Inside the study
The thesis applied qualitative thematic analysis to interviews with Lagos gallery owners, curators, managers and directors.
How Evidano was used in this study
Organized interview data and codes within a thematic analysis of 13 transcripts.
Supported identification of patterns: similarities, differences, frequencies and correspondences.
Sat within a human-reviewed workflow: transcripts were checked by the researcher and codes were cross-checked against established themes.
How Evidano fit the workflow
From raw interviews to themes
- 113 interviews recorded over five weeks via Zoom
- 2Transcribed, then reviewed for accuracy by the researcher
- 3Hybrid coding with a predefined codebook
- 4Data and codes organized; patterns identified with Evidano
- 53 main themes plus frequency analysis
“AILYZE facilitated the organization of data and codes, supporting the identification of patterns through analysis of similarities, differences, frequencies, and correspondences.”
AI tool use was named openly in the data analysis section.
Transcripts and codes were reviewed and cross-checked by the researcher.
Helped surface frequencies and similarities across many transcripts.
Disclosed use in academic work, not vague AI claims.
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
AcademiaResearchers at Oxford and Melbourne used AI to analyse their interview data
Evidano helped analyse interview transcripts in a peer-reviewed study, then was checked against manual coding.
AcademiaA Stanford-led study used AI to cross-check its qualitative coding
A published mixed-methods study uploaded deidentified transcripts into Evidano to cross-check themes. Every AI code was reviewed by the researcher.
AcademiaResearchers used AI for qualitative analysis. Human experts reached the same conclusions.
A published Cornell study used Evidano (previously AILYZE) for thematic analysis, and human experts reached the same conclusions.
Related published evidence
Researcher interviews and published citations covering comparable studies.
- Published research2025
AI-assisted qualitative analysis is now appearing in published research
A university research team used Evidano to turn 8 interviews into a thematic codebook, with researcher review.
8 interview transcripts analyzed
Journal of Education Research
- Published research2025
AI-assisted coding inside a published University of Glasgow thesis
A researcher generated initial codes with AI, then reviewed every one. Transparent, disclosed, human-led.
12 semi-structured interviews
CEERES Master's thesis, University of Glasgow, University of Tartu and Ilia State University
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.