Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.27927

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

Abstract

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Rashina Hoda, Carolyn Seaman, Victoria Gomes, Rodrigo Spinola. 2026-08-28. Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27927

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim Replay in Inspect Evals

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

cs.SE

Towards a Reliable and Practical Eval Pipeline

LLM-based software systems increasingly require effective "evals" as quality gates in the development lifecycle. However, existing work typically addresses individual aspects of eval reliability rather than the full set of practical requirements. We present an end-to-end eval pipeline that combines eval checklist creation, with learned aggregation for checklist responses, to improve agreement across LLM judges and accuracy against human judgments. The framework additionally pro- vides self-consistency, explanations, and prediction uncertainty, and we empirically demonstrate its effectiveness.

cs.AI

Augmenting software engineering with AI - The ai4se taxonomy and its use

Although model-driven software engineering (MDSE) has proven effective in managing complex systems, its industrial adoption remains limited by the substantial maintenance overhead required for models and the specialised skills demanded of developers. Meanwhile, advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative and agentic AI, have shown great promise in automating code-related tasks such as comprehension, generation, and defect detection. These capabilities are largely powered by 'big code': vast repositories of open-source software that now form the basis of data-driven, empirical SE and automated quality assurance. This paper aims to synthesise these two domains by exploring the integration of AI into model-driven practices. It provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of AI-augmented software engineering and introduces a novel taxonomy 'ai4se' to classify and connect diverse AI applications within the field. On this basis, the paper proposes a vision for 'big models' in software engineering (SE), an approach designed to leverage the structural advantages of MDSE alongside the scalability of AI. Finally, the paper discusses the pair modelling paradigm as a collaborative framework for the MDSE industry, designed to enhance software quality through human-AI partnership.

cs.SE