Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40977760›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025

The online survey in qualitative research: can AI act as a probing tool?

Ryan Thomas Williams, Ewan Ingleby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ryan Thomas WilliamsTeesside University International Business School, TU Online, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Ewan InglebySchool of Social Sciences Humanities and Law, Education Department, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surveys are commonly associated with quantitative methods, yet there is growing recognition of their potential to yield qualitative insights into complex social phenomena. However, the effectiveness of open-ended survey questions is often limited by issues such as respondent fatigue and low-quality responses. To address these limitations, researchers are increasingly exploring the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to support dynamic survey design, probing questions, and participant engagement. This article explores the role of qualitative surveys in social science research, by considering their alignment with qualitative paradigms. The content assesses how AI-powered features, such as machine learning and chatbot-driven interfaces, can enhance data collection through adaptive questioning. The article also discusses key challenges related to data quality, participant inclusivity, and ethical considerations. Particular attention is given to the concept of "felt anonymity" in online surveys, which can encourage candid disclosures on sensitive topics and broaden participation across diverse populations. When designed with ethical and methodological care, qualitative surveys can thus serve as powerful tools for accessing underrepresented perspectives. By integrating AI into qualitative survey design, researchers can enhance both the richness and reach of their data. This article argues that AI-powered qualitative surveys, especially those capable of dynamic probing, offer a promising hybrid approach, bridging the scalability of surveys with the responsiveness of interviews, and calls for further empirical study of their ethical and epistemological implications.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceonline surveyqualitative research designqualitative surveysurvey question design

Identifiers

PMID40977760
PMCPMC12447317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.