Video: Qualitative synthesis with ChatGPT: Better or worse than human intelligence?

This video is only accessible to Gold members. Log in or register for a free Gold Trial Account to watch.

Most conference talks are accessible to Gold members, while community videos are generally available to all logged-in members.

Qualitative synthesis with ChatGPT: Better or worse than human intelligence?

Gold

Tuesday, June 4, 2024 • Designing with AI 2024

Weidan Li

Design Research Lead, SEEK.com

Summary

Following the emergence of Generative AI as a potential revolution in the UX field, a great deal of AI-driven tools arose to enhance the efficiency of UX research, including data analysis. Qualitative data analysis is a process that conventionally relies on human intelligence to discern patterns, establish connections, and derive actionable insights and frameworks. Many studies have involved comparing the quality of qualitative analyses generated by humans with those produced by AI language models like ChatGPT (Hamilton et al., 2023). Despite the undeniable appeal of automation and speed, there is ongoing debate about AI’s ability to replace human intelligence in qualitative analysis, which may be unlikely at this moment. Then the question is: To what extent can AI contribute to qualitative data analysis? In this case study, I delved into the thematic analysis and post-analysis stage, i.e. synthesizing insights into a framework. Framework, in this context, refers to a conceptual structure that illustrates the components of a human experience and how the components interconnect and operate within the structure. It is a concise model that encapsulates the entirety of research insights. The topic of my case study is "trust relationships between job seekers and hirers in the marketplace,, aligning with the business focus of my company. From my secondary research, I found that, ChatGPT needed multiple rounds of training using diverse prompts to conduct precise and comprehensive thematic analysis. ChatGPT can execute fine-quality thematic analysis under the help of right prompts, yet it falls short in replacing human intelligence for synthesizing insights and crafting frameworks for engaging narratives. Its limitation lies in lacking the depth of contextual understanding within a company, such as understanding what’s missing from the company’s mainstream discourse to create a human-centered story based on data analysis. To craft a framework that conveys good storytelling and organizational impact, it requires the researcher's introspection into knowledge gaps in the specific organizational context. Thus, the best practice is to combine human interpretation and AI production. In my talk, I will demonstrate several principles to guide this practice. Takeaways We’ll cover principles of how to employ ChatGPT in qualitative analysis, specifically focusing on its application in synthesizing and crafting frameworks that convey compelling and insightful narratives: Effectiveness of ChatGPT in thematic analysis: Learn about my process of training ChatGPT to conduct precise thematic analysis. You’ll gain insights into the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT in providing accurate and comprehensive analysis for framework construction Value of human potential: We’ll address the value of human self-reflection and the ability of interpreting organizational context for crafting engaging frameworks Comparison between human and ChatGPT: By comparing the human-driven outcomes against ChatGPT for qualitative analysis, you’ll see how effective the synthesized frameworks are generated by the researcher and ChatGPT separately. Collaboration between human and ChatGPT: You’ll also learn when and how to incorporate human interpretation with ChatGPT to achieve the best practice in qualitative analysis and synthesis

Key Insights

•

ChatGPT can synthesize data faster and more thoroughly than humans.
•

Human insights are richer due to personal experience and engagement with data.
•

AI struggles with hierarchical structure in thematic analysis, leading to similar levels in basic and organizing themes.
•

Humans excel in creating abstract concepts from data, driven by curiosity.
•

Using AI can enhance qualitative research but should complement, not replace human intuition.
•

AI frameworks often lack interconnectedness and nuance compared to human-generated insights.
•

Qualitative synthesis is inherently experiential for humans, unlike AI's rapid summarization.
•

AI can validate findings but lacks the depth of human emotional engagement in analysis.
•

AI presents results in a clean format, but this may obscure connections between insights.
•

Curiosity and exploration drive human synthesis, providing depth and understanding that AI lacks.