Papers › Collecting Qualitative Data at Scale with Large Language Models: A Case Study
Collecting Qualitative Data at Scale with Large Language Models: A Case Study
Alejandro Cuevas, Jennifer V. Scurrell, Eva M. Brown, Jason Entenmann, Madeleine I. G. Daepp
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Chatbots have shown promise as tools to scale qualitative data collection. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) could accelerate this process by allowing researchers to easily deploy sophisticated interviewing chatbots. We test this assumption by conducting a large-scale user study (n=399) evaluating 3 different chatbots, two of which are LLM-based and a baseline which employs hard-coded questions. We evaluate the results with respect to participant engagement and experience, established metrics of chatbot quality grounded in theories of effective communication, and a novel scale evaluating "richness" or the extent to which responses capture the complexity and specificity of the social context under study. We find that, while the chatbots were able to elicit high-quality responses based on established evaluation metrics, the responses rarely capture participants' specific motives or personalized examples, and thus perform poorly with respect to richness. We further find low inter-rater reliability between LLMs and humans in the assessment of both quality and richness metrics. Our study offers a cautionary tale for scaling and evaluating qualitative research with LLMs.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections