Cited by 22Computational and Text Analysis MethodsEthics and Social Impacts of AIQualitative Research Methods and Applications

Using Large Language Models for Qualitative Analysis can Introduce Serious Bias

Open access
Ashwin, Julian, Chhabra, Aditya, Rao, Vijayendra·2026·Sociological Methods & Research

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are quickly becoming ubiquitous, but their implications for social science research are not yet well understood. We ask whether LLMs can help code and analyse large-N qualitative data from open-ended interviews, with an application to transcripts of interviews with Rohingya refugees and their Bengali hosts in Bangladesh. We find that using LLMs to annotate and code text can introduce bias that can lead to misleading inferences. By bias we mean that the errors that LLMs make in coding interview transcripts are not random with respect to the characteristics of the interview subjects. Training simpler supervised models on high-quality human codes leads to less measurement error and bias than LLM annotations. Given that high quality codes are necessary in order to assess whether an LLM introduces bias, we argue that it may be preferable to train a bespoke model on a subset of transcripts coded by trained sociologists rather than use an LLM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00491241251338246

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs may introduce systematic bias in qualitative coding.

    “LLM-assisted annotation shows a similar tension: LLMs can match or outperform crowd workers on some text-classification tasks, yet may introduce systematic bias in qualitative coding (Ashwin et al., 2025;Gilardi et al., 2023).”
  • LLMs can match or outperform crowd workers on some text-classification tasks.

    “LLM-assisted annotation shows a similar tension: LLMs can match or outperform crowd workers on some text-classification tasks, yet may introduce systematic bias in qualitative coding (Ashwin et al., 2025;Gilardi et al., 2023).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ashwin, J., Chhabra, A., & Rao, V.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • World Bank (US)
Corresponding author
Rao, Vijayendra
Venue
Sociological Methods & Research
Published
2025-05-27
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
795-839
ISSN
  • 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8294
OpenAlex
W4410794876
Cited by
22
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 9
FWCI
30.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sociological Methods & Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • World Bank’s Knowledge for Change Program
  • World Bank-UNHCR Joint Data Center on Forced Displacement
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
large language models, algorithmic bias, qualitative coding, interview transcripts, measurement error, human coding, Rohingya refugees, refugee-host relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review