Perhaps the greatest single barrier to cross-disciplinary understanding is the natural tendency of disciplinary scholars to believe that “their” theories and methods are superior. Quantitative scholars see qualitative research as imprecise and subjective, while qualitative scholars see quantitative research as naïve and simplistic. Each may seize upon examples of the shoddy employment of other theories and methods to disdain other disciplines – and by extension interdisciplinarity itself. In my Classifying Science: Phenomena, Data, Theory, Method, Practice (2004), I identified the main strengths and weaknesses of a variety of theory types and the dozen methods employed in the scholarly enterprise. Importantly, theories and methods were each evaluated along a handful of dimensions. All theories and methods have advantages but also disadvantages. Since theories and methods were evaluated along the same dimensions I was able to show empirically that disciplines do indeed choose methods that are complementary to their favored theories. See Classifying Methods and Classifying Theories