BakerP. (2023). Using corpora in discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
2.
BrailasA., & KaterelosI. (2025). Qualitative inquiry in the era of artificial intelligence: Why and how to keep the practice human?Homo Virtualis, 8(2), 1–24.
3.
BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
BrunerJ. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
6.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
7.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
8.
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
9.
ClandininD., & ConnellyF. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Brass.
10.
CurryN., BakerP., & BrookesG. (2024). Generative AI for corpus approaches to discourse studies: A critical evaluation of ChatGPT. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100082
11.
De PaoliS. (2026). Why we should reject to reject the use of generative artificial intelligence in qualitative analysis: A response to Jowsey, Braun, Clarke, Lupton, and Fine (2025). Qualitative Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004261425137
12.
DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
13.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
14.
FettermanD. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Sage Publications.
15.
FrieseS. (2025). Conversational analysis with AI—CA to the power of AI: Rethinking coding in qualitative analysis (April 27, 2025). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5232579
16.
FrieseS. (2026). From coding to conversation: A new methodological framework for AI-assisted qualitative analysis. Qualitative Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004251412871
17.
FrieseS., Nguyen-TrungK., PowellS., & MorganD. L. (2026). Beyond binary positions: Making space for critical and reflexive GenAI integration in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004261429393
18.
GioiaD. A., CorleyK. G., & HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
19.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing.
20.
HaigB. D. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_2
21.
HayesA. S. (2025). “Conversing” with qualitative data: Enhancing qualitative research through large language models (LLMs). International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251322346
22.
HusserlE. (1983). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: First book (KerstenF., Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff. (Original work published 1913).
23.
JowseyT., BraunV., ClarkeV., LuptonD., & FineM. (2025). We reject the use of generative artificial intelligence for reflexive qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004251401851
24.
KincheloeJ. L. (2005). Critical constructivism primer. Peter Lang.
25.
KingN., BrooksJ., & TabariS. (2018). Template analysis in business and management research. In CiesielskaM. & JemielniakD. (Eds.), Qualitative methodologies in organization studies. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65442-3_8
26.
LaatoJ., MäntymäkiM., KordyakaB., & LaatoS. (2025, August). Automating qualitative data analysis with chain-of-thought reasoning models: A study with the Gioia method. In 2025 Americas conference on information systems (p. 2130). AIS Electronic Library (AISeL).
27.
LevittH. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000353
28.
MeinckeL., MollickE., MollickL., & ShapiroD. (2025). Prompting science report 2: The decreasing value of chain of thought in prompting. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5285532
29.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from “Case Study Research in Education.”Jossey-Bass Publishers.
30.
MisraR., DahalR., KirkB., KhanR., DoganG., ChatautR., & GyawaliP. (2026). Large Language Models in Qualitative analysis: Comparing traditional and researcher-interpreted approaches. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069261426100
31.
MorganD. L. (2025). Query-based analysis: A strategy for analyzing qualitative data using ChatGPT. Qualitative Health Research, 36(2–3), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323251321712
32.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications.
33.
NguyenD. C., & WelchC. (2025). Engaged and Responsible Scholarship: Why Qualitative Researchers Should Not Embrace GenAI. Business & Society, 0(0). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503251386539
34.
NguyenD. C., & WelchC. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence in qualitative data analysis: Analyzing— or just chatting?Organizational Research Methods, 29(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281251377154
35.
Nguyen-TrungK. (2025). ChatGPT in thematic analysis: Can AI become a research assistant in qualitative research?Quality & Quantity, 59, 4945–4978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02165-z
36.
Nguyen-TrungK., & NguyenN. L. (2026). Narrative-integrated thematic analysis (NITA): How can LLMs support theme generation without coding?Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2026.2638348
37.
OzuemW., WillisM., RanfagniS., & OmeishF. (2025). Thematic analysis in an artificial intelligence-driven context: A stage-by-stage process. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251362982
38.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. State University of New York Press.
39.
PopeC., ZieblandS., & MaysN. (2000). Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 320(7227), 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114
40.
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
41.
ShinK., & LukeM. M. (2025). A descriptive comparison of results from human and AI-driven interpretive phenomenological analysis. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 19(3), 1–15. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.70013/t32jkpeq
42.
SmithJ. A., JarmanM., & OsborneM. (1999). Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In MurrayM. & ChamberlainK. (Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods. Sage Publications.
43.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
44.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
45.
van MaanenJ. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. University of Chicago Press.
46.
van ManenM. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. State University of New York Press.
47.
WachingerJ., BärnighausenK., SchäferL. N., ScottK., & McMahonS. A. (2025). Prompts, pearls, imperfections: Comparing ChatGPT and a human researcher in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 35(9), 951–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241244669
48.
YinR. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.