Prompting for Meaning: Exploring Generative AI Tools for Qualitative Data Analysis in Leadership Research

IF 0.6 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Daniel M. Jenkins, Shannon Cleverley-Thompson, Dan Erikson, Anna Blankenbaker, Brooke Brown-Saracino
{"title":"Prompting for Meaning: Exploring Generative AI Tools for Qualitative Data Analysis in Leadership Research","authors":"Daniel M. Jenkins,&nbsp;Shannon Cleverley-Thompson,&nbsp;Dan Erikson,&nbsp;Anna Blankenbaker,&nbsp;Brooke Brown-Saracino","doi":"10.1002/jls.70014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As generative AI (GenAI) tools rapidly evolve and become more accessible, their application in leadership education and research demands critical reflection and experimentation. The current practitioner-focused study presents two use cases exploring how GenAI tools—including Retrieval-augmented generation platforms like NotebookLM and large language models like ChatGPT and Claude—can support qualitative data analysis in leadership contexts. The first case analyzes open-ended responses from 237 participants about their “best” and “worst” bosses, while the second examines semi-structured interviews from a phenomenological study of leadership educators. These methods were piloted with graduate students through a three-way comparison methodology. Students conducted AI-assisted analysis, compared findings with expert human coding, and examined peer variations in analytical approaches. The comparative analysis reveals key differences across AI tools regarding transparency, analytic depth, usability, and ethical implications, highlighting both affordances and limitations, including variable output quality, learning curves, and the need for methodological rigor. Student outcomes demonstrate that AI tools can effectively support various phases of qualitative methodology while requiring human oversight for interpretive depth, bias detection, and validation of outputs. GenAI can be a helpful analytical partner in leadership research when integrated thoughtfully through pedagogical frameworks emphasizing human–AI collaboration rather than replacement, preparing emerging researchers to leverage technological capabilities while maintaining—and at times enhancing—the interpretive richness essential to qualitative inquiry in leadership studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":45503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership Studies","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Leadership Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jls.70014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As generative AI (GenAI) tools rapidly evolve and become more accessible, their application in leadership education and research demands critical reflection and experimentation. The current practitioner-focused study presents two use cases exploring how GenAI tools—including Retrieval-augmented generation platforms like NotebookLM and large language models like ChatGPT and Claude—can support qualitative data analysis in leadership contexts. The first case analyzes open-ended responses from 237 participants about their “best” and “worst” bosses, while the second examines semi-structured interviews from a phenomenological study of leadership educators. These methods were piloted with graduate students through a three-way comparison methodology. Students conducted AI-assisted analysis, compared findings with expert human coding, and examined peer variations in analytical approaches. The comparative analysis reveals key differences across AI tools regarding transparency, analytic depth, usability, and ethical implications, highlighting both affordances and limitations, including variable output quality, learning curves, and the need for methodological rigor. Student outcomes demonstrate that AI tools can effectively support various phases of qualitative methodology while requiring human oversight for interpretive depth, bias detection, and validation of outputs. GenAI can be a helpful analytical partner in leadership research when integrated thoughtfully through pedagogical frameworks emphasizing human–AI collaboration rather than replacement, preparing emerging researchers to leverage technological capabilities while maintaining—and at times enhancing—the interpretive richness essential to qualitative inquiry in leadership studies.

意义提示:探索领导力研究中定性数据分析的生成式人工智能工具
随着生成式人工智能(GenAI)工具的迅速发展和变得更容易获得,它们在领导力教育和研究中的应用需要批判性的反思和实验。当前以实践者为中心的研究提出了两个用例,探索GenAI工具(包括检索增强生成平台,如NotebookLM和大型语言模型,如ChatGPT和claude)如何在领导环境中支持定性数据分析。第一个案例分析了237名参与者关于“最佳”和“最差”老板的开放式回答,而第二个案例分析了一项针对领导力教育工作者的现象学研究中的半结构化访谈。这些方法通过三种比较方法在研究生中进行试点。学生们进行了人工智能辅助分析,将研究结果与专家的人类编码进行了比较,并检查了同行在分析方法上的差异。比较分析揭示了人工智能工具在透明度、分析深度、可用性和伦理影响方面的关键差异,突出了优点和局限性,包括可变输出质量、学习曲线和对方法严密性的需求。学生的成果表明,人工智能工具可以有效地支持定性方法的各个阶段,同时需要人类对解释深度、偏见检测和输出验证进行监督。如果通过强调人类与人工智能合作而不是替代的教学框架进行深思熟虑的整合,GenAI可以成为领导力研究中有用的分析伙伴,使新兴研究人员准备好利用技术能力,同时保持(有时增强)领导力研究中定性探究所必需的解释性丰富性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
33
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信