Can we overcome the methodological schism? Four models for combining qualitative and quantitative evidence

Publication Summary

This paper considers a variety of approaches to combining research findings drawn from what are traditionally deemed ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ methods. These include models for Bayesian syntheses, new political arithmetic, complex interventions, and design experiments, as well as the more usual literature review and ‘new’ realism. The paper argues that none of these approaches pose insurmountable epistemological or technical problems. Rather, opposition to the use of such models may stem from wasteful ‘paradigm’ wars fed perhaps by fear of the unknown, and leading to unproductive methodological schism. The ‘compleat’ researcher should presumably be prepared to find, use and critique all evidence relevant to their quest, regardless of its form. This is a challenge to entrenched views about the relationship between ‘world views’ and methodological allegiance, and involves instead a recognition that no method is intrinsically preferable to any other. The key underlying principle which guides the choice of methods is fitness for purpose.