What the study analysed
The mixed-methods study examined which leadership credentials the public values when evaluating police chief candidates. A discrete-choice conjoint experiment with 303 respondents was fielded in April 2026, followed roughly two weeks later by an open-ended survey asking respondents to explain how they distinguished between pairs of applicant qualifications.
The follow-up produced 224 complete responses across two questions, each at least 100 characters. Thematic analysis of the professional standards question produced five themes; the evidence-based policing question produced four.
Manual coding first, AI as the cross-check
The first author read every response, generated codes inductively, and built, refined, and defined the themes by hand. Only then was the qualitative data run through Evidano, to triangulate those findings and to help identify oversights, alternative frames, and personal biases.
The paper explains why the tool was chosen: recent qualitative studies had demonstrated its ability to support accurate, low-bias analysis when used with human oversight. All coding and thematic interpretations were then reviewed and validated by the research team.
How Evidano fit the workflow
A human-led thematic analysis, cross-checked rather than replaced.
- 1Open-ended responses collected
224 complete responses to two short-answer questions, following a 303-respondent conjoint survey.
- 2Inductive coding by the first author
Codes were generated from the data, then renamed, combined, or split as new meanings emerged.
- 3Themes generated, refined, and defined
Five themes on professional standards, four on evidence-based policing.
- 4Evidano used to triangulate
A second pass to surface oversights, alternative frames, and personal biases.
- 5Research team reviewed and validated
All coding and thematic interpretations were checked by the team.
“we analyzed our qualitative data using the online AI-powered qualitative analysis software Evidano (formerly known as AIlyze) to triangulate the findings from our thematic analysis and to "help identify oversights, alternative frames, and personal biases"”
“Evidano was selected because recent qualitative studies have demonstrated its ability to support accurate, low-bias qualitative analysis, particularly when used with human oversight.”
“Accordingly, all coding and thematic interpretations were reviewed and validated by the research team.”
What a triangulation pass adds
One analyst coding hundreds of free-text responses carries their own framing into every theme, with nothing to test it against.
An independent pass over the same dataset that surfaces oversights and alternative frames before the findings are published.
The study names Evidano, cites it, and explains why it was selected.
Themes are identified across the entire dataset rather than response by response.
User data is confidential and never used to train models.
Every coding and thematic interpretation was reviewed and validated by the research team.
About Evidano (previously AILYZE)
Evidano is AI-assisted qualitative data analysis software for interviews, focus groups, open-ended survey responses, and documents. It supports AI-assisted thematic analysis with your own or an AI-suggested codebook, transcription and translation in 100+ languages, clickable quotes and citations, and exportable visual reports. End-to-end encryption, no third-party data sharing, and your data is not used to train AI. From USD 50/month for unlimited analysis.
Run the first pass in days, not weeks
Keep the judgment with you. Let Evidano do the heavy lifting on your interviews, focus groups, open-ended responses, and documents.
More case studies
Government & Public SectorAI-assisted qualitative coding, used in a peer-reviewed study
Peer-reviewed, transparent, human-validated AI-assisted qualitative analysis.
Government & Public SectorAI-assisted qualitative analysis is now in the published record
A 2026 study coded 5,211 federal-worker comments with AI, then reviewed every result by hand. See how the workflow held up.
Government & Public SectorAI-assisted qualitative analysis is moving into published research
A published Naval Postgraduate School thesis surfaced 62 concepts from 799 interview excerpts, then refined them by hand.
Related published evidence
Researcher interviews and published citations covering comparable studies.
- Published research2024
62 higher education institutions use Evidano
Evidano surfaced themes across six quarters of data from a 62-institution consortium, with researchers validating every finding.
62 consortium institutions whose data was analyzed
Published research example
- Published research2024
A William & Mary research team used Evidano (previously AILYZE) to analyze 3,443 participants’ open-ended responses
AI-assisted thematic analysis, verified by human researchers, in a published Mensa Foundation report.
3,443 participants in the study
Mensa Foundation report
- Published research2026
AI-assisted qualitative analysis just showed up in published research
A peer-reviewed 2026 Education Sciences study used Evidano (previously AILYZE) to refine its qualitative analysis, with full researcher oversight.
22 courses' open-ended SET comments analyzed
Education Sciences
Explore more evidence
Researcher interviews, the wording authors published when citing Evidano, and accuracy comparisons against manual coding.
- Resource
Research spotlights: researchers in their own words
Interviews with researchers at leading universities and institutes about how they actually used Evidano in work they went on to publish.
- Resource
How Evidano was used, in published methods sections
Verbatim excerpts from 20 published studies describing what Evidano did in their analysis — as a thought partner, a second coder, for initial coding, or for synthesis.
- Resource
Methodology guides and research writing
Practical guides to qualitative methods — thematic analysis, grounded theory, evidence synthesis and more — alongside the wider Evidano article library.
- Resource
Human vs AI: validated accuracy benchmarks
Three head-to-head comparisons against expert human analysis — 371 interview transcripts with Arizona State and Penn State, 298 evaluation reports for a UN evaluation group, and UNICEF’s manual-coding review.