“From our perspective, the use of both qualitative and
quantitative methods may be appropriate for any research
paradigm. In fact, questions of method are secondary to those
of paradigm, which we define as the basic belief system or
worldview that guides the researcher and not only to choose the
methods, but in ways that are ontological and epistemologically
fundamental”.
The theme of methodological complementarity goes through the
dilemma of the absence of basic epistemological foundation to approach
reality. McMillan and Schumacher (2005: 128-129), point out that quantitative
research is based on some form of logical positivism that seeks to establish
how things are by avoiding value judgments; while qualitative research is based
on constructionism, which seeks to explain how people come to describe,
explain or give an account of the world where they live. These two traditions
are often seen as antagonistic and without possibilities for discussion or
cooperation.
The proposal of complementarity between the two paradigms can be
considered as a valid option in research; because each one of the
methodologies makes important contributions to the construction of
knowledge. Its rigid use, without doubts, impoverishes the process of searching
for new knowledge, by preventing the incorporation into the investigative
process of the benefits that each of them possesses and prevents reaching
more interesting findings.
The possibilities of complementation can be based on the principles of
consistency and dialectical unity. The quantitative in its hypothetico-deductive
logic contributes to the process the explanation and the relation of cause and
effect. In turn, the qualitative with its inductive-deductive understanding goes
into the complex paths of construction and decoding of meanings of human
subjectivity, which considers the individual and the group, as a result of the
13
Editorial
Guba and Lincoln (2002: 113), state: