We can first look to your argument "given how you define truth." If truth is individuated, then there can be no debate or questioning because everything is subjective. No one outside of philosophers philosophizing even believe that. If we did, there would be no shared understanding. The absurd can result as well.

As a pragmatist, I have wholly agnostic view toward issues of "truth." Instead, I would emphasize the classic research standard of a contribution to knowledge. So, if you have a meaningful research question and an appropriate way to answer it, then it doesn't matter whether you are doing qualitative or quantitative research.

@David L Morgan, thank you for your post. I agree that either way, it shouldn't matter. I engaged in a debate where an interlocuter suggested we could get closer to the truth via statistics than we could otherwise. I thought the discussion was interesting, that is why I brought it here.

@Zoncita Del Mundo Norman From what you are saying, it sounds like attaining the right kind of consensus might be delicate.

David Coker I am wrestling with how your response is handling the ideas of relative and universal truths. I am interested in your statement on "shared understanding". When your schedule permits, please explain what "shared understanding" is. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!

p/s Anyone who wishes to participate in this conversation, please join!

Victoria, graduate students often fall in love with a post-structuralism that truth is individually defined to the point there is no truth. While I do not reject this premise out of hand (e.g., two observers of the same event never see, feel, and know the same thing let alone have the same prior knowledge, etc.), researchers make claims and report findings because they think they've found a truth which is representative of a phenomenon. If not, then we can dispense with statistical power or qualitative reliability/validity [Lincoln and Guba operationalize these terms differently in qualitative research, as do many others], as if nothing is true then what does it matter?

Now,we can look at shared understanding. Research must be accepted and digestible by an audience. The audience. We are performative, and we can think of Goddard, Polkinghorne, and Bourdieu, etc., in that we build within a community of practitioners, mimicking the norms, rules, and expectations.

Alas, though we operate under assumptions and beliefs, which you did in your question and I reciprocated, most all great findings shatter the shared understanding. That can only happen if first a worldview is in common.

My interpretation of the issues David Coker raises comes down to "radical relativism." I certainly agree that with him that "two observers of the same event never see, feel, and know the same thing let alone have the same prior knowledge." but what relativists fail to address is the massive amount of agreement about the world that does exist. So, we end up in an argument where there is either only one truth or as many truths as there are individuals. As suggested earlier, this is a debate that mostly occurs abstract philosophical discussions.

Instead, the idea that no two individuals have exactly the same perception is a taken-for-granted assumption of pragmatism; however, the key issue is not which version is true but rather what are the consequences for actions. If two individuals see the same situation as implying the same actions, then that is what really matters.

Essentially, I agree with David's 2 posts, above---but with consideration, though not over-emphasis of, ontology etc.; just my particular preference for research foundation.

Don't think that quantitative, qualitative, or combination of the two in research bring us closer to 'truth' but rather, closer to understanding phenomena.

'Truth' is an unending debate.

David Coker, David L Morgan, and Philip Adams thank you for your insight. I'm thinking about your posts and might return with more detailed responses when I have a reliable internet connection.

Whether to choose qualitative or quantitative research depends on the research question, objectives, and available resources.

Qualitative research is exploratory in nature and is used to gain a deeper understanding of phenomena. It typically involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data, such as text, images, or video, and focuses on subjective experiences, perceptions, and meanings. Qualitative research methods include interviews, focus groups, ethnography, and case studies. Qualitative research is often used when the research topic is complex, poorly understood, or when the aim is to explore a new topic.

Quantitative research, on the other hand, is used to test hypotheses and establish cause-and-effect relationships. It involves collecting numerical data that can be analyzed using statistical methods. Quantitative research methods include surveys, experiments, and observational studies. Quantitative research is often used when the research question can be framed in a measurable and testable way, and when the aim is to generalize findings to a larger population.

In some cases, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods may be used, known as mixed methods research. This approach allows researchers to explore a topic from multiple angles and to triangulate findings, increasing the validity of the results.

Overall, whether to choose qualitative or quantitative research depends on the research question, objectives, and available resources. It is important to carefully consider the strengths and limitations of each approach before deciding on the appropriate method for a particular study.

Chiraz Koussa thank you for your in-depth explanations of the two research approaches. What's your take on "truth" and how does it interact with your response post?

Philip Adams Thank you again for your post. I am trying to see if I understand what you said about "truth". Hypothetical case: Imagine I frame a research question to which I already have an answer: some number +/- 20kg. In setting up my research samples, I don't randomize them; I weigh them out so they all weigh very close to 20kg. Great, I succeeded in constructing my truth, which I could have rigged through my understanding and therefore manipulation of quantitative research. Is my interpretation of what you said concerning the relevance of "truth" correct?

David Coker Thank you for your detailed explanation. I'm still hopeful. I still believe in research, and I think if I arrived at the "point of no truth," my own research would be in trouble! Haha. I think I understand what you are saying. Even if there were "no shared understanding," we could still operate on the assumption that there was. Is that what you're saying?

David L Morgan I appreciate your reply. I believe that I am conducting my research utilizing the methodology you outline. I wasn't clear how upholding correct research practices in either approach would result in better knowledge from one than the other.

There are standard steps in different types of research. As a specialist in his field of research, it is not ethical to falsify them and think about ways of falsification. Science has a methodology of conducting research, we cannot neglect it or not use it in our research. Your concept of "truth" cannot be used in scientific research, but you will knows "truth" after your investigation or research. You must establish "truth" by doing your research.

Yevheniia Babenko Thank you for the reply. So, I don't think we disagree about what the standards of research are. Manufactured research is not a good thing; I used it, as an illustration, to make sure I understood one of the posts. So, would your response apply to non-scientific research and "truth" as well? What about this example - different groups of people (sober tourists) walking through the city notice that it is 1:00 p.m. each time the (well-functioning) bell tower rings. Are you saying "I must" do scientific research to know that it is 1:00 p.m.? If so, well, I have no reason to believe that these people are lying to me. And by the way, I just checked, and they were telling the truth. It is 1:00 p.m. Why would it be better to know it is 1:00 p.m. by believing passersby than by doing scientific research? Did I interpret what you said correctly? I have enjoyed the conversation with everyone on this thread. It is 2:26 am and I must retire! Wishing everyone a great week!

@Victoria Sethunya In your examples, mast be taken into these concepts "A priori and a posteriori" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

I think to answer this question, we need to delve into philosophy. When it comes to the definition of truth, it is better to adopt a critical realist perspective. Critical realism allows us to seek objective truth while acknowledging that there may be undiscovered truths that cannot be quantitatively analyzed. It recognizes that the ontology of reality should be realist, but the epistemology of truth can be subjective and contextual. In other words, we need to acknowledge that there may be multiple ways of knowing and understanding the truth, while still striving towards uncovering the most objective understanding of reality. Therefore, by adopting a critical realist approach, we can broaden our perspective and allow for the possibility of discovering new, previously unexplored truths.

What I meant by "..truth is an ongoing debate.." is that research is continually developing its understanding of phenomena which gives us the space to critique it as the best current understanding of its subject (phenomena in general).

For instance, we might critique a study because we think that it hasn't taken account of 'this' or 'that'.

As for your hypothetical research question--it actually seems to me, somewhat biased, especially the non-randomisation.

As scientific researchers, your 'truth' or my truth is only what we accept as the accumulated scientific understanding of phenomena in the world.

David L Morgan ,

While the pragmatist approach may prioritize finding a solution to a research question, it can also be seen as a somewhat selfish approach. This is because it may place less emphasis on the pursuit of truth and more on the practical implications of the research. However, it is important to note that there are different views on what constitutes "truth" and what research standards should be upheld.

Regarding your view on truth, I understand that as a pragmatist, you prioritize the usefulness of knowledge over its absolute truth value. However, it is important to note that all research should be conducted with a commitment to accuracy and validity. While the contribution to knowledge is a critical aspect of research, it should not be at the expense of the accuracy and integrity of the research itself.

Furthermore, I agree that the choice between qualitative and quantitative research should be based on the research question and the appropriate methods to answer it, rather than any predetermined bias towards one approach or the other.

Ubedullah Khoso Pragmatism as a philosophy places priority on the "practical consequences" of all forms of action, and thus treats research as just kind of action, rather than assigning it any kind of unique properties. And of course the pursuit of any kind of useful knowledge would emphasize the "accuracy and integrity" of that knowledge. Plus, who would want to knowingly pursue invalid knowledge?

I am not sure how any of this makes pragmatism "selfish."

David L Morgan According to pragmatism, reality is chosen based on what works best at a given time, without any inherent ontological standing. Therefore, pragmatism does not concern itself with finding absolute truth, but rather with finding workable truth, which may hold true only for a certain period (until it works) and not necessarily in the future.

Ubedullah Khoso I basically agree with you, given that pragmatism fundamentally ignores concepts such as truth and reality, and focuses instead on the pursuit of workable knowledge.

That's exactly my point - the truth is only valid to the extent that it works. Therefore, the validity of truth is only situational and cannot be relied upon. However, critical realism does not adhere to this understanding of truth, as I previously mentioned. While I agree that the word 'selfish' may be a bit exaggerated, it is important to note that truth in pragmatism can be quite myopic compared to the more comprehensive approach of critical realism

I'm not a 'complete' pragmatist but do agree that the main focus of research should be the pursuit of workable knowledge.

I think it depends what research you are doing, whether you use qualitative or quantitative or a mixed approach.

I researched 'Living with Faecal Incontinence' from a psycho-social perspective, so it always had to be qualitative. I carried out guided, but quite in-depth interviews with 22 participants and later followed some of these up, after 5 and 10 years.

But if I had been looking - for example - at the numbers of people with faecal incontinence and the proportion, perhaps, who also had urinary incontinence, then the numbers would have been greater and quantitative methods would have been the way to go.

That's how I see it. But the results of both would have been 'the truth'.

• Qualitative or Quantitative Research?
• This is a recent article I wrote.An Oriental Physician’s Views and Thoughts on the Global Prevalence of Lumbar Spondylosis – The traditional shoulder-carrying culture and traditional spine of a large eastern country are disappearing silently.Why the adult labor force in China 40 years ago could carry a hundred pounds on their shoulders, but now lumbar spondylosis prevails among young people in China.
• Writing this article is a very difficult, impossible task, because first, the data is difficult to collect, spanning centuries, even tens of thousands of years, and then, interdisciplinary, the most complex research in history, including the sum of human geography, cultural life, history, medicine, physics, etc.
• So, I hope there will be more scientists in the world to join the research, time is short, within 5 years will become archaeology.

Preprint Open Peer Review on Qeios An Oriental Physician's Views and ...

Preprint Open Peer Review on Qeios Research on the Existence of Chine...

Chen Huabin I look forward to reading your article. I can see how the cultural aspect of it might be resistant to quantitative analysis, but this is just speculation on my part. Your research area sounds interesting.

Zoncita Del Mundo Norman

Please explain what your list entails. Are you talking about the senses? And how does one "know" when "truth speaks" if all is "false"? I am sorry it took long to return to your post, but I locked myself out of the platform. Thank you for your time!

A culture spans thousands of years, and ideas can be materialized，think wrong, act wrong, and it's only a matter of time before something goes wrong，sometimes you can tell the result by analyzing the thought，most of the time, we are faced with something that we have not experienced, and we do not think to study it. The amount of data involved is so large that it cannot be studied by quantitative and qualitative methods, nor can it be captured, managed, processed, and statistically analyzed within a reasonable time. Because it is a comprehensive study across multiple disciplines, various disciplines are interacting and acting on each other. In a single discipline, certain studies in a certain period of time form a conclusion that is one-sided and temporary. Time changes, ideas change, people change, and data and results change slowly. Generally, it is difficult to notice in a short period of time. Or a hundred years later things, be changed also do not know, at a loss. I am a special person in this time of rapid change, before all the scientists of the world have observed this change, I am the first person in the world to observe this change, and only my special upbringing can explain it and write a paper. Though it was too late to save.

Added a recommendation to David's answer, above, though I don't entirely agree with pragmatism.

Proper methodology for approaching the research question brings the results unbiased either it is quantitative or qualitative.