Dear Banuka,

qualitative research methods are often opposed to quantitative ones, however, in my opinion, qualitative analysis is the first step in research, and the second is the use of quantitative methods, since only quantitative data provide reproducible results. Thus, a qualitative analysis is needed to build a "coordinate system" for the application of quantitative research methods. PS Thanks to Google for the translation.

Dear Vladimir,

It's interesting to hear your perspective on the use of qualitative and quantitative research methods. I agree that qualitative analysis can provide a valuable foundation for quantitative research, particularly in terms of establishing a "coordinate system" for the data. However, I would argue that qualitative research also has its own unique strengths and can provide valuable insights that may be missed with a purely quantitative approach.

For example, qualitative research can allow for a more in-depth exploration of the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of participants, which may not be fully captured by quantitative measures alone. Additionally, qualitative research can help identify new and unexpected research questions that may not have been initially considered in the design of a quantitative study.

With that said, I do agree that quantitative research is important for providing reproducible and generalizable results, particularly in fields where empirical evidence is crucial for informing policy or practice.

My question for you is: In what ways do you think researchers can balance the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to maximize the benefits of both?

Dear Banuka,

I believe the best way is to use multiple iterations. First, the formulation of the first version of the "coordinate system" and the formulation of hypotheses that allow obtaining quantitative data that can be compared with real data. Then you need to formulate new hypotheses that allow you to include in the analysis the additional quantitative data available, and so on, so that -- and this is an important point of the qualitative analysis specifically -- the main qualitative characteristics on the one hand and the main quantitative data on the other hand would be involved in the quantitative analysis. I believe that this approach works in any discipline. PS Thanks to Google for the translation.

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for sharing your insights on the integration of qualitative and quantitative research methods. I have one more question for you: In your experience, what are some practical challenges that researchers often face when attempting to balance qualitative and quantitative approaches? And how can these challenges be addressed or mitigated?

I'm interested to hear your perspective on this matter.

Dear Banuka,

The most difficult thing is that the first hypotheses are formulated within the same discipline, and the available quantitative data are scattered in different directions in different disciplines, and it is not immediately possible to find the optimal balance between the scale of the qualitative "coordinate system" and the selection of quantitative data. For example, within the framework of theoretical sociology, I deal with the problem of the formation of historical generations (J. Ortega y Gasset wrote about historical generations as a philosopher) and in order to find a solution, I studied the interaction of groups of people within different political regimes in different eras (sociology of law, political science and political history), looking for data on the chronology of political change in different countries (the political history of Russia in the 10th-20th centuries, the USA, China in the 7th-20th centuries and India in the 13th-17th centuries) and looking for quantitative parameters that reflect the change of generations, for example, military activity data and the number of treasures per unit of time (military history and economic history of Eastern Europe in the 9th-10th centuries). Thus, the hypotheses originally formulated within the framework of theoretical sociology required an appeal to law, political science and history. This is incredibly interesting, but takes a lot of time and, most importantly, the intermediate results have a "half-digested look" and cannot be published. New approaches are always difficult to describe. From the outside, it seems that you did little work, because you wrote and published little. But if you do not publish virtually the same results in different versions, then there will be few publications. You have to be able to ignore the "fashion in science" and do your job, and not run here and there (where many run). PS Thanks to Google for the translation.

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for sharing your experience and insights on conducting interdisciplinary research. It's indeed a challenging task to balance qualitative and quantitative data from different disciplines and find an optimal solution to formulate hypotheses. I appreciate your example of studying the formation of historical generations within the framework of theoretical sociology and using data from sociology of law, political science, political history, military history, and economic history of different countries to find quantitative parameters reflecting the change of generations.

I agree with you that conducting interdisciplinary research takes a lot of time and effort, and the intermediate results may have a "half-digested look" that cannot be published. However, it's essential to persist in our research and not be swayed by the "fashion in science." It's also valuable to publish our results in different versions to increase our publications and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in different fields.

Thank you again for your valuable insights, and I look forward to learning more from you.

Best regards,

Banuka.

Dear Banuka,

Thanks for the kind words. I hope my experience is useful to you.

Best regards,

Vladimir.