Beyond Binary Positions: Making Space for Critical and Reflexive GenAI Integration in Qualitative Research 

Abstract

We write as qualitative researchers to respond to an open letter - recently circulating on LinkedIn and now published in the journal of  Qualitative Inquiry (Jowsey et al., 2025a), opposing the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in reflexive qualitative research. We have also submitted our response to Qualitative Inquiry and are currently awaiting a decision on whether our open letter will be considered for publication.

The open letter by Jowsey et al. calls for the categorical exclusion of generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) from reflexive qualitative research. While we acknowledge the ethical and socio-technical concerns that motivate this position, we respectfully contest the conclusion that GenAI is inherently incompatible with meaning-based methodologies.

We believe that rejecting the technology in its entirety risks closing off methodological evolution, misunderstanding current practices, and isolating qualitative research from broader epistemic developments. 

Furthermore, a blanket rejection of GenAI in qualitative research can reinforce a problematic binary framing between pro- versus anti-AI, or ethical versus non-ethical positions, which may risk marginalizing in-between efforts that develop, design, and apply GenAI in ethical and responsible manners. Our stance is to refuse to side with either an absolutist anti-AI position (i.e., an outright rejection of all potential uses of GenAI) or an uncritical pro-AI enthusiasm (i.e., accepting that anything goes as long as it increases efficiency). 

We believe in the diversity and flexibility of qualitative research practices where researchers can engage with GenAI while remaining reflexive, ethical, and responsible. We therefore advocate for a position grounded in critical engagement, methodological literacy, and ethical responsibility. GenAI, like any other technologies including computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS), when used critically and under close researcher leadership and control, can serve as a legitimate analytic support within reflexive qualitative inquiry. 

We therefore support:

• continued methodological development exploring GenAI as a reflexive analytic aid, with methodological groundings and critical evaluation of its capabilities and limitations; 

• maintenance of human interpretive and reflexive agency in all analytic decisions, positioning GenAI as a tool or an assistant under researcher control rather than an autonomous agent;

• transparency and reflexivity in the design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of GenAI-supported analyses;

• collective action to reduce environmental and labour harms that targets big tech companies rather than individual qualitative researchers who critically and reflexively experiment, apply, or use GenAI in their work.

We invite colleagues from across discipline and methodological traditions to participate in constructive dialogue about how qualitative research can engage productively and responsibly with emerging computational tools. 

Keywords: Responsible AI, Ethical Use of AI for Qualitative Research, AI for Qualitative Analysis, Open Letter Critical and Reflexive Discussion on the Use of GenAI, Rejecting the Use of GenAI for Reflexive Qualitative Analysis