Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

The Half-Lives of Generative-AI Evidence: A 40-Record Audit, a Claim-Currency Framework, and a Reflexive Case of Frontier-Model-Assisted Research

Generative-AI evaluations can become historical before publication, yet calendar age does not affect every conclusion equally. This paper has two linked purposes. First, it audits a maximum-variation purposive corpus of 40 empirical records appearing between 18 July 2025 and 17 July 2026. The audit coded publication route, execution timing, model identity, age of the newest named generation or immutable snapshot, same-family supersession and refresh behaviour. At appearance, the newest named model was a median 281 days old (middle 50%: 75-478; range: 11-939). Median age was 395 days for 25 journal articles, 56 days for 14 preprints and 49 days for one laboratory report. Thirty-five records included a superseded family, seven supplied a precise dated identifier, three clearly refreshed model evidence, and one added a late sensitivity test. All 40 included an OpenAI system, a feature of this corpus rather than a prevalence estimate. The paper distinguishes model age from claim currency and proposes six reporting practices. Second, it treats its own two-day production process as a reflexive case of frontier-model-assisted research creation. GPT-5.6 Sol Pro in ChatGPT supported candidate discovery, source reconciliation, calculations, drafting and critique; the author checked sources, made all substantive decisions and accepts responsibility. This is a proof-of-practice, not a controlled estimate of productivity or quality. By applying its own Model Facts and model-currency statement, the paper shows how rapid AI-assisted research can be made inspectable without treating model output as independent validation. The title uses half-lives metaphorically; no universal decay rate is estimated.

Validating LLMs in social science: Epistemic threats and emerging norms

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social science methodology. Researchers increasingly prompt language models to generate quantitative measurements of social concepts, for example labeling data or simulating survey responses. Yet LLMs pose methodological challenges including bias, hallucination, and brittleness across contexts, with unclear threats to validity. Standard practices and norms for addressing these challenges are still emerging. We collect and systematically analyze validation practices in a comprehensive corpus of papers from eight flagship social science journals that use LLMs as measurement instruments. We find that LLM-generated measurements frequently play a central role in empirical analyses, yet validation practices are inconsistent and limited. We outline complementary strategies for more robust validation, pointing toward better norms and standards around the use of LLMs in social science.

The Agentic Garden of Forking Paths

Empirical research rarely admits a unique analysis. Different analytical choices can lead to different conclusions from the same data, yet these hidden forking paths are difficult to observe. We show that AI agents capture much of the analytical variation among human researchers while making these paths explicit. Across four high-stakes domains, assigning different personas is sufficient for AI agents to report divergent, often opposing, conclusions from the same data and question, with findings systematically aligned with those beliefs. In a study in which 42 human research teams analyzed the same immigration dataset, AI agents reproduced 72% of the human ideological gap in reported effect estimates. Despite reaching opposing conclusions, it is difficult to identify clear issues in each analysis based on the final AI reports: 86% passed independent AI review and 78% passed majority human expert review. These findings suggest that the central challenge is often not flawed analyses, but selective exploration and reporting from a large space of methodologically defensible analyses. AI agents may amplify this longstanding problem by making such exploration inexpensive and scalable. To address this, we introduce the m-value (multiverse value), the probability that an analysis path would produce a claim at least as extreme as the reported one. We further introduce Agentic Bootstrap, which estimates the m-value by using AI agents to sample plausible analysis paths. Applied to the human immigration study, 13.5% of reported human analyses fell in the most extreme 5% of the analysis space (m<0.05). Scientific evidence should therefore be evaluated not only by a single reported analysis but also by its position within the distribution of analyses that could reasonably have been reported. Agentic Bootstrap makes this distribution observable and turns it into a criterion for scientific credibility.

Mapping the Methodological Space of Classroom Interaction Research: Scale, Duration, and Modality in an Age of AI

Research on classroom interaction has long been divided between large-scale observation and in-depth ethnographic work. We propose a framework mapping this methodological space along three dimensions--scale, duration, and modality--where a study's position shapes what it reveals and obscures. We illustrate it through contrasting studies of dialogic teaching--Howe et al. (2019) and Snell and Lefstein (2018)--and an interview with the lead researchers, organized around three questions: what can be operationalized, what mechanisms become visible, and what translates to practice. We then examine how AI is expanding this space and how the framework can guide research and tool design.