I foster open discussions to ensure all viewpoints are heard, emphasizing the strengths of each method. When possible, I integrate mixed methods for a well-rounded approach. Assigning tasks based on expertise helps maximize efficiency and collaboration.

When my research team is divided over qualitative vs. quantitative methods, I foster collaboration by aligning the approach with our research objectives. I encourage open discussions to evaluate the strengths and limitations of each method, ensuring decisions are driven by data relevance rather than preference. If possible, I advocate for a mixed-methods approach to leverage the depth of qualitative insights and the precision of quantitative analysis. By focusing on research goals, ensuring methodological rigor, and fostering consensus, I navigate differences effectively while maintaining the integrity of our study.

I would start by acknowledging that many of us have a preference for either qualitative or quantitative research. However, I would emphasize that this preference cannot be the guiding principle for the research approach. I would certainly not compromise by adopting a mixed-method approach solely to accommodate the views of some team members. The priority should always be to do what is best for the research. As a researcher, you should be able to switch between a positivist stance and an interpretivist stance if needed, despite your personal preferences.

Facilitate an open discussion where both sides present the strengths and limitations of their approach. Emphasize how qualitative and quantitative methods can complement each other for deeper insights. Align the choice of methodology with research objectives, ensuring data-driven decisions while considering context. If necessary, propose a hybrid approach to balance perspectives and maximize research impact.

The nature of both types of data is different, offering distinct insights. One powerfully quantifies data, defining numbers that are always measured accurately. On the other hand, we qualitatively analyze the data to understand the nature of the accurately recorded number of participants. Therefore, integrating both types of data or dividing the team to gather different insights on the same subject can help navigate towards the solution of a specific question.

If both qualitative and quantitative methods can help us shed light on our problem there's no reason to exclude either method. If we have the resources to use both methods, I'd say we go for it. Even if we would have to exclude one we should still include a reflection on how choosing the other method could affect the result.

Quantitative and qualitative data is both important and necessary when conducting research. Gather together your research team and validate them as both teams are right to find importance in their methods. Formulate a qualitative table to gather data for the qualitative team and a quantitative research or query tool for the quantitative team. The quantitative team will have close ended questions this will assist in quantifying the research and put in clear numbers what your research is aiming to achieve. The qualitative team will have open ended questions and will require fewer questions to cub the issue of time wastage. After all data is gathered both team sit together to work on final results.

I think we can look back to the research context based on the paradigm. If from the beginning, we want to be looking for an overview of a phenomenon, we use a positivism paradigm that makes our research uses quantitative method. Whereas if we want to explore a phenomenon deeper and the people within it, we use a constructivism paradigm which is leads to qualitative research. But sometimes we need a mixed method if wants to look for an objective overview but still need a further validation from community (post-positivism). So, research paradigm is a basic thinking in beginning when we create a research concept.