I agree with Diane that "solution" for qual. vs. quant. is not in schools
and purifying methodologies but in politics, practices, and deeds.
In short, "pure" qual. research is often meaningful but unreliable,
non-generalizable and potentially idiosyncratic and even sloppy. "Pure"
quint. research is reliable, generalizable but often meaningless. I think
we have a case the "principle of uncertainty" -- the more meaningful (and
particular) analysis become the more it becomes unreliable and
idiosyncratic. And visa versa. I think that attempts to find a solution in
meta-analysis to make quant. research more meaningful or crossing "weak
evidence" to make qual. research more reliable will fail because the
criteria for meaning and reliability exceeds the academic DISCIPLINE (i.e.,
new and old schools, methodologies, policies for article submission, grant
proposals) but come from the border of academic and non-academic practices.
What do you think?
Eugene