Analyzing Duolingo’s AI-first Implementation Controversy: A Quantitative Content Analysis and Qualitative Textual Analysis of Public Dialogue on LinkedIn Using Dialogic Theory

Abstract

The artificial intelligence (AI) has applied in practices of strategic communication, organization, management, and organization–public relational outcomes (Salzano & Ashby-King, 2025). However, research has not examined how the public interprets and responds to organization’s considering AI usages and how publics communicate with organizations about these topics. There is also a gap in understanding which tenets of effective dialogue (Chen et al, 2025) are present between organizations and publics on social media. This study applies dialogic communication theory (Kent & Taylor, 2002) to examine which dialogic principles and tenets of effective dialogue Duolingo and its CEO considered in their Aprill 2025 LinkedIn posts about Duolingo’s AI-first implementation and how publics reacted to the first Duolingo post in terms of how they engaged with both the organization and with other commenters on the post. This study used a multiple method approach, combining qualitative text analysis to analyze both Duolingo and the CEO’s LinkedIn posts using dialogic tenets and principles, and quantitative content analysis to analyze a random sample of 134 public comments on Duolingo’s first announcement about AI implementation. The quantitative portion of the study thus examined publics’ responses to Duolingo and their reactions through fellow publics, exploring the connection between publics comments that mentioned tenets of effective dialogue and the amount of engagement on those comments via likes. The qualitative findings showed that Duolingo’s LinkedIn post only presented the usefulness of information dialogic principle, and publics picked up on the organization’s missing dialogic tenets, mostly related to mutuality and risk. Afterward, the CEO’s follow-up LinkedIn post included a stronger presence of usefulness of information and generation of return visits as dialogic principles, while both Duolingo and the CEO’s post included a moderate presence of dialogic loop. The findings from the quantitative study found that concerned for mutuality and risk were significantly related to the amount of engagement while propinquity, empathy, and commitment were not significantly related. Furthermore, this research provides theoretical and practical implications on an organization’s use of dialogic tenets and principles, and publics respond to organizations when organizations do not demonstrate effective dialogue. The study also provides implications for organizations about aspects of social media communication and AI. This study contributes to understanding how dialogic communication functions in the context of AI-related organizational decisions and how publics engage with organizations and each other on social media platforms.