Vibe coding a qualitative research provotype

Research applicability

Accept a bounded AI-assisted research-prototyping method: the abstract connects coding explicitly to building research probes and an exploratory socio-technical study. Do not describe proposed participant research as completed or infer speed/quality gains.

Getting started

Editorial, untested guidance: read the proposed research design, define a narrow probe and pilot its behaviour before any consented participant study; do not treat generated code as reviewed.

Maintenance

Paper-based workflow; ongoing software maintenance not established.

License

Reuse rights for text/data/software must be checked separately; publication access does not establish unrestricted reuse.

Workflow & human oversight

Researcher-led workflow: people set research questions, approve data access and adjudicate outputs; no autonomous end-to-end performance claim. Workflow level intentionally unspecified.

Workflow level is not an evidence score; higher is not better evidence.

Approach

A work-in-progress methodological proposal uses AI-assisted coding to build a voice-based code-review research probe, intended to elicit qualitative reactions from Danish software developers.

Limitations

Abstract-only publisher review. Work-in-progress paper; the source explicitly leaves finalizing the prototype, research design and data collection as next steps. No evaluated study outcome, canonical software distribution, runnable instructions or independent reproduction confirmed. Evidence label project-documented is conservative: proceedings presence alone does not establish this work-in-progress section underwent peer review.

Reproducibility

No software executed, participants studied or reported outcome independently reproduced by this reviewer.

Adoption requirements

Researcher coding oversight, suitable AI coding tools, secure treatment of any developer code, participant consent and qualitative research design. No installable artifact verified.