Investigating qualitative depth of AI-moderated interviews
Summary
When research teams are small, the hardest tradeoff is often between depth and scale. Live interviews surface rich, contextual insights, but they’re also time-consuming, resource-heavy, thus often deprioritized when bandwidth is low. In this session, I’ll share how I experimented with AI-moderated interviews to bridge that gap, using technology to recover depth and empathy without requiring live facilitation. Faced with the need to understand our customers’ decision-making (those who purchased our platform, and those who didn’t), I initially relied on surveys. However, I found they lacked the nuance that real conversations reveal. By introducing AI moderation, I created a way for participants to engage in adaptive, conversational interviews that went beyond the limits of static forms. I’ll walk through how I set up these sessions, what prompts worked (and didn’t), and how I analyzed the results. I’ll also share how I’ve used other AI tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity to assist with synthesis and bias-checking, creating a workflow that both expands my analytical reach and strengthens the rigor of my findings. As AI tools continue to enter the researcher’s toolkit, this case study illustrates how we can thoughtfully integrate them to expand—not erode—the human depth of qualitative work. It offers a model for how lean teams can maintain research quality while navigating the realities of limited time, budget, and capacity. This talk will explore the emerging space between automation and augmentation, finding opportunity for depth when time and resources are tight.”
Key Insights
-
•
AI moderation enables more qualitative depth than surveys due to participants speaking freely rather than typing.
-
•
AI moderation platforms require detailed and explicit research plans to guide effective questioning.
-
•
AI moderation often struggles with natural conversational flow and can produce awkward pauses or interruptions.
-
•
Follow-up questions from AI moderators can be vague, repetitive, or miss opportunities to dive deeper.
-
•
AI moderation is best suited for validation or deepening understanding of known problem spaces, not foundational discovery.
-
•
Participants may prefer AI moderation over surveys due to ease and flexibility, supporting higher and quicker recruitment.
-
•
AI moderation platforms currently do not replace human analysis or provide strong quantitative outputs.
-
•
High emotion or sensitive topics may work better with AI moderation if participants prefer anonymity, but human interviews excel at rapport.
-
•
Researchers need to invest time troubleshooting and iterating prompts in AI moderated studies.
-
•
AI moderated studies allow teams of one to scale qualitative research when live interviews are infeasible.
Notable Quotes
"Having one-on-calls with people is one of my favorite parts of conducting research, and it felt like this was being taken away from me just for the sake of saving business resources."
"AI moderation, in short, is a large language model that runs a moderated interview session without a human researcher present."
"I was interested in thinking of this method as a survey plus that you can use to get survey-like data but with more qualitative depth."
"When I gave the model my list of interview questions, it actually made for a really bizarre participant experience because the model just went down the line of the different questions."
"People were more likely to explain their thought process and just more context around the particular situation of their org."
"There were moments like long kind of awkward pauses where the model was processing, and sometimes it actually spoke over participants."
"Follow-up questions missed opportunities to probe deeper or were confusing, and participants had to repeat themselves."
"If I really just needed only quantitative data from a survey, then I would not go the AI moderated route."
"AI moderation did not make the research easier. It made it possible under real world constraints."
"From setup to analysis, AI moderation still requires a good understanding of what quality research looks like and how to interpret qualitative data."
Or choose a question:
More Videos
"At DTA, distributed teams and lack of local diversity meant everyone was out in the field a lot to get diverse input."
Leisa ReicheltOpening Keynote: Operating in Context
November 7, 2018
"I'm basically a philosopher because 50% of people don't know what an ethicist is."
Cennydd BowlesExit Interview #2: Rediscovering the ethical heart of design
November 6, 2025
"You’ve got to take control of the backlog and position your team as value-driven, not just servicing individual teams."
Andrew MichaelBuilding a Product Insights Team
March 10, 2022
"A lot of the rich juicy details from their time on sites would have been lost, and that hurt my nerdy soul."
Veevi RosensteinBuilding for Scale: Creating the Zendesk UX Research Practice
January 8, 2024
"Recruiters have become conditioned to treat demographic criteria as flexible or optional, and I want to say they shouldn't be."
Megan CamposWhat Did I Miss? The Hidden Costs of Deprioritizing Diversity in User Research
March 12, 2021
"Design is an excellent way to navigate chaos, turning ambiguity into direction through alternatives."
Aras BilgenWho does the math: A designer’s journey in building an AI-based tutoring app
June 10, 2025
"Every problem is a research problem."
Ron BronsonDesign, Consequences & Everyday Life
November 18, 2022
"It’s not about pure automation. It's like playing tennis—back and forth between human and agent."
Tina WeisserWhen AI Agents Meet Reality. Service Design Lessons from a Pilot
February 26, 2026
"There was a lot of communication needed around roles, especially since our software developer was external and not always involved in day-to-day decisions."
Dr Chloe SharpUsing Evidence and Collaboration for Setting and Defending Priorities
November 29, 2023
