Reflexive Qualitative Research and Generative AI: A Call to go Beyond the Binary

Abstract

Recent debates on generative artificial intelligence (AI) in qualitative research have been framed in increasingly polarized terms, positioning researchers as uncritical adopters or principled refusers. Drawing on recent position statements and editorial guidance, this article argues that such binary framing is unhelpful. While endorsing core concerns about meaning-making, reflexivity, bias, and environmental harm, it suggests that these concerns do not justify categorical rejection of all AI use. Instead, the article proposes refocusing debate on epistemic authority, distinguishing AI-led analysis from human-led practices, and developing governance-oriented responses to ethical and environmental risks. Moving beyond moral binaries is essential to preserving reflexive qualitative inquiry.

Keywords

reflexive qualitative research generative artificial intelligence epistemic authority methodological integrity research governance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Friese

(2025, November 8). Response to: We reject the use of generative artificial intelligence for reflexive qualitative research. SSRN. http://doi.org/2010.2139/ssrn.5690262

Jowsey

Braun

Clarke

Lupton

Fine

(2025). We reject the use of generative artificial intelligence for reflexive qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004251401851

Levitt

H. M.

(2026). A consideration of the ethics and methodological integrity of generative artificial intelligence in qualitative research: Guidelines for Qualitative Psychology. Qualitative Psychology, 13(1), 1–5.