alterlab-qualitative-analysis

name	alterlab-qualitative-analysis
description	Analyzes qualitative data as a dispatched pipeline module — codebook development, thematic / framework / content analysis, and inter-coder reliability computed correctly (Krippendorff's alpha as primary via the krippendorff package or a bundled stdlib nominal calculator with bootstrap CIs; Cohen's / Fleiss' kappa via statsmodels) with 95% CIs and thresholds (alpha >= .80 reliable, .667-.80 tentative). It BRANCHES by design: coefficient-based ICR for codebook / content-analytic coding, versus consensus-and-reflexivity for reflexive thematic analysis where a statistic is not the right criterion. Supports human-vs-LLM double-coding with an alpha check against a human gold standard. Use when coding interviews or open-ended text, building a codebook, or reporting intercoder reliability. For topic modeling / embeddings / supervised text classification prefer alterlab-text-as-data; for the reflexivity gate prefer alterlab-ssci-reflexivity-gate. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.
license	MIT
allowed-tools	Read Bash(python:*)
compatibility	Requires (declare in-session, no runtime install on Anthropic API): Python krippendorff>=0.8, statsmodels>=0.14 (Fleiss/Cohen kappa via statsmodels.stats.inter_rater), pandas. For alpha with CIs use R irrCAC / icr, or the bundled stdlib nominal calculator. Optional LLM-assisted coding uses the platform's model. Runs locally via `uv run python`; no extra API key.
metadata	{"skill-author":"AlterLab","version":"1.0.0","depends_on":"alterlab-qualitative-methods (methodology reference), alterlab-text-as-data (computational text), alterlab-ssci-reflexivity-gate (trustworthiness)"}

Qualitative Analysis — Reliability When It Fits, Consensus When It Doesn't

Skill type: ANALYSIS MODULE. Codes qualitative data and reports agreement correctly. The central discipline is a branch: a reliability coefficient is right for codebook/content-analytic work, but for reflexive thematic analysis the criterion is consensus and reflexivity, not a statistic. The skill does not oversell the number.

Core Mission

KRIPPENDORFF'S ALPHA IS THE PRIMARY COEFFICIENT — BUT A COEFFICIENT IS THE WRONG TOOL FOR REFLEXIVE TA.
BRANCH BY DESIGN.

When to Use This Skill

• "Two RAs coded my interviews with a codebook — compute intercoder reliability."
• "Build/refine a codebook and report agreement."
• "I used an LLM to code open-ended responses — does it agree with my human coding?"
• "Which reliability statistics do I report for a content analysis?"

Does NOT Trigger

The request is really about…	Route to	Why not this skill
Topic modeling / embeddings / supervised text classification	alterlab-text-as-data	Computational text, not human-coding reliability.
Whether the study is trustworthy (positionality, Lincoln & Guba)	alterlab-ssci-reflexivity-gate	Trustworthiness gate, not the coding itself.
Choosing the qualitative method (grounded theory, phenomenology)	alterlab-qualitative-methods	Methodology selection, upstream.
Whether a scale is reliable/valid (quantitative)	alterlab-ssci-measurement-gate	Psychometrics, different problem.

The branch (this is the core discipline)

Design	Reliability criterion
Codebook / content-analytic coding (fixed categories, replicable)	compute an ICR coefficient (Krippendorff's α) with a CI and threshold
Reflexive thematic analysis (interpretive, researcher-as-instrument)	consensus + reflexivity — collaborative discussion to understand differences; a coefficient misrepresents the epistemology and is NOT required. Route trustworthiness to .