CollabCoder: A Lower-barrier, Rigorous Workflow for Inductive Collaborative Qalitative Analysis with Large Language Models

被引:0
作者
Gao, Jie [1 ,2 ]
Guo, Yuchen [1 ]
Lim, Gionnieve [1 ]
Zhang, Tianqin [1 ]
Zhang, Zheng [3 ]
Li, Toby Jia-Jun [3 ]
Perrault, Simon Tangi [1 ]
机构
[1] Singapore Univ Technol & Design, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Singapore MIT Alliance Res & Technol, Singapore, Singapore
[3] Univ Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN USA
来源
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2024 CHI CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYTEMS, CHI 2024 | 2024年
关键词
Collaborative Qualitative Analysis; Large Language Models; Grounded Theory; Inductive Qualitative Coding; TEAM COORDINATION; ISSUES;
D O I
10.1145/3613904.3642002
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Collaborative Qualitative Analysis (CQA) can enhance qualitative analysis rigor and depth by incorporating varied viewpoints. Nevertheless, ensuring a rigorous CQA procedure itself can be both complex and costly. To lower this bar, we take a theoretical perspective to design a one-stop, end-to-end workflow, CollabCoder, that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) into key inductive CQA stages. In the independent open coding phase, CollabCoder offers AI-generated code suggestions and records decision-making data. During the iterative discussion phase, it promotes mutual understanding by sharing this data within the coding team and using quantitative metrics to identify coding (dis)agreements, aiding in consensus-building. In the codebook development phase, CollabCoder provides primary code group suggestions, lightening the workload of developing a codebook from scratch. A 16-user evaluation confirmed the effectiveness of CollabCoder, demonstrating its advantages over the existing CQA platform. All related materials of CollabCoder, including code and further extensions, will be included in: https://gaojie058.github.io/CollabCoder/.
引用
收藏
页数:29
相关论文
共 68 条
  • [1] Anderson R.C., 2016, Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, V12, P44, DOI [DOI 10.56645/JMDE.V12I27.449, 10.56645/jmde.v12i27.449]
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2016, P 2016 ACM INT C SUP, DOI [DOI 10.1145/2957276.2957280, 10.1145/2957276.2957280]
  • [3] Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research
    Barry, CA
    Britten, N
    Barber, N
    Bradley, C
    Stevenson, F
    [J]. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 1999, 9 (01) : 26 - 44
  • [4] Bjorn Pernille, 2014, REVISITING CSCW FUND, V21, P5, DOI DOI 10.1145/2670534
  • [5] BRADLEY J, 1993, LIBR QUART, V63, P431
  • [6] One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
    Braun, Virginia
    Clarke, Victoria
    [J]. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 18 (03) : 328 - 352
  • [7] Byun C., 2023, 2023 CHI C HUMAN FAC, VArticle 413, P26, DOI [DOI 10.1145/3544549.3582749, 10.1145/3544549.3582749]
  • [8] Developing theory-driven design research
    Cash, Philip J.
    [J]. DESIGN STUDIES, 2018, 56 : 84 - 119
  • [9] Charmaz K., 2006, Constructing Grounded Theory, V2nd
  • [10] Human Decision Making and Recommender Systems
    Chen, Li
    de Gemmis, Marco
    Felfernig, Alexander
    Lops, Pasquale
    Ricci, Francesco
    Semeraro, Giovanni
    [J]. ACM TRANSACTIONS ON INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 2013, 3 (03)