How Evidano fit the workflow
A human-led workflow, with AI as a second lens
- 1Manual coding first
Researchers familiarized themselves with the data and coded it by hand using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke) and the Gioia method.
- 2Analysis with Evidano
The same data were then analyzed with Evidano, the AI tool for qualitative research analysis named in the study.
- 3Compare and synthesize
Results from both approaches were compared and synthesized. The publication reports that Evidano supported "triangulation of findings and identification of patterns" that manual coding may not have immediately surfaced.
“an emerging AI tool for qualitative research analysis”
One analytic lens. Patterns can be missed. Cross-checking is hand-done.
A second lens for triangulation. Surfaces patterns manual coding may miss. Results compared and synthesized.
Use AI as a second lens next to your own coding, as the study did.
In the study, Evidano flagged patterns the manual coding had not immediately realized.
Humans coded first; Evidano supported their judgment rather than replacing it.
Evidano (as AILYZE) was named openly in the published methods section.
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 research2026
A Journal of Experimental Criminology study triangulated its themes with Evidano
A peer-reviewed criminology study analysed its open-ended responses by hand, then used Evidano to triangulate the findings and surface oversights.
303 respondents in the conjoint survey
Journal of Experimental Criminology (Springer)
- Published research2025
AI Thematic Analysis
A 2025 mixed-methods education study cited Evidano (previously AILYZE) in its methods to identify themes across teachers' open-ended responses.
75 teachers in the training program
Education and New Developments 2025
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.