Reflexis: Supporting Reflexivity and Rigor in Collaborative Qualitative Analysis through Design for Deliberation

Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) is a critical method for generating deep interpretive insights. Yet its core tenets, including researcher reflexivity, tangible analytical evolution, and productive disagreement, are often poorly supported by software tools that prioritize speed and consensus over interpretive depth. To address this gap, we introduce Reflexis, a collaborative workspace that centers these practices. It supports reflexivity by integrating in-situ reflection prompts, makes code evolution transparent and tangible, and scaffolds collaborative interpretation by turning differences into productive, positionality-aware dialogue. Results from our paired-analyst study (N=12) indicate that Reflexis encouraged participants toward more granular reflection and reframed disagreements as productive conversations. The evaluation also surfaced key design tensions, including a desire for higher-level, networked memos and more user control over the timing of proactive alerts. Reflexis contributes a design framework for tools that prioritize rigor and transparency to support deep, collaborative interpretation in an age of automation.

Do MLLMs See What We See? Analyzing Visualization Literacy Barriers in AI Systems

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to interpret visualizations, yet little is known about why they fail. We present the first systematic analysis of barriers to visualization literacy in MLLMs. Using the regenerated Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (reVLAT) benchmark with synthetic data, we open-coded 309 erroneous responses from four state-of-the-art models with a barrier-centric strategy adapted from human visualization literacy research. Our analysis yields a taxonomy of MLLM failures, revealing two machine-specific barriers that extend prior human-participation frameworks. Results show that models perform well on simple charts but struggle with color-intensive, segment-based visualizations, often failing to form consistent comparative reasoning. Our findings inform future evaluation and design of reliable AI-driven visualization assistants.

ScholarMate: A Mixed-Initiative Tool for Qualitative Knowledge Work and Information Sensemaking

Synthesizing knowledge from large document collections is a critical yet increasingly complex aspect of qualitative research and knowledge work. While AI offers automation potential, effectively integrating it into human-centric sensemaking workflows remains challenging. We present ScholarMate, an interactive system designed to augment qualitative analysis by unifying AI assistance with human oversight. ScholarMate enables researchers to dynamically arrange and interact with text snippets on a non-linear canvas, leveraging AI for theme suggestions, multi-level summarization, and contextual naming, while ensuring transparency through traceability to source documents. Initial pilot studies indicated that users value this mixed-initiative approach, finding the balance between AI suggestions and direct manipulation crucial for maintaining interpretability and trust. We further demonstrate the system's capability through a case study analyzing 24 papers. By balancing automation with human control, ScholarMate enhances efficiency and supports interpretability, offering a valuable approach for productive human-AI collaboration in demanding sensemaking tasks common in knowledge work.

The Design Space of Recent AI-assisted Research Tools for Ideation, Sensemaking, and Scientific Creativity

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are radically expanding the scope and capability of automation in knowledge work such as academic research. AI-assisted research tools show promise for augmenting human cognition and streamlining research processes, but could potentially increase automation bias and stifle critical thinking. We surveyed the past three years of publications from leading HCI venues. We closely examined 11 AI-assisted research tools, five employing traditional AI approaches and six integrating GenAI, to explore how these systems envision novel capabilities and design spaces. We consolidate four design recommendations that inform cognitive engagement when working with an AI research tool: Providing user agency and control; enabling divergent and convergent thinking; supporting adaptability and flexibility; and ensuring transparency and accuracy. We discuss how these ideas mark a shift in AI-assisted research tools from mimicking a researcher's established workflows to generative co-creation with the researcher and the opportunities this shift affords the research community.