What the study analysed
The convergent mixed-methods dissertation, published open access on eScholarship, examined how undergraduates describe and interpret holistic wellbeing. The quantitative strand validated a new eight-dimension wellbeing survey with a final analytic sample of 251 full-time undergraduates. The qualitative strand followed 18 first-year students enrolled in a yoga-based general education seminar in Spring 2025.
Each participant produced nine weekly journal reflections, compiled into a document of roughly 10 to 25 single-spaced pages, alongside a 30 to 60 minute semi-structured interview. Interviews were transcribed with Otter.ai, manually corrected, and de-identified with pseudonyms before any analysis began. The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
A deductive frame, kept open to new codes
The researcher entered a set of predetermined codes drawn from the eight dimensions of holistic wellbeing and from contemplative learning constructs such as self-awareness, emotional regulation, and perspective shifts, then instructed the platform to stay open to codes emerging directly from participants’ language.
Three analyses were run and compared: one over journals, one over interview transcripts, and one combining both sources for overarching themes. In the journal analysis the deductive structure performed as intended, organising responses under all eight wellbeing dimensions. A second pass over the interview data with revised prompts produced an alternative five-theme structure, which the researcher weighed against the first four-theme structure before the combined analysis settled on three overarching themes.
How Evidano fit the workflow
AI organised the volume; interpretation stayed with the researcher.
- 1Data compiled and de-identified
One document per participant, combining welcome survey responses and every journal submission, with interviews transcribed and manually corrected.
- 2Structured prompts and predetermined codes entered
Prompts were aligned to the research questions and to the eight wellbeing dimensions, while leaving room for emergent codes.
- 3Three datasets analysed independently
Journals, interviews, and a combined set, each uploaded separately to preserve the context of the source.
- 4Every code reviewed and interpreted by the researcher
Initial codes and suggested themes were refined and read back against the research questions, with the author’s familiarity as course instructor used to check nuance, divergence, and counterexamples.
“I used AILYZE, an AI-assisted qualitative analysis platform, to support the coding process by organizing large volumes of text data, identifying preliminary patterns, and generating initial thematic structures.”
“Based on these inputs, AILYZE generated initial codes and suggested themes for each dataset, which I then reviewed, refined, and interpreted in relation to my research questions.”
“In the present study, using AI enabled multiple rounds of thematic exploration across journal reflections and interview transcripts, allowing for the comparison of alternative coding structures and thematic interpretations that would have been substantially more time-intensive using traditional approaches alone.”
“While tools like AILYZE cannot replace the interpretive role of the researcher, they may offer valuable support in organizing large datasets, identifying preliminary patterns, and facilitating iterative cycles of coding and thematic development.”
Why AI-assisted over manual coding alone
Comparing alternative coding structures across hundreds of pages of journals and transcripts is slow enough that most researchers settle for a single pass.
Multiple rounds of thematic exploration across both data sources, so alternative structures can be compared rather than assumed.
The platform is named and cited in the data analysis chapter and the reference list.
Predetermined codes were entered up front, with emergent codes still welcome.
Transcripts were de-identified and pseudonymised before upload.
Every code was reviewed, refined, and interpreted by the author, who describes the platform as a thought partner rather than an independent analyst.