The Qualitative Report

Volume 29 Number 3 Article 6

3-3-2024

How Can Generative AI (GenAI) Enhance or Hinder Qualitative

Studies? A Critical Appraisal from South Asia, Nepal
Niroj Dahal
Kathmandu University School of Education, Nepal, niroj@kusoed.edu.np

Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr

Part of the Aesthetics Commons, Business Commons, Education Commons, Engineering Commons,
Fine Arts Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons,
Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical
Methodologies Commons, Social Justice Commons, and the Social Statistics Commons

Recommended APA Citation

Dahal, N. (2024). How Can Generative AI (GenAI) Enhance or Hinder Qualitative Studies? A Critical
Appraisal from South Asia, Nepal. The Qualitative Report, 29(3), 722-733. https://doi.org/10.46743/
2160-3715/2024.6637

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion in The Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more
information, please contact nsuworks@nova.edu.
How Can Generative AI (GenAI) Enhance or Hinder Qualitative Studies? A Critical
Appraisal from South Asia, Nepal

Abstract
Qualitative researchers can benefit from using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), such as different
versions of ChatGPT—GPT-3.5 or GPT-4, Google Bard—now renamed as a Gemini, and Bing Chat—now
renamed as a Copilot, in their studies. The scientific community has used artificial intelligence (AI) tools
in various ways. However, using GenAI has generated concerns regarding potential research unreliability,
bias, and unethical outcomes in GenAI-generated research results. Considering these concerns, the
purpose of this commentary is to review the current use of GenAI in qualitative research, including its
strengths, limitations, and ethical dilemmas from the perspective of critical appraisal from South Asia,
Nepal. I explore the controversy surrounding the proper acknowledgment of GenAI or AI use in qualitative
studies and how GenAI can support or challenge qualitative studies. First, I discuss what qualitative
researchers need to know about GenAI in their research. Second, I examine how GenAI can be a valuable
tool in qualitative research as a co-author, a conversational platform, and a research assistant for
enhancing and hindering qualitative studies. Third, I address the ethical issues of using GenAI in
qualitative studies. Fourth, I share my perspectives on the future of GenAI in qualitative research. I would
like to recognize and record the utilization of GenAI and/or AI alongside my cognitive and evaluative
abilities in constructing this critical appraisal. I offer ethical guidance on when and how to appropriately
recognize the use of GenAI in qualitative studies. Finally, I offer some remarks on the implications of
using GenAI in qualitative studies

Keywords
qualitative data analysis, GenAI, research methods, ethical issues, critical appraisal

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
License.

Acknowledgements
I express my sincere gratitude to the reviewer, editor, and senior editor—Alicia King, Martha Snyder, and
Chip Turner—of TQR for their valuable feedback, insightful suggestions, and meticulous corrections
throughout this commentary. Equally, I wish to acknowledge the use of ChatGPT—GPT-3.5 or GPT-4,
Google Bard—now renamed as a Gemini, and Bing Chat—now renamed as a Copilot in this commentary.
ChatGPT was used to brainstorm and structure the content. Google Bard was employed to distill the key
themes from academic papers, while Bing Chat was used to refine the language and ensure a consistent
flow and cohesion throughout the sentences and paragraphs. Thus, I wish to recognize and record the
application of both GenAI and AI and my cognitive and evaluative abilities in the formulation of this
commentary.

This article is available in The Qualitative Report: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol29/iss3/6

The Qualitative Report 2024 Volume 29, Number 3, 722-733
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6637

How Can Generative AI (GenAI) Enhance or Hinder Qualitative

Studies? A Critical Appraisal from South Asia, Nepal

Niroj Dahal
Kathmandu University School of Education, Lalitpur, Nepal

Qualitative researchers can benefit from using generative artificial intelligence

(GenAI), such as different versions of ChatGPT—GPT-3.5 or GPT-4, Google
Bard—now renamed as a Gemini, and Bing Chat—now renamed as a Copilot,
in their studies. The scientific community has used artificial intelligence (AI)
tools in various ways. However, using GenAI has generated concerns regarding
potential research unreliability, bias, and unethical outcomes in GenAI-
generated research results. Considering these concerns, the purpose of this
commentary is to review the current use of GenAI in qualitative research,
including its strengths, limitations, and ethical dilemmas from the perspective
of critical appraisal from South Asia, Nepal. I explore the controversy
surrounding the proper acknowledgment of GenAI or AI use in qualitative
studies and how GenAI can support or challenge qualitative studies. First, I
discuss what qualitative researchers need to know about GenAI in their
research. Second, I examine how GenAI can be a valuable tool in qualitative
research as a co-author, a conversational platform, and a research assistant for
enhancing and hindering qualitative studies. Third, I address the ethical issues
of using GenAI in qualitative studies. Fourth, I share my perspectives on the
future of GenAI in qualitative research. I would like to recognize and record the
utilization of GenAI and/or AI alongside my cognitive and evaluative abilities
in constructing this critical appraisal. I offer ethical guidance on when and how
to appropriately recognize the use of GenAI in qualitative studies. Finally, I
offer some remarks on the implications of using GenAI in qualitative studies.

Keywords: qualitative data analysis, GenAI, research methods, ethical issues,

critical appraisal

Introduction

OpenAI introduced ChatGPT in November 2022, a conversational generative artificial

intelligence (GenAI) system that offers unrestricted access and advanced language processing
capabilities. ChatGPT incorporates natural language processing (NLP) technologies and has
generated extensive discussions within academic communities. The launch of ChatGPT has led
to an increasing use of GenAI in academia in general and qualitative research. This
development creates opportunities and challenges for researchers and university teaching
faculties (Hasija & Esper, 2022). Indeed, qualitative research endeavors to delve into and
comprehend the meanings and experiences of people in their natural settings. Thus, qualitative
research is usually done in natural and changeable places because these are the contexts where
people live, work, interact, and express themselves. Qualitative researchers want to capture the
richness and complexity of human phenomena by observing and interviewing people in their
everyday situations (Denzin, 2006). So, researchers look at different types of information, like
texts, pictures, interview responses, and observations. For instance, at the Kathmandu
Niroj Dahal 723

University School of Education (KUSOED), Nepal, many undergraduate, graduate, and

postgraduate students have been using different versions of ChatGPT and other forms of GenAI
to complete different forms of writing tasks such as assignments, research notes, research
articles, and research proposals (to name but a few) without knowing the future consequences.
However, as a university lecturer, it is difficult for me to identify what level of GenAI the
students use for their submissions when they use GenAI tools like ChatGPT, Google Bard, and
Bing Chat. Back then, I might not have been adept at utilizing GenAI tools like ChatGPT,
Google Bard, and Bing Chat effectively due to the lack of the requisite skills or knowledge or
being aware of the future consequences. Next, when it came to accessing the students'
submissions, it was difficult for me to identify which students had used GenAI to accomplish
such writing tasks.
Considering the recent uses of GenAI or AI, I am writing this commentary to rethink
using GenAI tools such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat in qualitative research as a
critical appraisal as a researcher and practitioner. The adaptability of GenAI tools to various
research environments and cultural nuances is impressive. However, Parker et al. (2023)
evaluated the importance of ethical considerations and human supervision as vital elements in
their responsible deployment. As the potential and challenges of human-AI collaboration in
qualitative analysis, it involves inductive reasoning and interpretation of rich and contextual
data and offers design implications for GenAI assistance that respects serendipity, human
agency, and ambiguity in qualitative analysis (Jiang et al., 2021; Michel-Villarreal et al., 2023).
Several weeks following the launch of ChatGPT and other GenAI tools, various
academic journals, educational institutions, and universities have expressed apprehensions
regarding issues pertaining to research authorship and super plagiarism (Al Naqbi et al., 2024;
Chiu, 2024). Furthermore, GenAI tools like ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat are unable
to monitor observable behavior during the learning and research process, authentic tasks, and
multiple assessments simultaneously. There was indeed debate among academic journals,
educational institutions, and universities to legitimate the research process as efforts (Chiu,
2023). These efforts are being made to resolve concerns and ethical considerations surrounding
the use of GenAI or AI for academic endeavors. In this regard, Huang (2021) emphasized that
qualitative research and GenAI technologies coexist, mirroring the relationship between strong
and weak GenAI. However, the core of qualitative studies revolves around human intelligence
and performance.
I wrote this commentary using ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat. ChatGPT
assisted me in brainstorming and organizing the content, while Google Bard was instrumental
in extracting key themes from scholarly articles. I used Bing Chat to polish the language and
ensure a smooth and cohesive flow across sentences and paragraphs. I would like to
acknowledge the combined use of GenAI and/or AI and my cognitive and evaluative skills in
crafting this commentary. However, it is important to note that GenAI did not dictate the
commentary, and the work is fundamentally rooted in my cognitive and evaluative capabilities
(Dahal et al., 2023). So, I offer a critical evaluation of the application of GenAI and AI in
qualitative studies. GenAI-assisted qualitative researchers as co-authors, conversational
partners, and research assistants have become increasingly prevalent in academic settings.
Nevertheless, scholars worldwide must adhere to the ethical principles governing the use of
GenAI and/or AI tools in qualitative research traditions.

GenAI: What you Need to Know?

Using input prompts, generating artificial intelligence (GenAI) can produce new
content, including text, images, videos, or audio clips. It uses trained data to learn and generate
results and patterns that share similar traits. As GenAI tools are based on machine learning
724 The Qualitative Report 2024

algorithms and natural language processing (Aattouri et al., 2023), machine learning algorithms
are used in quantitative GenAI to process and analyze large amounts of numerical data. In
contrast, natural language processing is used in qualitative GenAI to analyze and understand
text-based data such as reviews and feedback.
Programmers and software developers have created artificial intelligence (AI)
technologies that incorporate natural language processing (NLP), and researchers can now use
AI-powered tools to help them analyze qualitative data. GenAI-based “NLP uses linguistics
and machine learning” (Anis & French, 2023, p. 1140) models to understand, interpret, and
create language in the human style. Some GenAI and AI tools for qualitative studies in general
that are being used on the web are Scite Assistant, Consensus, Elicit, ChatGPT, ChatPDF,
Research Rabbit, SciSpace, Perplexity, Google Bard, and Bing Chat. These platforms and
models offered researchers ample opportunities to communicate with GenAI by using
ChatGPT from OpenAI, a specific NLP application in a chatbot format. However, there were
AI tools that had been in practice before the launch of ChatGPT. For instance, with the most
cutting-edge AI and machine learning algorithms, Atlas.ti is widely considered the most
efficient tool for qualitative text analysis and market research because it automatically
generates deep insights for quicker outcomes. Likewise, in a recent development, GenAI can
perform challenging linguistic tasks like text generation, language translation, and even
question-and-answer sessions as a co-author in conversational platforms and research
assistants (Fui-Hoon Nah et al., 2023; Salinas-Navarro et al., 2024).
GenAI does, however, have some limitations. “Due to the training data, it uses and its
limited capacity to interpret tacit knowledge” (Anis & French, 2023, p. 1140) in humanistic
approaches with a critical perspective, GenAI frequently produces biased results and factual
errors based on the caliber of the training data. It also doesn't have a solid understanding of the
subtleties of human language—feelings, emotions, behavioral behaviors, and authentic tasks
of the physical and social world. Shimizu et al. (2023) noted that GenAI positively impacts
teaching and learning efficiency and access to information while negatively affecting
independent thinking and the adaptability of current assessment methods. They suggested
integrating GenAI literacy, ethics, and compliance into research and curriculum, enhancing
learning efficiency, aiding information collection and distribution, promoting students’
participation in learning processes by nurturing advanced cognitive learning domains and
incorporating more communication exercises. However, while using “GenAI tools such as
ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat” (Dahal, 2023a, p. 249), among others, it is essential
to note that certain aspects like observable behaviors during research, genuine tasks, and
simultaneous multiple assessments may not be trackable.
Contrary to these significant downsides, GenAI benefits qualitative researchers in
several ways. Christou (2023a) critically examines the ethical and methodological implications
of using GenAI and/or AI tools in qualitative research by arguing that it can serve as an asset
and collaborator for qualitative researchers; however, it also presents certain challenges and
risks that need to be recognized and addressed. So, the discussion should be grounded in the
potential advantages and drawbacks of GenAI, along with the ethical norms and guidelines that
should guide its application in qualitative research. Consequently, researchers face a dilemma
in reporting and justifying the use of GenAI or AI in their studies. This must include disclosing
the GenAI’s or AI’s types, roles, and functions, explaining the reasoning and criteria for its
selection and evaluation, and acknowledging its limitations and uncertainties.

GenAI in Qualitative Research

“GenAI tools, such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat” (Dahal, 2023a, p. 249),
among other similar platforms, can mitigate the limitations arising from the small data size in
Niroj Dahal 725

qualitative research. Nevertheless, limited data samples cannot frequently provide

comprehensive insights into diverse experiences and perspectives across different temporal and
spatial contexts (Dahal, 2023b). The advancement of technology has led to enhanced efficiency
in the collection of extensive data, enabling faster and more comprehensive data gathering. In
favor of GenAI, Anis and French (2023) advocated for the use of GenAI and/or AI tools in
qualitative research, emphasizing that researchers should be cognizant of its limitations and
challenges and noted that GenAI could assist in tasks such as text generation, language
translation, and question-answering, thereby making qualitative research more efficient,
explicatory, and equitable. As a result, these processes reduce the time and effort needed for
data collection. This engagement for the researcher provides insights and explanations for
complex phenomena and addresses issues of bias and representation in qualitative data
generation and analysis. Similarly, Longo (2019) explored the impact of GenAI and AI tools
on qualitative research methods in education and argued that GenAI or AI has yet to be fully
exploited in education, a discipline that aims to design and evaluate approaches for facilitating
learning and knowledge acquisition. Also, Longo (2019) identified some challenges and
limitations of using GenAI or AI in qualitative research, such as ethical, legal, and social issues.
Despite the challenges and limitations of using GenAI or AI in qualitative research, the
analysis of qualitative research has undergone a different level of improvement, as it continues
to be a time-consuming and labor-intensive undertaking. Researchers can use GenAI or AI
tools to address these limitations and enhance the depth of qualitative studies. By leveraging
GenAI tools such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat, researchers can overcome data
scarcity and delve deeper into their research questions. These GenAI tools offer a bridge
between limited datasets and comprehensive insights, allowing for more nuanced analyses and
a broader understanding of qualitative phenomena. This can be achieved through insightful
engagement as a co-author, a conversational platform, and a research assistant for all
researchers—novice and veteran while adhering to a humanistic approach and critical
perspectives.

GenAI: Insightful Engagement as a Co-Author

In this digital era, educators and researchers are engaging with a substantial portion of
mundane text, wherein GenAI can serve as an augmentation of the researcher's capacity to
comprehend and discern the underlying significance within data. This allows the researchers
and/or users to direct their attention toward the more interpretive elements of their research,
including the refinement of the code book, the establishment of conceptual connections, the
process of meaning-making, and the development of theoretical frameworks. Consequently,
the efficiency of research is enhanced as the researcher's primary focus shifts towards critical
thinking, deliberation, and the cultivation of an interpretative repertoire, thereby relieving them
from the more time-intensive tasks that GenAI can handle. On the other hand, educators and
researchers in the field of academia frequently face a multitude of unorganized qualitative data,
posing a substantial obstacle in terms of its organization and analysis. For example, a scholar
engaged in charting the evolving landscape of discourse in qualitative research (Fransman,
2018). In this alignment, Ciechanowski et al. (2020) presented a tutorial on how to conduct
GenAI or AI research without coding. They used the metaphor of “the art of fighting without
fighting” (p. 322) from the movie Enter the Dragon to explain how qualitative researchers can
benefit from using GenAI or AI tools that do not require programming skills. These tools
include text mining, sentiment analysis, social network analysis, and natural language
generation. The authors also discussed the ethical and methodological challenges of using
GenAI and/or AI tools, such as data quality, validity, reliability, and transparency. In addition,
common techniques such as content analysis and sentiment analysis can capture certain aspects
726 The Qualitative Report 2024

of information. However, their effectiveness is often constrained to measuring the frequency

of phrases or assessing emotional tone, respectively. Next, Hasija and Esper (2022) concluded
that GenAI technology acceptance is a complex and dynamic process that requires a holistic
approach to address the challenges and opportunities of AI in supply chain management (SCM)
and suggest that SCM professionals should adopt a trust-based mindset towards AI and
leverage their organizational resources to enhance their AI capabilities and performance.
With all of the above, GenAI can comprehend textual content and identify patterns
according to the researcher's interpretive framework. For instance, GenAI can emphasize
textual content pertaining to political, social, and cultural matters. For instance, Parker et al.
(2023) conducted a study on the role of ChatGPT in assisting researchers with creating and
refining interview protocols. They discovered that ChatGPT has the capability to generate
suitable interview questions, formulate key inquiries, provide feedback on protocols, and
simulate interviews. This demonstrates its potential to save time and effort, especially when
human resources are scarce. Therefore, this engagement leverages insights and suggestions to
enhance the development and refinement of interview protocols, thereby increasing the
likelihood of researchers achieving their research objectives.

Conversational Platform of GenAI

A conversational GenAI platform is an artificial intelligence (AI) system designed to

interact with humans in their natural languages. These interactions commonly occur in dialog
systems, serving diverse practical purposes. They find applications in customer service, request
routing, research, and information gathering. Some of these systems employ intricate word
classification techniques and natural language processors, while others identify general
keywords and generate responses using common phrases stored in an associated library or
database. These platforms aim to create an engaging and natural experience for researchers, to
help answer their questions or guide them to the right information. Likewise, GenAI tools such
as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat have the capability of conversational flow (Dahal,
2023a). This conversational flow is based on the input commands or prompts the users or
researchers give. However, the limitations of GenAI are evident in its need for more capacity
to attain a level of comprehension of the social realm equivalent to that of humans. Several
limitations can be identified in the system, including a deficiency in employing common sense,
an incapacity to acquire knowledge from past encounters, and a need for more contextual
comprehension regarding social and cultural intricacies.
Nevertheless, the strategic use of these constraints can amplify the analysis's
explanatory capacity as a discursive framework. For example, GenAI frequently encounters
difficulties in comprehending intricate human-generated text that encompasses multiple levels
of meaning and requires understanding metaphors. GenAI can accurately interpret explicit text
and code based on predetermined coding guidelines established by researchers. Instead,
regarding intricate scenarios, GenAI can effectively employ conversational techniques to filter
out complex cases intelligently. The instances that deviate from the coding scheme as a result
of ambiguity and intricate language are valuable cases that can be identified by GenAI for
clarification while generating the text.

Research Assistant for Researchers

GenAI has the potential to greatly benefit as research assistants for researcher—novice
and/or veteran from diverse backgrounds who possess limited social and cultural capital (Anis
& French, 2023). Social and cultural capital are the resources that are available to an individual
through their social interactions and cultural knowledge, which can influence their social
Niroj Dahal 727

mobility and status in society. GenAI is proving advantageous to researchers of all experience
levels and backgrounds while also tackling the challenges of limited social and cultural capital
that some researchers encounter. On the contrary, GenAI may present challenges for
underprivileged groups due to differential access to resources within an academic context. The
use of GenAI can assist researchers in addressing the constraints associated with language
proficiency, academic conventions, and the various forms and styles employed in scholarly
discourse (Dahal et al., 2023). For example, GenAI can serve as a valuable research assistant
for researchers by aiding in tasks such as information retrieval, hypothesis generation,
experiment design, data analysis, and qualitative report writing (Parker et al., 2023). However,
ChatGPT and other GenAI or AI tools cannot produce high-quality scientific abstracts that can
replace human writing. Gao et al. (2022) conducted the study three methods to evaluate the
ChatGPT abstracts: an artificial intelligence output detector (AIOD), a plagiarism detector
(PD), and blinded human reviewers (BHR) and concluded that ChatGPT abstracts were more
likely to be detected as AI-generated than human-written ones by AIOD, had lower similarity
scores with the original abstracts by PD, and were rated lower in terms of clarity, accuracy, and
relevance by BHR.
Nevertheless, GenAI and AI technologies can enhance researchers' capabilities,
enabling them to become more resourceful and self-reliant in their roles. These forms of
independence can empower researchers to conduct significant and analytical research
according to their preferences. Furthermore, GenAI has the potential to enhance scholarly
discourse by incorporating diverse perspectives and augmenting their impact within the realm
of mainstream academia.

Ethics of GenAI in Qualitative Research

GenAI can enhance the depth and value of qualitative research by serving as a co-
author, a conversational platform for users—researchers, and educators, and a research
assistant for researchers. However, it is crucial to consider the ethical implications associated
with using GenAI or AI tools in the digital era. In general, the ethics of GenAI in qualitative
research is a critical area of consideration. It ensures that GenAI systems are used responsibly
and transparently in research processes. This includes respecting the privacy and
confidentiality of data, obtaining informed consent for data use, and avoiding harm to
participants.
Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that GenAI tools are unbiased and that their use
does not lead to unfair outcomes. Transparency in the use of GenAI and/or AI in research and
the limitations of these tools are also critical ethical requirements. Ultimately, the goal is to use
GenAI to enhance research without compromising ethical standards. With the above, Vianello
et al. (2023) proposed a qualitative approach to evaluate and improve “the trustworthiness of
GenAI solutions from the perspectives of end-user explain ability and normative ethics and
present a case study of a GenAI recommendation system used in a real business setting” (p.
1408) and show how their approach can identify practical issues and ethical considerations
related to the GenAI system. Here, the researcher's explainability refers to the researcher's
ability to clearly convey research methods, findings, and limitations to experts and the public
and sometimes to understand subjective explanations from research subjects. As a user of
GenAI in qualitative studies, it is essential to recognize that GenAI serves as a tool to enhance
researchers' capabilities rather than replace them. In this regard, Anis and French (2023) have
warned about GenAI's and AI’s potential pitfalls, including factual inaccuracies, biased
outcomes, an absence of subtlety, and ethical dilemmas. Thus, qualitative researchers should
view GenAI as an instrument to aid their work rather than a replacement by advocating for a
thoughtful and introspective methodology to assess the rigor and credibility of the qualitative
728 The Qualitative Report 2024

research insights (Dahal, 2023b) produced by GenAI. So, ownership and authorship of research
cannot be attributed to GenAI or AI tools.
Moreover, Albalawi and Mustafa (2022) explored the capabilities of AI to offer
groundbreaking strategies for disease prevention and control and highlighted the constraints
and obstacles that must be overcome for the successful and ethical application of AI. The results
produced by AI minimize the ethical impediments to its responsible deployment. Likewise,
Marshall et al. (2023) have underscored the ethical considerations of employing GenAI in
qualitative research. They contend that while GenAI can augment qualitative research by
introducing novel techniques for data gathering, scrutiny, and elucidation, it also presents
considerable challenges and hazards. In this regard, Yu and Yu (2023) explored the ethical
issues of GenAI in education. They identified principles of GenAI ethics in education, such as
“deontology, utilitarianism, virtue, transparency, justice, fairness, equity, non-maleficence,
responsibility, and privacy” (p. 9). In opposition, Akabayashi et al. (2022) argued that ChatGPT
and similar tools could hijack author contributions by generating indistinguishable human-
written text without proper disclosure or attribution. So, when utilizing GenAI or AI tools, the
challenges associated with obtaining informed consent, ensuring privacy and confidentiality,
establishing trust and rapport, and maintaining research validity and reliability for investigators
and participants are significantly reduced.
Meanwhile, GenAI cannot be regarded as an autonomous and unbiased interpreter of
the social sphere. Human researchers will always be responsible for the task of interpretation.
Elali and Rachid (2023) added that the ethical and practical implications of using GenAI to
generate research papers in the scientific community and argue that GenAI-generated papers
pose a severe threat to the integrity and quality of scientific research, as they can be used to
fabricate or plagiarize data, methods, results, and conclusions. So, Elali and Rachid (2023)
added the challenges and limitations of detecting and preventing GenAI-generated papers, such
as the lack of standardized criteria, the difficulty of verifying sources, and the possibility of
adversarial attacks, and propose some potential solutions and recommendations, such as
developing more robust and transparent peer-review processes, enhancing the education and
awareness of researchers and editors, and establishing ethical guidelines and policies for using
GenAI in scientific writing. Thus, GenAI can be used to automate identifying patterns and
trends in data. However, the researcher needs to maintain control by designing the
interpretative repertoire. The researcher's values and assumptions ultimately shape the research
process and findings. By allowing the researcher to support interpretative control, concerns on
ownership, authorship, and the researcher's positionality in the research can be addressed.
Furthermore, GenAI exhibits inherent biases that are present in the data used for
training. Hence, the dominant ideas, beliefs, and attitudes prevalent in society are expected to
influence the various tasks performed during the research. This is particularly crucial for
researchers engaged in critical work that challenges societal norms and aims to change social
structures. In conclusion, researchers aware of the ethical considerations surrounding GenAI
and AI can effectively use this technology to analyze extensive qualitative data, conduct
meaningful research, and empower fellow researchers.

Future of GenAI in Qualitative Research

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is significantly reshaping the field of

research, with qualitative research no exception. In recent trends, GenAI has been used in
qualitative research for various purposes, such as automating data collection, coding, analysis,
and generating insights. Using GenAI can result in fresh perspectives, a deeper comprehension
of human behavior and experience, and cognitive and evaluative skills. In discussing the
potential of GenAI or AI as a resource, methodological tool, and analytical instrument in
Niroj Dahal 729

qualitative research, Christou (2023b) suggested the numerous advantages to researchers,

including aiding in literature and systematic reviews, creating conceptual frameworks, and
performing thematic and content analysis by recognizing the challenges and ethical dilemmas
that come with the use of GenAI in research, such as possible bias, unreliability, and plagiarism.
Hence, GenAI can be invaluable in qualitative research if researchers consider these factors
and adhere to good research practices. As an outcome, GenAI can boost researchers’ creativity
and innovation and the quality and impact of their research findings. Next, GenAI or AI has
the potential to automate various tasks in qualitative research, including data collection, coding,
and analysis. This can allow researchers to dedicate their attention to the research process's
more creative and strategic aspects. In this regard, Gröger (2021) proposes the “data ecosystem
for industrial enterprises, a framework of data producers, data platforms, data consumers, and
data roles for AI and data analytics in industrial environments.” (p. 108). Furthermore, GenAI
can identify intricate patterns and correlations within qualitative data, which would prove
challenging or unattainable for humans.
Automating data collection is a valuable tool for gathering qualitative data from various
sources, including social media platforms and other online forums. GenAI tools ChatGPT,
Google Bard, and Bing Chat can assist researchers in efficiently and effortlessly collecting
substantial amounts of data. GenAI or AI tools can help code and analyze qualitative studies
and their associated data. These tools can assist researchers in identifying patterns and
relationships in the data that would be challenging or impossible for humans to detect
(Cingillioglu, 2023). Utilizing GenAI to generate insights is an additional aspect of qualitative
data analysis. This can assist researchers in gaining new and innovative insights into human
behavior and experience.
While some believe GenAI poses a threat to scientific research, in contrast, the
empirical study of Chubb et al. (2022) explored the potential for GenAI to enhance the research
process and culture. They interviewed leading scholars from various disciplines and analyzed
their views on how GenAI or AI could help or hinder research practice and creativity. I found
that their significant contribution offers valuable insights into how Gen AI or AI could be
harnessed to improve research outcomes. Likewise, Chubb et al. (2022) argued that there is a
need for more meta-research on the role of GenAI in research, as well as anticipatory
approaches and critical voices to ensure a responsible and beneficial use of GenAI or AI in
research.
In addition, Amann et al. (2023) raise an important point about medical AI's potential
benefits and challenges. There is no doubt that AI has the potential to revolutionize healthcare
in many ways, from improving the accuracy of diagnoses to streamlining administrative tasks.
However, it is also important to carefully consider this technology's ethical, social, and legal
implications before it is widely adopted. Feuston and Brubaker (2021) offered design
implications for future AI tools used for tasks like data exploration and coding and remarked
that there is a lack of automated analytic work. More so, Amann et al. (2023) highlight the
complexity of integrating AI into healthcare and the need for a balanced, thoughtful, and
inclusive approach. They underscore the importance of technological innovation, human
values, social relationships, and ethical considerations in the development and use of medical
AI. Akabayashi et al. (2022) offered some ground rules for the use of Gen AI or AI tools in
scientific manuscripts, such as declaring the use of GenAI or AI tools in the author
contributions statement, providing the source code and parameters of the tool, and ensuring
that the GenAI-generated text is consistent with the original data and findings. Hence, for the
future use of GenAI, it is recommended that various academic journals, educational
institutions, and universities establish policies to prevent the misuse of GenAI or AI tools and
uphold the transparency and integrity of scientific publishing.
730 The Qualitative Report 2024

Without a doubt, the future of GenAI or AI in qualitative research is highly promising.

As GenAI technology continues to evolve, it is likely to take on a progressively important role
in automating numerous tasks within qualitative research. This will allow researchers to focus
more on the creative and strategic elements of the research process, leading to the uncovering
of new insights and a more profound comprehension of human behavior and experiences.

Final Remarks

This commentary is offered for researchers—novices and/or veterans to stimulate a

critical dialogue among qualitative researchers about the opportunities and challenges of using
GenAI and/or AI in their work. Thus, there is a need for increased dialogue and collaboration
between qualitative researchers and AI developers to enhance the quality and utility of GenAI
and AI in qualitative research. GenAI and AI in qualitative research have become increasingly
popular. GenAI can automate text generation, data collection, and analysis, identify patterns
and trends in data, generate hypotheses, and offer feedback on research findings. This
commentary argues that GenAI can be used in qualitative studies, including qualitative
empirical studies, systematic reviews, and conceptual studies (among others). However,
several ethical and practical considerations must be considered when using GenAI in
qualitative studies. First, qualitative researchers need to be well-versed in the qualitative
engagement process. This means understanding the different types of qualitative data, how to
collect and analyze qualitative data, and how to interpret the results of qualitative research.
Secondly, GenAI or AI tools must be employed ethically and responsibly. This entails utilizing
diverse and unbiased training data, implementing transparency and accountability measures,
and candidly acknowledging any AI-generated content's limitations and potential risks.
Moreover, researchers' active and cognitive input is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and
credibility of results. Researchers achieve this by cross-referencing AI-generated content with
other data sources and drawing upon their knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation
for interpretation.
In conclusion, this commentary has highlighted essential practical considerations for
the ethical, relevant, and defensible utilization of GenAI and AI in scientific qualitative studies.
Further research is necessary to fully explore the research outcomes related to the use of GenAI
and AI and determine the most effective ways to integrate AI into research planning and
execution. While GenAI or AI has significantly impacted the modern world, academia, and the
research community, it remains imperative that qualitative studies leveraging GenAI and/or AI
adhere to rigorous standards of trustworthiness and ethics. Thus, researchers can actively
engage in the research process by applying their cognitive and evaluative skills from
conception to the conclusion of the qualitative studies.

References

Aattouri, I., Mouncif, H., & Rida, M. (2023). Modeling of an artificial intelligence-based
enterprise callbot with natural language processing and machine learning algorithms.
IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 12(2), 943.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijai.v12.i2.pp943-955
Akabayashi, A., Nakazawa, E., & Ino, H. (2022). Could artificial intelligence hijack author
contributions? Nature, 606(7915), 653-653. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-
01697-w
Al Naqbi, H., Bahroun, Z., & Ahmed, V. (2024). Enhancing Work Productivity through
Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Sustainability,
16(3), 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031166
Niroj Dahal 731

Albalawi, U., & Mustafa, M. (2022). Current artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, challenges,
and approaches in controlling and fighting COVID-19: A review. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 5901.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105901
Amann, Vayena, E., Ormond, K. E., Frey, D., Madai, V. I., & Blasimme, A. (2023).
Expectations and attitudes towards medical artificial intelligence: A qualitative study
in the field of stroke. PloS One, 18(1), e0279088–e0279088.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279088
Anis, S., & French, J. A. (2023). Efficient, explicatory, and equitable: Why qualitative
researchers should embrace ai, but cautiously. Business & Society, 62(6), 1139-
1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231163286
Chiu, T. K. (2023). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research
direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning
Environments, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
Chiu, T. K. (2024). Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with
generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100197
Christou, P. A. (2023a). A critical perspective over whether and how to acknowledge the use
of artificial intelligence (AI) in qualitative studies. The Qualitative Report, 28(7), 1981-
1991. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6407
Christou, P. A. (2023b). How to use artificial intelligence (AI) as a resource, methodological
and analysis tool in qualitative research? The Qualitative Report, 28(7), 1968-1980.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6406
Chubb, J., Cowling, P., & Reed, D. (2022). Speeding up to keep up: Exploring the use of AI in
the research process. AI & Society, 37(4), 1439–1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-
021-01259-0
Ciechanowski, L., Jemielniak, D., & Gloor, P. A. (2020). Tutorial: AI research without coding:
The art of fighting without fighting: Data science for qualitative researchers. Journal of
Business Research, 117, 322-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.012
Cingillioglu, I. (2023). Detecting AI-generated essays: the ChatGPT challenge. The
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 40(3), 259-268.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-03-2023-0043
Dahal, N. (2023a). Digital citizenship and digital ethics: An educator's perspective. In J. DeHart
(Ed.), Critical Roles of Digital Citizenship and Digital Ethics (pp. 249-257). IGI
Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8934-5.ch014
Dahal, N. (2023b). Ensuring quality in qualitative research: A researcher's reflections. The
Qualitative Report, 28(8), 2298-2317. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6097
Dahal, N., Lamichhnae, B. R., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (2023). AI chatbots as math algorithm
problem solvers: A critical evaluation of its capabilities and limitations. Proceedings of
the 28th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics, 28(1), 429-438.
https://atcm.mathandtech.org/EP2023/regular.html
Denzin, N. K. (2006). Evaluating qualitative research in the poststructural moment: The lessons
James Joyce teaches us. Qualitative Studies in Education, 7(4), 295-308.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839940070401
Elali, F. R., & Rachid, L. N. (2023). AI-generated research paper fabrication and plagiarism in
the scientific community. Patterns, 4(3) 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100706
Feuston, J. L., & Brubaker, J. R. (2021). Putting tools in their place: The role of time and
perspective in human-AI collaboration for qualitative analysis. Proceedings of the ACM
on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1-25.
732 The Qualitative Report 2024

Fransman, J. (2018). Charting a course to an emerging field of ‘research engagement studies’:

A conceptual metasynthesis. Research for All, 2(2), 185-229.
https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.02.2.02
Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., & Chen, L. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT:
Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information
Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277-304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T.
(2022). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts
using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human
reviewers. bioRxiv, 2022-12. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.23.521610
Gröger, C. (2021). There is no AI without data. Communications of the ACM, 64(11), 98-108.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3448247
Hasija, A., & Esper, T. L. (2022). In artificial intelligence (AI) we trust: A qualitative
investigation of AI technology acceptance. Journal of Business Logistics, 43(3), 388-
412. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12301
Huang, H. (2021). An introduction to qualitative research artificial intelligence technologies.
https://drkriukow.com/an-introduction-to-qualitative-research-artificial-intelligence-
technologies/
Jiang, J. A., Wade, K., Fiesler, C., & Brubaker, J. R. (2021). Supporting serendipity:
opportunities and challenges for human-AI collaboration in qualitative analysis.
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3449168
Longo, L. (2020). Empowering qualitative research methods in education with artificial
intelligence. In A. Costa, L. Reis, A. Moreira (Eds.), Computer supported qualitative
research. WCQR 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1068.
Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31787-4_1
Marshall, D. T., & Naff, D. B. (2023). The ethics of using artificial intelligence in qualitative
research. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rnbh
Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., &
Gerardou, F. S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher
education as explained by ChatGPT. Education Sciences, 13(9), 856.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090856
Parker, J. L., Richard, V., & Becker, K. (2023). Flexibility & iteration: Exploring the potential
of large language models in developing and refining interview protocols. The
Qualitative Report, 28(9), 2772-2791. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6695
Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Michel-Villarreal, R., & Montesinos, L. (2024).
Using generative artificial intelligence tools to explain and enhance experiential
learning for authentic assessment. Education Sciences, 14(1), 83.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010083
Shimizu, I., Kasai, H., Shikino, K., Araki, N., Takahashi, Z., Onodera, M., Kimura, Y.,
Tsukamoto, T., Yamauchi, K., Asahina, M., Ito, S., & Kawakami, E. (2023).
Developing medical education curriculum reform strategies to address the impact of
generative AI: Qualitative study. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e53466-e53466.
https://doi.org/10.2196/53466
Vianello, A., Laine, S., & Tuomi, E. (2023). Improving trustworthiness of AI solutions: A
qualitative approach to support ethically grounded AI design. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 39(7), 1405-1422.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2095478
Yu, L. H., & Yu, Z. G. (2023). Qualitative and quantitative analyses of artificial intelligence
Niroj Dahal 733

ethics in education using VOSviewer and CitNetExplorer. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,

1061778. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1061778

Author Note

Niroj Dahal (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-1186), works at Kathmandu University

School of Education under the Department of STEAM Education. He also serves as an editorial
member of TQR. His research interests include ICT in education, artificial intelligence (AI),
generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), qualitative research—action research, participatory
action research, appreciative inquiry, arts-based inquiry, autoethnography, narrative inquiry,
case study, content analysis, critical ethnography, critical social theories inquiry, decolonizing
methodologies, decolonizing autoethnography, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, and
collaborative inquiry (among others), mathematics education, open, distance & e-learning,
STEAM education, research and development, and ICT & e-Research. Mr. Dahal has been
teaching graduate and undergraduate students for over the past two decades. He has also been
continuously taking part and presenting his research and practices in more than four dozen
national and international conferences, workshops, and seminars. He has published articles,
research notes, commentary, editorials, book reviews, books, and book chapters in various
national and international journals and publication presses in ICT, qualitative research,
education in general and mathematics education, and STEAM education. He may be contacted
by e-mail at niroj@kusoed.edu.np.

Acknowledgments: I express my sincere gratitude to the reviewer, editor, and senior

editor—Alicia King, Martha Snyder, and Chip Turner—of TQR for their valuable feedback,
insightful suggestions, and meticulous corrections throughout this commentary. Equally, I wish
to acknowledge the use of ChatGPT—GPT-3.5 or GPT-4, Google Bard—now renamed as a
Gemini, and Bing Chat—now renamed as a Copilot in this commentary. ChatGPT was used to
brainstorm and structure the content. Google Bard was employed to distill the key themes from
academic papers, while Bing Chat was used to refine the language and ensure a consistent flow
and cohesion throughout the sentences and paragraphs. Thus, I wish to recognize and record
the application of both GenAI and AI and my cognitive and evaluative abilities in the
formulation of this commentary.

Disclosure statements: I confirmed that I have used ChatGPT—GPT-3.5 or GPT-4,

Google Bard—now renamed as a Gemini, and Bing Chat—now renamed as a Copilot for
different purposes. However, this commentary is not influenced by GenAI or AI, and the paper
is grounded in my cognitive and evaluative abilities. I take full responsibility for any
misunderstanding or mistake in this commentary.

Copyright 2024: Niroj Dahal and Nova Southeastern University.

Article Citation

Dahal, N. (2024). How can generative AI (GenAI) enhance or hinder qualitative studies? A
critical appraisal from South Asia, Nepal. The Qualitative Report, 29(3), 722-733.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6637