Today most practical researchers would favour methodological pluralism. The best way is to use the two seemingly different approaches as complementary. Since complementary methods are those that do not share the same limitations, triangulation by application of multiple, complementary methods may provide a firm basis for eliminating methodological limitations. Complementary methods can be used for the purpose of verification, estimation of error, monitoring of data collection process, and testing out the meaning of data.

The above discussion provides a basis for arguing in favour of mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches for maximum gain. It must be emphasized that much of contemporary research in population deals with risk behaviour and its (psychological correlations, necessitating explorations of social representations of risk and risk behaviour. HIV/AIDS epidemic has led to new issues and new definitions. This involves change in the meanings of sexuality and condoms, place of women in society, debate on certain religious practices and greater acceptance of sub-cultures within a culture. The complex and multi-faceted nature of social representations of HIV/AIDS is evident from the field studies. Since the HIV/AIDS research is about complex social representations, such as sexuality, homophobia, process of coming out, and meanings of life and death, it cannot be captured by any one approach: quantitative or qualitative.

Qualitative methods provide a detailed exploration of meanings in a research context whereas quantitative methods provide rigour and form. Qualitative methods may be used successfully in combination with multi dimensional scaling (MDS), regression analysis, cluster analysis and qualitative content analysis. MDS and cluster analysis are used as complementary methods to analyze proximity data. Content analysis is used to draw inferences from qualitative data – written and verbal.