This book is satisfactory at accomplishing what it sets out to do, namely, comparing the quantitative and (positivist strain of) qualitative cultures in a way that suggests that they are fundamentally of equal value. There are even some moments of significant insight, such as the discussion of the mathematical foundations of (positivist) qualitative research in logic/set theory. However, the book falls short of actually describing the full richness of the qualitative tradition because of its baffling refusal to discuss non-positive qualitative research such as the interpretive tradition. Actually, that critique could apply to their description of quantitative culture too - they could do more to explore the differences between Bayesian and frequentist statistical approaches, for instance (although at least they discuss that from time to time). While it would expand the scope of the book, I think it would be much more useful and informative if the authors provided a more nuanced account of the differences within the two cultures in addition to the differences between them. ( )