document workplace processes (qualitative)

This study examines the tension between efficiency gains and researcher autonomy arising from AI-assisted analysis in qualitative research. Through in-depth interviews with 16 qualitative researchers, it comparatively analyzes acceptance and underlying mechanisms across three coding paradigms: fully manual, human-initiated AI-assisted, and AI-initiated. The study innovatively conceptualizes AI explicitly as a “supporter”—neither collaborator nor supervisor—and identifies three core determinants of adoption: efficiency enhancement, attribution of interpretive ownership, and algorithmic trust. Findings indicate broad acceptance of AI for accelerating coding and thematic analysis, yet strong consensus on human primacy in meaning-making and interpretive authority. Enhancing procedural transparency, researcher control, and structured human–AI collaboration significantly strengthens trust and mitigates bias risks. The work provides theoretical grounding and actionable guidelines for developing human-centered, accountable AI-augmented qualitative research workflows.

This study investigates the misalignment between data workers’ implicit cognitive models of complex hierarchical data (e.g., nested tables) and the explicit data models encoded in analysis code, and how such misalignment negatively impacts analytical efficiency and accuracy. Method: Through semi-structured interviews, cognitive sketching, and reflexive thematic coding with 10 collaborative data practitioners, we systematically identify divergent, coexisting cognitive models within teams. Contribution/Results: We introduce the novel concept of “parallel risk”—a form of collaborative breakdown arising from persistent cognitive misalignment between data model designers and end users. All participants exhibited internal representations inconsistent with the true data structure, leading to systematic reasoning errors. Based on these findings, we derive human-centered design principles and intervention strategies for analytical tools that promote cognitive alignment. This work establishes a theoretical foundation and practical framework for improving usability in data engineering and visualization systems.

Existing dataset documentation tools struggle to achieve real-world adoption due to ambiguous value propositions, misalignment with practical contexts, insufficient attention to human labor costs, and a lack of systemic integration. This study addresses these challenges through a mixed-methods systematic scoping review of 59 relevant publications, combining qualitative coding with quantitative synthesis to uncover the underlying motivations driving tool design and their relationship to institutional norms. The analysis identifies four key patterns that hinder adoption and advances a responsible AI design perspective that shifts emphasis from individual accountability to institutional solutions. The work advocates embedding sustainable documentation practices within organizational workflows and cultures, offering the HCI community actionable pathways toward institutionalizing responsible data stewardship.

This study addresses the limitations of conventional interview analysis, which relies heavily on researchers’ specialized qualitative skills, is difficult to scale, and often overlooks participants’ own interpretive logics. To overcome these challenges, the paper proposes the Documentary Mode of Interpretation (DMI), a membership-based method grounded in ordinary people’s natural language competencies. DMI identifies endogenous themes within interview texts to uncover the collective reasoning processes participants employ in making sense of the research topic. Crucially, this approach requires neither predefined coding frameworks nor formal training in social theory, thereby departing from traditional qualitative paradigms by generating themes bottom-up from participants’ perspectives. By significantly lowering the technical and epistemic barriers to qualitative analysis, DMI offers non-specialist researchers an accessible, low-threshold pathway to effectively interpret the collective meaning structures embedded in interview data.

Despite growing adoption of large language models (LLMs) in visualization design research, there remains a lack of systematic empirical understanding of their practical roles and limitations. Method: We conducted a multi-stage qualitative study—including in-depth interviews and structured surveys—with 30 interdisciplinary researchers actively using LLMs in real-world visualization projects. Contribution/Results: We identify LLMs’ concrete functions, recurrent strategies, and shared challenges across key design phases—problem framing, data comprehension, and solution generation. Building on these insights, we propose “VizLLM,” the first comprehensive application framework that systematically integrates LLM-assisted mechanisms and evidence-informed practice principles throughout the end-to-end visualization design process. This work bridges a critical theoretical gap in LLM-augmented design research and delivers a reusable, empirically grounded methodology with actionable implementation pathways for researchers and practitioners.

Design-oriented visualization research often struggles to meet conventional reproducibility standards due to its inherent subjectivity, contextual dependence, and iterative nature, thereby limiting its transparency and rigor. To address this challenge, this work proposes “traceability” as a viable alternative to traditional reproducibility. It presents the first systematic theoretical framework centered on three core components—recording, reporting, and reading—and introduces tRRRacer, a supporting tool implementing this framework. Through collaborative autoethnography, the authors reflect on practical applications of traceability in design-oriented research, demonstrating its feasibility and yielding actionable principles alongside theoretical insights. This approach offers a novel pathway to enhance the rigor and transparency of such studies without relying on strict reproducibility criteria.

This study addresses a critical limitation in current learning analytics tools, wherein frequency-oriented visualizations often obscure rare yet educationally significant student feedback. To bridge the gap between quantitative visualization and qualitative educational research, the authors engaged STEM education researchers in analyzing student logs using the WordStream platform. Through an integrated approach combining thematic analysis, member checking, and mixed-methods user research, the study uncovered epistemological tensions educators face when repurposing quantitative codings for qualitative inquiry. Three core themes emerged: tool experience, disciplinary contextualization, and the integration of quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Building on these insights, the work proposes design principles for visualizations that support deep qualitative exploration, offering both theoretical grounding and practical guidance for the next generation of learning analytics tools.

This study addresses the lack of empirical evaluation regarding whether existing dataset documentation frameworks effectively foster developer reflectivity. Combining mixed-methods thematic analysis with corpus-assisted discourse analysis, the research systematically examines how prevailing documentation frameworks—and their real-world instantiations—cover core dimensions of reflectivity. The findings reveal, for the first time, that current frameworks consistently overlook critical reflective themes. Building on this insight, the authors develop a reflectivity-oriented coding manual and propose an enhanced datasheet template incorporating targeted prompts to elicit deeper reflection. This work offers actionable strategies and practical tools to strengthen the reflective capacity of dataset documentation practices.