Qualitative and Quantitative Research: A Synergistic Approach

**Qualitative and Quantitative Research: A Synergistic Approach**

Burgess argued that statistical methods and case studies are not opposed, but in fact, complementary. Comparisons and statistical correlations may suggest clues for research, and documentary materials invite the construction of more appropriate statistical indicators. This represents a complementarity in the development and innovation of the technical concerns of the Chicago school.

Thirty-five years later, in his article, *Zeithel* develops qualitative community studies, analyzes them, and opens them up quantitatively. *Sieber* raises the need to distinguish the distinctive contribution of each method to the entire inquiry, to obtain better information and greater efficiency. *Sieber* reflects on how to modify techniques to be used in conjunction with others. Even when speaking of integration, from the exhibition that takes place here, it remains essentially a supplementation. It is the opening of the quantitative to the qualitative, thus opening the debate on joint methods.

Cicourel criticizes the production of quantitative data to generalize specific situations, such as the interview by questionnaire. The basic arguments are:

1. The interview situation is not equal for all respondents, and therefore, it is not the same instrument for all.
2. Poor adaptation of measuring instruments, such as scales and concepts measured.

Reichart and Cook state that attributes are not seen as mutually exclusive in the two paradigms; it is more a question of attributes in opposing polarity. Thus, the antagonism paradigm is passed to an emphasis on the capabilities and consequences of integration.

The joint concern with the micro-sociological and macro-sociological is another factor driving the articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods. In this sense, there is a desire for joint action with structure. In discussing the action-structure duality, research derived from both levels cannot be done with the same method. Therefore, this translates into ontological dualism supplemented by methodological dualism.

**Articulation in Complementing**

It is defined as the realization of a methodological research design using different research techniques or practices to cover different aspects of the research object. In principle, these aspects are considered complementary. The main function is to complement the research object or phenomenon with the use of at least two points of view, from the awareness that every observer's perspective is limited and that any such object or phenomenon is complex.

The greatest complementation occurs when using opposing viewpoints, considered as qualitative and quantitative. Authors such as *Alvira* and *Garcia Ferrando* express complementary epistemological concern. Their principle is that from different perspectives, the object to be studied is supplemented.

Each type of approach is used in relation to a different problem or a different aspect of the research problem. Complementarity rests on the doctrine of the double quantitative and qualitative aspect of reality. One can also speak of a methodological complement to distance oneself from the strong assumptions of epistemological and ontological complementarity.

Methodological complementarity assumes the limitation of all research practices, without, therefore, intending to supplement the order, as it supports complete reality as impossible. However, it admits that the view seen is greater if multiple types of techniques are used independently.

Supplementation virtually stays in the joint use of various techniques and social research perspectives. The proposed joint approach is lowered, with benefits such as the possibility of both different approaches and applications of research techniques. Because none of them depends on the results of the other or others, the research team can save time by proceeding in parallel.