Using Large Language Models for Qualitative Analysis can Introduce Serious Bias
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Ashwin et al., 2025
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).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Ashwin et al., 2025
Cites
Larian Studios Dev Team (2024) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701 · Cited by 8,618 · see citing works
ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks
Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubli, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2305016120 · Cited by 1,197 · see citing works
Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?
Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00502 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Can AI language models replace human participants?
Dillion, D., Tandon, N., Gu, Y., & Gray, K. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.008 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Chen, N.-C., Drouhard, M., Kocielnik, R., Suh, J., & Aragon, C. R. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3185515 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Atari, M., Xue, M. J., Park, P. S., Blasi, D. E., & Henrich, J. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/5b26t · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Should ChatGPT Be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models
Ferrara, E. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4627814 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Veselovsky, V., Ribeiro, M. H., & West, R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.07899 · Cited by 73 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, 2023), or even that a substantial proportion of workers on crowd-sourcing platform may be using LLMs in completing tasks (Veselovsky et al., 2023).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI Voice Methodology: Using Generative AI in Qualitative Social Research
Hughes, J., Homan, L., O’Reilly, M., & Hughes, K. (2025) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/10778004251401842 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers
Yang, Y., Thelwall, M., & He, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.01895
“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).”
- Authors
- Ashwin, J., Chhabra, A., & Rao, V.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- World Bank (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rao, Vijayendra
- Venue
- Sociological Methods & Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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