The letter, organised and posted on LinkedIn by Katherine Rhodes and signed by around 50 practitioners, stated that AI tools are being “passed off” as qualitative or “qual-at-scale”.

The letter cited a recent Anthropic study of 81,000 Claude users, which the company itself described as  “the largest ... qualitative study ever conducted”.

Researchers said in the letter: “Passing off such studies as qualitative research causes harm to the clients who believe they are getting something they are not, and harm to our community, whose incomes are being squeezed and whose work is being displaced.”

The letter stressed that its authors are not “anti-AI” and that AI “can help at various points” within the qualitative process, but said labelling AI-led studies as ‘qualitative’ “bypasses the substance and essence of what we do entirely”.

It continued: “Qualitative research is deep, human, and irreplaceable for certain kinds of knowledge. Its name and distinctive value need protecting.”

The letter called on MRS to develop, with research bodies, a set of definitions that distinguishes qualitative market research from other forms of insight.

The signatories also asked MRS for “consistent application of the standards that MRS membership already implies”, adding: “If misrepresenting market research methods is a breach of the Code, this should apply equally to qualitative research.”

MRS regulates research ethics and standards via its Code of Conduct, with MRS members and company partners agreeing to regulatory compliance of their professional activities via the code.

Jane Frost, chief executive at MRS, said in a statement: “The Business of Evidence is a vibrant and growing market in a state of rapid change as we show in our Business of Evidence Report. The very different methodologies of which it is composed bring very different benefits as part of a wide-ranging tool kit available to the evidence and research industry.”

Frost continued: “We have already expressed our opinion in social media on the importance of definitions in ensuring clients make the right choice of methodology.

“We provide a significant body of advice, guidance and training on the application of AI to research and are planning to provide further guidance on the issue of definitions.

“As the regulator, our advice on such matters must be robust and supported by stakeholders. I am delighted that the authors of this letter have already agreed to participate in our consultations.”