ABSTRACT
As I started writing this chapter, a debate between my understanding of quantitative and qualitative research as two ends of one continuum began to simmer in the recesses of my mind. How did a dichotomy ever occur? How could a qualitative “school” emerge in research? Lumping research methods such as phenomenology, ethnography or grounded theory under an umbrella term really does little justice to each of the methods. Yet this has developed, as has its own jargon that engenders automatic responses to the semantics. For example, the common saying: “quality not quantity”; “follow your head not your heart,” “be scientific,” or “a logical argument is sounder than an emotional argument,” are all loaded statements, which imply that traditional scientific problem solving is sounder than examinations of people’s experiences. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily apply to research but using the terms qualitative and quantitative does trigger preconceived responses. We all want quality but not necessarily quantity in many aspects of our lives, but how does life quality equate with research quality? Are randomized controlled trials not of quality? Is there quantity in ethnographic studies? Indeed, can such a difference exist?
