Dikotomi dan Simbiosis Metode Kualitatif serta Kuantitatif dalam Karya Tulis Ilmiah

Authors

  • Elin Nurlena Universitas Bina Bangsa
  • B.Herawan Hayadi Universitas Bina Bangsa
  • Wahyu Zikriyanto Universitas Bina Bangsa
  • Huda Oktalia Universitas Bina Bangsa
  • Khauranina Hisaanah Universitas Bina Bangsa
  • Reti Sri Haryati Universitas Bina Bangsa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55883/jipkis.v6i1.206

Keywords:

Methodological Dichotomy, Research Symbiosis, Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed Methods, Triangulation.

Abstract

Methodological debates in the academic sphere are often ensnared in a rigid dichotomy between the positivism paradigm underlying quantitative methods and the interpretivism governing qualitative methods. This polarization creates epistemological barriers that frequently hinder researchers from capturing the wholeness and complexity of a phenomenon holistically. In fact, both paradigms possess significant symbiotic potential to strengthen the validity, reliability, and credibility of scientific findings through methodological convergence. This article aims to deeply map the roots of the differences (dichotomy) from philosophical to technical dimensions, while simultaneously exploring integration opportunities (symbiosis) between the two. By applying a literature study method on various contemporary methodological journals and fundamental literature, the study results indicate that although the dichotomy fundamentally lies in the foundations of ontology, epistemology, and axiology of data, symbiosis can be effectively achieved through triangulation strategies and mixed-methods designs. The study concludes that the integration of both methods is not merely a technical merger of instruments, but rather a manifestation of an epistemological approach capable of providing a more comprehensive understanding, rich in descriptive nuances, yet remaining empirically measurable. The recommendations of this article emphasize the importance of methodological flexibility for researchers in facing increasingly complex social and scientific phenomena in the contemporary era.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bungin, B. (2020). Post-Quantitative Social Research Methods. Jakarta: Prenada Media.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Sugiyono. (2019). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Sage Publications.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-20

How to Cite

Nurlena, E. ., Hayadi, B. ., Zikriyanto, W. ., Oktalia, H. ., Hisaanah, K. ., & Haryati, R. S. . (2026). Dikotomi dan Simbiosis Metode Kualitatif serta Kuantitatif dalam Karya Tulis Ilmiah. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dan Keislaman, 6(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.55883/jipkis.v6i1.206