An open letter about AI in reflexive qualitative research

Open Letter Opposing the Use of Generative AI for Reflexive Qualitative Research

Last week an open letter

docs.google.com/document/d/1IvWjX4L3YLdHzBnrJkiE5… against the use of generative AI for reflexive qualitative research made the round. At the time of writing about 400 qualitative researchers had signed it.

Here is their position: “We hold the position that analytic approaches such as reflexive thematic analysis are human research practices requiring a subjective, positioned and reflexive researcher and therefore the use of AI in such approaches is not methodologically congruent. We additionally reject AI for reflexive qualitative approaches on the grounds of social and environmental justice.”

In their letter they explain their position in a bit more detail and provide three reasons: 1. GenAI as simulated intelligence is incapable of meaning making 2. Qualitative research should remain a distinctly human practice 3. The established manifold harms of genAI, especially to the environment and workers in the Global South

Here is my response in a nutshell (you find a more extensive response on my blog

qeludra.com/blog/response-to-open-letter-oppo… ):

The open letter raises important ethical questions, but its categorical rejection of generative AI rests on questionable assumptions, selective engagement with the literature, and a refusal to distinguish methodological flawed use from responsible, researcher-led, reflexive use.

Treating AI as inherently incompatible with meaning-making ignores established traditions of distributed cognition and sociomaterial practice, where thinking does not occur in isolation from tools, environments, or conceptual provocations. It is not the existence of AI that threatens reflexive inquiry, but its uncritical use.

If we accept that reflexive qualitative research is grounded in human subjectivity, then the real task in my opinion is not to ban external cognitive stimuli, but to ensure that humans remain epistemically and ethically responsible for the interpretive process.

Properly used, GenAI does not replace reflexivity; it can act as a catalyst that provokes abductive insight, stimulates critical questioning, and helps researchers surface tensions, contradictions, and silences within their own dataset—always under human evaluation.

Environmental and labour harms deserve serious attention, but the appropriate response in research practice is not abstinence by prohibition, but engagement through harm reduction, regulatory advocacy, and the development of methodologically rigorous frameworks for responsible use. Qualitative researchers are well positioned to interrogate sociotechnical systems reflexively rather than retreat from them.

The choice is not between human-cantered reflexivity and AI, but between rejecting new analytical scaffolds on principle or shaping them critically from within our epistemological traditions. A blanket ban forecloses methodological evolution and silences nuanced, practice-based innovation already emerging within the field.

Instead of closing down inquiry through fear-based absolutism, we should be asking: under what conditions, within what limits, and guided by which reflexive commitments can AI be used to deepen—not dilute—qualitative understanding?

Link to full discussion: Response to the Open Letter that Opposes the Use of Generative AI for Reflexive Qualitative Research

qeludra.com/blog/response-to-open-letter-oppo…

As my perspective is only one of many, I’d like to invite all of you to join this discussion. This is relevant to all of us. You can engage with my posts on LinkedIn

linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:73885… , write a blog, a social media post, share and discuss with colleagues.