Abstract
This article was set out to examine the allegations labeled against qualitative research by quantitative researchers. The allegations were that: it is subjective, difficult to replicate in healthcare, and this amounts to little more than anecdote, personal impression or conjecture. In attempting to resolve the allegations, this article relied on extensive literature review and examined evidence that has been put forth in support of qualitative research approach in healthcare. The article also examined the benefits and pathologies of quantitative and qualitative approaches. It is revealed that although each of the two approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses, none can ably offer practical solutions to challenges of validity and reliability in healthcare research. To mitigate such challenges, the paper rests on the use of mixed methods/triangulation so as to neutralize pathologies inherent in each approach. It is recommended that the use of triangulation should be founded on the strong basis of pragmatism. Method integration should be done skillfully and cautiously, because validity and reliability of its findings may not be guaranteed due to its susceptibility to the ontological and epistemological positions of the researcher. The paper concludes that any attempt to resolve this debate creates even more discussions and finds this third paradigm inadequate in some research circumstances. This implies that the debate is far from over. Key words: Qualitative research, quantitative research, healthcare research, pragmatism, paradigm.  
Highlights
There has been a paradigm war between quantitative and qualitative researchers
Some quantitative researchers have even ridiculed qualitative researchers saying that real men do not collect soft data; and quantitative researchers have been branded numbercrunchers (Miles and Huberman, 1994)
This paper provides the answer in the discussion about pragmatism and its useful nature in healthcare research
Summary
There has been a paradigm war between quantitative and qualitative researchers. Some quantitative researchers have even ridiculed qualitative researchers saying that real men do not collect soft data; and quantitative researchers have been branded numbercrunchers (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Pope et al (2000) point out a serious criticism against qualitative researchers by the positivists who allege that qualitative data are subjective and that such research is difficult to replicate, and this amounts to little more than anecdote, personal impression or conjecture. Throughout the paradigm debate, no side has attempted to provide proof in regard to how its research findings have superseded the other in terms of utility. The failure to provide this proof may either signify a lack of conviction even within each paradigm, as to whether it enjoys monopoly in its contribution to human welfare or failure to embrace pragmatism
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
