Michael Horn

John Chen, Alexandros Lotsos, Sihan Cheng et al.

Qualitative analysis is critical to understanding human datasets in many social science disciplines. A central method in this process is inductive coding, where researchers identify and interpret codes directly from the datasets themselves. Yet, this exploratory approach poses challenges for meeting methodological expectations (such as ``depth'' and ``variation''), especially as researchers increasingly adopt Generative AI (GAI) for support. Ground-truth-based metrics are insufficient because they contradict the exploratory nature of inductive coding, while manual evaluation can be labor-intensive. This paper presents a theory-informed computational method for measuring inductive coding results from humans and GAI. Our method first merges individual codebooks using an LLM-enriched algorithm. It measures each coder's contribution against the merged result using four novel metrics: Coverage, Overlap, Novelty, and Divergence. Through two experiments on a human-coded online conversation dataset, we 1) reveal the merging algorithm's impact on metrics; 2) validate the metrics' stability and robustness across multiple runs and different LLMs; and 3) showcase the metrics' ability to diagnose coding issues, such as excessive or irrelevant (hallucinated) codes. Our work provides a reliable pathway for ensuring methodological rigor in human-AI qualitative analysis.

John Chen, Alexandros Lotsos, Lexie Zhao et al.

Inductive qualitative methods have been a mainstay of education research for decades, yet it takes much time and effort to conduct rigorously. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, particularly with generative AI (GAI), have led to initial success in generating inductive coding results. Like human coders, GAI tools rely on instructions to work, and how to instruct it may matter. To understand how ML/GAI approaches could contribute to qualitative coding processes, this study applied two known and two theory-informed novel approaches to an online community dataset and evaluated the resulting coding results. Our findings show significant discrepancies between ML/GAI approaches and demonstrate the advantage of our approaches, which introduce human coding processes into GAI prompts.

John Chen, Alexandros Lotsos, Grace Wang et al.

Open coding, a key inductive step in qualitative research, discovers and constructs concepts from human datasets. However, capturing extensive and nuanced aspects or "coding moments" can be challenging, especially with large discourse datasets. While some studies explore machine learning (ML)/Generative AI (GAI)'s potential for open coding, few evaluation studies exist. We compare open coding results by five recently published ML/GAI approaches and four human coders, using a dataset of online chat messages around a mobile learning software. Our systematic analysis reveals ML/GAI approaches' strengths and weaknesses, uncovering the complementary potential between humans and AI. Line-by-line AI approaches effectively identify content-based codes, while humans excel in interpreting conversational dynamics. We discussed how embedded analytical processes could shape the results of ML/GAI approaches. Instead of replacing humans in open coding, researchers should integrate AI with and according to their analytical processes, e.g., as parallel co-coders.