In the world of research, one debate happens again and again—the qualitative vs quantitative battle. Students, researchers, and even supervisors often argue about which approach is more “scientific,” “valid,” or “reliable.”

Some prefer numbers and statistics, while others value stories, meanings, and lived experiences. This long-standing tension is commonly described as a methodological battle, but at its core, it is not really about methods.

It is about something deeper: EPISTEMOLOGY—our beliefs about knowledge itself. To truly understand why qualitative and quantitative researchers often disagree, we must first understand what epistemology is and how it shapes the way researchers think about truth, reality, and evidence.


WHAT IS THE QUALITATIVE–QUANTITATIVE BATTLE ABOUT?

At a surface level, the battle seems simple.

  • Quantitative researchers ask: Can we measure it? Can we count it? Can we test it statistically?
  • Qualitative researchers ask: What does it mean? How do people experience it? How do they understand their world?

Quantitative research values objectivity, measurement, and generalization. Qualitative research values understanding, context, interpretation, and meaning. Because their goals, tools, and language are different, conflict often arises. One side may accuse the other of being “unscientific,” or “too subjective.” However, these disagreements cannot be fully understood by talking only about methods. The real source of conflict deceits in different epistemological positions.

 

WHY WE MUST UNDERSTAND EPISTEMOLOGY FIRST

Before asking which method is better, we must ask a more basic question: How do we know what we know?

This is exactly what epistemology tries to answer. Without understanding epistemology, the qualitative–quantitative debate becomes confusing. With epistemology, the debate becomes clearer and more respectful.

Epistemology helps us see that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not enemies. They are built on different assumptions about knowledge, truth, and justification.

 

WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY?

Epistemology, also known as gnosiology or the theory of knowledge, is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The word comes from two Greek terms: EpistÄ“mÄ“ – knowledge and Logos – reason or study. So, epistemology literally means the study of knowledge.

It asks questions such as:

  • What is knowledge?
  • Where does knowledge come from?
  • How can beliefs be justified?
  • What are the limits of human knowing?

 

MAJOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITIONS

Different schools of epistemology provide different views about knowledge:

  1. Skepticism questions whether humans can truly attain certain knowledge, arguing that our beliefs may always be mistaken due to deception, illusion, or limited cognitive capacity.
  2. Fallibilism argues that human knowledge is always provisional and open to error, even when beliefs are well-justified and widely accepted.
  3. Empiricism claims that all knowledge originates primarily from sensory experience, and the mind starts as a “blank slate.”
  4. Positivism maintains that only knowledge verified through empirical observation and scientific methods is meaningful.
  5. Post-positivism accepts scientific inquiry but acknowledges that observation is theory-laden and absolute objectivity is impossible.
  6. Rationalism holds that some knowledge is gained through reason alone, independent of sensory experience, often emphasizing innate ideas or logical truths.
  7. Phenomenology focuses on how knowledge arises from conscious experience and how things appear to us, emphasizing first-person subjective awareness rather than external objects alone.
  8. Internalism maintains that justification depends only on factors accessible to the subject’s mind, such as reasons or evidence they are aware of.
  9. Externalism argues that justification can depend on external factors, such as the reliability of the process producing the belief, even if the person is unaware of them.
  10. Constructivism holds that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals or societies rather than passively discovered.
  11. Relativism claims that knowledge and truth depend on cultural, historical, or individual perspectives, rejecting absolute standards.


EPISTEMOLOGY BEHIND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Quantitative research is mainly grounded in positivist or post-positivist epistemology. From this perspective, researchers believe that reality exists independently of human thoughts, feelings, or interpretations. In other words, the world is assumed to be “out there,” and it can be studied without changing its nature. Whether or not a researcher is present, facts remain the same. This belief forms the foundation of quantitative inquiry.

A key epistemological assumption here is that there is one objective reality. Awareness, intelligence, stress, intelligence, or behavior are treated as real phenomena that can be measured accurately. Researchers believe that through careful observation and systematic methods, this reality can be discovered. Knowledge, therefore, is not created by individuals but found through scientific investigation.

Quantitative epistemology also holds that knowledge can be obtained through measurement, observation, and logical reasoning. Numbers are trusted because they are seen as neutral and less influenced by personal bias. For example, a standardized anxiety scale is considered more reliable than a personal description of anxiety because it applies the same criteria to everyone. This reflects the belief that numerical data provide clearer and more precise knowledge.

Another important belief is that the researcher should remain detached and neutral. Personal values, emotions, and interpretations are viewed as potential sources of error. As a result, quantitative research emphasizes objectivity, control, and standardization. Using the same instruments, procedures, and conditions helps reduce subjectivity and increases the credibility of findings.

Because of these epistemological assumptions, standardized tools and statistical analysis are highly valued. Surveys, experiments, and tests allow researchers to compare large groups and identify patterns that are believed to apply broadly. Statistical methods help determine whether findings are due to chance or reflect real relationships, reinforcing the idea of universal laws or general principles.

From this standpoint, quantitative researchers often criticize qualitative research for being too subjective, context-dependent, or difficult to generalize. Since qualitative findings are closely tied to personal experiences and specific settings, they are sometimes seen as less reliable within a positivist framework. This criticism does not come from hostility toward qualitative research, but from fundamentally different beliefs about what counts as valid knowledge.

Thus, the quantitative approach is deeply shaped by its epistemology—one that prioritizes objectivity, measurement, and generalization as the most trustworthy paths to knowledge.

 

EPISTEMOLOGY BEHIND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative research is mainly grounded in interpretivist or constructivist epistemology. From this point of view, reality is not seen as something fixed and independent of humans. Instead, reality is understood as something that is created and shaped through human interaction, experience, and interpretation. What people believe, feel, and experience plays a central role in defining what is real for them.

A core belief of this epistemology is that reality is socially constructed. This means that people do not simply discover reality; they actively construct it through language, culture, history, and social relationships. For example, concepts like “stress,” “mental health,” or “success” may have different meanings in different cultures or social groups. Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding these meanings rather than assuming a single, universal definition.

Another important assumption is that there can be multiple truths, not just one objective truth. Different individuals may experience the same situation in very different ways, and all of these experiences can be valid. From a qualitative epistemological stance, truth is not singular or absolute; it is context-dependent. What is true for one person or community may not be true for another, and research should respect this diversity of perspectives.

Qualitative epistemology also emphasizes that knowledge is shaped by culture, language, and context. People make sense of their lives through stories, symbols, and shared meanings. As a result, knowledge cannot be fully understood without paying attention to social and cultural backgrounds. Removing experiences from their context is seen as reducing their meaning rather than clarifying it.

In this approach, the researcher cannot be fully separated from the research process. The researcher’s background, values, and interactions influence how data are collected and interpreted. Instead of trying to eliminate this influence, qualitative research acknowledges it openly. Reflexivity—being aware of one’s own role in the research—is considered an important strength rather than a weakness.

Because of these epistemological beliefs, qualitative researchers argue that human experiences cannot always be reduced to numbers. Feelings like grief, fear, love, or identity involve depth and complexity that cannot be fully captured through scales or statistics. Words, narratives, and observations are seen as more suitable for exploring such experiences.

From this perspective, meaning is more important than measurement. The goal is not to count how many people feel a certain way, but to understand how and why they feel that way. Subjectivity, therefore, is not treated as a problem. Instead, it is viewed as a valuable source of insight into human life.

Because of these epistemological positions, qualitative researchers often criticize quantitative research for oversimplifying human experience and ignoring context. They argue that when complex social realities are reduced to numbers, important meanings, voices, and cultural nuances may be lost. This criticism reflects a fundamental difference in beliefs about knowledge, not a rejection of science itself.

Seen through an epistemological lens, the qualitative–quantitative battle is not about which method is superior, but about different ways of knowing.