In other words, it's all well and good for McKevith to focus only on the hard figures (fiber content, what makes up each cereal, etc.) but Berketova is focusing on both parts of the research equation (everything McKevith looked at but also inclusive of consumer opinion, why consumers choose one cereal over another, personal opinions, etc.) and thus this research will be more illuminating if done correctly since the research addresses the hard figures as well as the insights that statistics and figures cannot provide.
Using qualitative only (which Berketova did NOT do) would be unwise for anything that has relevant statistical information to gain. As such, it is wise that Berketova included both dimensions. McKevith did quantative only which is fine if assessing the "what"…but again, it's not the least bit adept at answering any "why" questions about who is consuming what and "why."
Conclusion
It is good for the "what is going on" part of research. However, quantitative research is rarely good at figuring out the "why" part of the question and to dismiss that as not important is simply silly. This is not to say that qualitative research is not fraught with pitfalls and potential biases or otherwise specious conclusions because it most certainly is. However, even statistics can be manipulated in a certain way and statistical figures cannot answer all questions.
References
Berketova, L. (2006). [Study of qualitative and quantitative of dietary fibre composition in dry breakfasts and food supplements, contains wheaten brain]. Voprosy Pitaniia,
75(2), 30-32.
McKevith, B. (2004). Nutritional aspects of cereals. Nutrition Bulletin, 29(2), 111-142.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2004.00418.x
