• Categorical Syllogisms Revisited: A Review of the Logical Reasoning Abilities of LLMs for Analyzing Categorical Syllogism [62.571419297164645]
  This paper provides a systematic overview of prior works on the logical reasoning ability of large language models for analyzing categorical syllogisms.<n>We first investigate all the possible variations for the categorical syllogisms from a purely logical perspective.<n>We then examine the underlying configurations (i.e., mood and figure) tested by the existing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T21:17:20Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Automating Thematic Analysis: How LLMs Analyse Controversial Topics [5.025737475817937]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are promising analytical tools. This paper explores how LLMs can support thematic analysis of controversial topics. Our findings highlight intriguing overlaps and variances in thematic categorisation between human and machine agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-11T05:28:25Z)
• QuaLLM: An LLM-based Framework to Extract Quantitative Insights from Online Forums [10.684484559041284]
  This study introduces QuaLLM, a novel framework to analyze and extract quantitative insights from text data on online forums.<n>We applied this framework to analyze over one million comments from two of Reddit's rideshare worker communities.<n>We uncover significant worker concerns regarding AI and algorithmic platform decisions, responding to regulatory calls about worker insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T18:20:03Z)
• Machine-assisted quantitizing designs: augmenting humanities and social sciences with artificial intelligence [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to present an unprecedented opportunity to scale up data analytics in the humanities and social sciences. We build on mixed methods quantitizing and converting design principles, and feature analysis from linguistics, to transparently integrate human expertise and machine scalability. The approach is discussed and demonstrated in over a dozen LLM-assisted case studies, covering 9 diverse languages, multiple disciplines and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-24T14:21:50Z)
• Can Large Language Models emulate an inductive Thematic Analysis of semi-structured interviews? An exploration and provocation on the limits of the approach and the model [0.0]
  The paper presents results and reflection of an experiment done to use the model GPT 3.5-Turbo to emulate some aspects of an inductive Thematic Analysis. The objective of the paper is not to replace human analysts in qualitative analysis but to learn if some elements of LLM data manipulation can to an extent be of support for qualitative research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T13:16:07Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.