The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly shaping research methodologies across disciplines. However, its integration in qualitative research remains controversial due to epistemological, ethical, and human-centered concerns. This study explores the perspectives of 14 expert qualitative researchers from socio-anthropological and healthcare fields working in Italian academic and hospital settings, with a focus on the opportunities, challenges, and future directions of AI use in qualitative inquiry. Through semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis, four main themes were developed. First, participants expressed ambivalent attitudes—balancing curiosity with technophobia and emphasizing the need for human oversight and contextual interpretation. Second, an anthropological and philosophical dimension was constructed, underscoring the importance of reflexivity, creativity, and researcher identity as essential counterbalances to AI’s mechanistic tendencies. Third, researchers acknowledged AI’s practical benefits in tasks such as transcription and data management, and they remained skeptical of its ability to perform complex interpretative work. Finally, ethical and sustainability concerns were raised, including algorithmic bias, data privacy, and the environmental impact of AI technologies. The findings reveal persistent epistemological tensions but also highlight emerging opportunities for AI to enhance research efficiency and accessibility, provided that human interpretative agency remains central. Participants stressed the importance of developing robust ethical frameworks, fostering critical reflexivity, and adopting innovative conceptual approaches to responsibly integrate AI into qualitative research and education. This study offers valuable insights for scholars and practitioners navigating the evolving landscape of AI in qualitative inquiry, advocating a balanced approach that leverages AI’s potential while safeguarding the human core of qualitative research.
AhujaA.MurtiY.SinghS. (2024). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in medical research: Applications, regulatory concerns, opportunities and future outlook- A mini review. Letters in Drug Design and Discovery, 21(18), 4205–4220. https://doi.org/10.2174/0115701808342987241216081153
2.
ArtioliG.CosentinoC.TaffurelliC.FerriP.FoàC. (2019). The narrative interview for the assessment of the assisted person: Structure, method and data analysis. Acta BioMedica: Atenei Parmensis, 90(6-S), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i6-S.8640
3.
BalalleH.PannilageS. (2025). Reassessing academic integrity in the age of AI: A systematic literature review on AI and academic integrity. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, Article 101299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101299
4.
BaltE.SalmiS.BhulaiS.VrinzenS.EikelenboomM.GilissenR.CreemersD.PopmaA.MérelleS. (2025). Deductively coding psychosocial autopsy interview data using a few-shot learning large language model. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, Article 1512537. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1512537
5.
BolañosF.SalatinoA.OsborneF.MottaE. (2024). Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: Opportunities and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(10), Article 259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
8.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2021a). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
9.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2021b). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
10.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2024). Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG). Palliative Medicine, 38(6), 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241234800
11.
BuntH. L.GoddardA.ReaderT. W.GillespieA. (2025). Validating the use of large language models for psychological text classification. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 3, Article 1460277. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2025.1460277
12.
CampbellS.GreenwoodM.PriorS.ShearerT.WalkemK.YoungS.BywatersD.WalkerK. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
13.
ChanpraditT. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in academic writing in higher education: A systematic review. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(4), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i4.6128
14.
ChatzichristosG. (2025). Qualitative research in the era of AI: A return to positivism or a new paradigm?International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251337583
15.
ChenB.ZhangZ.LangrenéN.ZhuS. (2025). Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering for large language models. Patterns, 6(6), Article 101260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2025.101260
16.
ChopraF.HaalandI. (2023). Conducting qualitative interviews with AI (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4583756). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4583756.
17.
ChristouP. A. (2023). 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
CroweM.InderM.PorterR. (2015). Conducting qualitative research in mental health: Thematic and content analyses. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(7), 616–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415582053
20.
DahalN. (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
21.
DanielK.MsambwaM. M.WenZ. (2025). Can generative AI revolutionise academic skills development in higher education? A systematic literature review. European Journal of Education, 60(1), Article e70036. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70036
22.
DavisonR. M.ChughtaiH.NielsenP.MarabelliM.IannacciF.van OffenbeekM.TarafdarM.TrenzM.TechatassanasoontornA. A.Díaz AndradeA.PanteliN. (2024). The ethics of using generative AI for qualitative data analysis. Information Systems Journal, 34(5), 1433–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12504
23.
De PaoliS. (2024a). Further explorations on the use of large language models for thematic analysis. Open-ended prompts, better terminologies and thematic maps. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 25(3), 1–35. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/4196
24.
De PaoliS. (2024b). Performing an inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with a large language model: An exploration and provocation on the limits of the approach. Social Science Computer Review, 42(4), 997–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231220483
25.
DoyleS. (2007). Member checking with older women: A framework for negotiating meaning. Health Care for Women International, 28(10), 888–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330701615325
26.
DwivediY. K.SharmaA.RanaN. P.GiannakisM.GoelP.DutotV. (2023). Evolution of artificial intelligence research in Technological Forecasting and Social Change: Research topics, trends, and future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, Article 122579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122579
27.
European Parliament (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). EUR-Lex.
28.
FriedmanC.OwenA.VanPuymbrouckL. (2024). Should ChatGPT help with my research? A caution against artificial intelligence in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Research, OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941241297375
29.
GibsonA. F.BeattieA. (2024). More or less than human? Evaluating the role of AI-as-participant in online qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2311427
GridachM.NanavatiJ.AbidineK. Z. E.MendesL.MackC. (2025, Marzo 12). Agentic AI for scientific discovery: A survey of progress, challenges, and future directions. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.08979v1
32.
GundlackJ.ThielC.NegashS.BuchC.ApfelbacherT.DennyK.ChristophJ.MikolajczykR.UnverzagtS.FreseT. (2025). Patients’ perceptions of artificial intelligence acceptance, challenges, and use in medical care: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, Article e70487. https://doi.org/10.2196/70487
33.
HassanM.KushnirukA.BoryckiE. (2024). Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: Scoping review. JMIR Human Factors, 11, Article e48633. https://doi.org/10.2196/48633
34.
HitchD. (2024). Artificial intelligence augmented qualitative analysis: The way of the future?Qualitative Health Research, 34(7), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231217392
35.
HuangJ.TanM. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research, 13(4), 1148–1154.
36.
KallioH.PietiläA.-M.JohnsonM.KangasniemiM. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
37.
KonM. H. A.PereiraM. J.MolinaJ. A. D. C.YipV. C. H.AbisheganadenJ. A.YipW. (2025). Unravelling ChatGPT’s potential in summarising qualitative in-depth interviews. Eye, 39(2), 354–358. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03419-0
LiuR.ZouZ.ChenS.LiuY.WanJ. (2025). Harnessing AI for understanding scientific literature: Innovations and applications of chat-agent system in battery recycling research. Materials Today Energy, 49, Article 101818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtener.2025.101818
40.
LuongoM.PonticorvoM.LigorioM. B.CrescenzoP.RitellaG. (2025). Artificial intelligence to enhance qualitative research: Methodological reflections on a pilot study. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal), 30(6). https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2024-030-luon.
41.
MarshallD. T.NaffD. B. (2024). The ethics of using artificial intelligence in qualitative research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics : JERHRE, 19(3), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241262659
42.
MeyerJ. G.UrbanowiczR. J.MartinP. C. N.O’ConnorK.LiR.PengP.-C.BrightT. J.TatonettiN.WonK. J.Gonzalez-HernandezG.MooreJ. H. (2023). ChatGPT and large language models in academia: Opportunities and challenges. BioData Mining, 16(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00339-9
43.
MollickE. (2024). Co-intelligence: Living and working with AI. Penguin.
44.
MorseJ. (2021). Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) review process does not use checklists. Qualitative Health Research, 31(5), 819–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732321994114
45.
MorseJ. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
46.
NaeemM.SmithT.ThomasL. (2025). Thematic analysis and artificial intelligence: A step-by-step process for using ChatGPT in thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251333886
47.
Nguyen-TrungK. (2025). ChatGPT in thematic analysis: Can AI become a research assistant in qualitative research?Quality & Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02165-z
48.
NtsobiM. P.CostaA. P.KasperiunieneJ.BrandãoC.RibeiroJ. (2024). Digital tools and techniques in qualitative research: Digital skills and research optimisation. In RibeiroJ.BrandãoC.NtsobiM.KasperiunieneJ.CostaA. P. (Eds.), Computer supported qualitative research (Vol. 1061, pp. 1–25). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65735-1_1
49.
NyaabaM.SungEunM.ApamM. A.AcheampongK. O.DwamenaE. (2025). Optimizing generative AI’s accuracy and transparency in inductive thematic analysis: A human-AI comparison. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.16485
50.
PattynF. (2024). The value of generative AI for qualitative research: A pilot study. Journal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems, 3(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJDSIS42022964
51.
PaulusT. M.MaroneV. (2025). “In minutes instead of weeks”: Discursive constructions of generative AI and qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 31(5), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004241250065
PrescottM. R.YeagerS.HamL.Rivera SaldanaC. D.SerranoV.NarezJ.PaltinD.DelgadoJ.MooreD. J.MontoyaJ. (2024). Comparing the efficacy and efficiency of human and generative AI: Qualitative thematic analyses. JMIR AI, 3, Article e54482. https://doi.org/10.2196/54482
54.
RobertsJ.BakerM.AndrewJ. (2024). Artificial intelligence and qualitative research: The promise and perils of large language model (LLM)‘assistance’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 99, Article 102722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102722
55.
ScherbakovD.HubigN.JansariV.BakumenkoA.LenertL. A. (2025). The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: A large language model-assisted systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 32(6), 1071–1086. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaf063
56.
SchroederH.Aubin Le QuéréM.RandazzoC.MimnoD.SchoenebeckS. (2025, 26 April–1 May). Large language models in qualitative research: Uses, tensions, and intentions. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713120
57.
SinhaS.DattaS.KumarR.BhattacharyaS.SarkarA.DasK. (2024). Exploring creativity: The development and uses of generative AI. In KumarR.SahuS.BhattacharyaS. (Eds.), The pioneering applications of generative AI (pp. 167–198). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/exploring-creativity/350783
WuC.XuH.BaiD.ChenX.GaoJ.JiangX. (2023). Public perceptions on the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A qualitative meta-synthesis. BMJ Open, 13(1), Article e066322. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066322
60.
YanL.EcheverriaV.Fernandez-NietoG. M.JinY.SwieckiZ.ZhaoL.GaševićD.Martinez-MaldonadoR. (2024). Human-AI collaboration in thematic analysis using ChatGPT: A user study and design recommendations. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, May 11-16, 2024, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650732
61.
YehiaE. (2025). Developments on generative AI. In PokhariyalP.PatelA.PandeyS. (Eds.), AI and emerging technologies (pp. 139–160). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003501152-9
