Notes on Methods Mind the Gap?: Navigating the Quantitative and the Qualitative in Survey Research Ankur Datta 1 Divya Vaid 2 One of the persistent concerns and conflicts faced by social scientists who study different aspects of Indian society and politics pertains to a methodological divide. This divide is constituted by a separation of methods into the quantitative and qualitative broadly. While these two categories cover a wide range of methods and techniques of research and data collection, they have also been treated as representing two polarities of the social sciences, often seemingly opposed. This note will explore the division between the quantitative and qualitative. 3 While we feel that any divide in method and theory is counter- productive to the larger project of studying political life, we want to try and see how this separation can be bridged without necessarily forcing cohabitation. By looking at the survey as a method, this note is an initial attempt to engage in a dialogue between quantitative- and qualitative-oriented scholars and to perhaps consider how the two groups are far closer than they think. The Survey Look Closely or examine (someone or something) Examine and record the area and features of (an area of land) so as to construct a map or a plan Investigate the opinions or experience of (a group of people) by asking them questions —Survey, Oxford English Dictionary The survey is a tool that is ubiquitous with any act of gathering data on collectives of human beings, whether one is interested to know of the composition of a group in a given area, their place in networks of relatedness, their attitude to politicians or brands of soft drinks. As the definition from the Oxford English dictionary indicates, ‘to survey’ is essential to what any social scientist seeks to achieve in their work. In its current form as popularly understood, the survey represents one of the most well-known 1 Department of Sociology, South Asian University, Akbar Bhavan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, India. 2 Centre for the Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. 3 We do not cover the much treaded ground of the advantages and limitations of each method (refer Babbie, 2007; Creswell, 2009). Studies in Indian Politics 6(1) 140–145 © 2018 Lokniti, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies SAGE Publications sagepub.in/home.nav DOI: 10.1177/2321023018762827 http://journals.sagepub.com/home/inp Corresponding author: Ankur Datta, Department of Sociology, South Asian University, Akbar Bhavan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, India. E-mail: ankurdatta@soc.sau.ac.in Note: This section is coordinated by Divya Vaid. E-mail: divya.vaid.09@gmail.com