The research article “Overcoming the barriers to disclosure and inquiry of partner abuse for women attending general practice” by K.L. Hegarty, & A.J. Taft, (2001) depicts sexual and psychical abuse problems that affected many women. The researchers follow the phenomenological perspective determining the main barriers and rates of disclosure of partner abuse. The advantage of the phenomenological perspective is that multiple realities exist and multiple interpretations are available from different individuals that are all equally valid. Reality is a social construct. If one functions from this perspective, how one conducts a study and what conclusions a researcher draws from a study are considerably different from those of a researcher coming from a quantitative or positivist position, which assumes a common objective reality across individuals. The aim of the article is “to present complementary information from qualitative and quantitative studies on barriers and rates of disclosure” (). The advantage of the research structure is that it uses information and data from both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The debate between qualitative and quantitative researchers is based upon the differences in assumptions about what reality is and whether or not it is measurable. The debate further rests on differences of opinion about how we can best understand what we “know,” whether through objective or subjective methods. To relate it to quantitative research philosophy, this operation is a way of accounting for the researcher’s prior knowledge, subjective biases, and expectations. The sample size consists of 16 randomly selected women. The population covers women from Brisbane inner south general practices. the research was conducted during August and September 1996. Four criteria were selected from practices: “more than 50% of the population did not speak English, it opened less than 30 hours a week, the doctor had retired” (Hegarty & Taft 2001, p. 433). The main limitation of the research is that because human experience is unique, one cannot detach and reduce external data; further, it is this inability to abstract that forms the existential nature of psychology. That is, general laws and theories cannot be applied to a specific individual in a unique set of circumstances. Others, however, argue that emerging sets of themes from many subjects may, in fact, form the essence of a generalization applicable to those in similar states of life. It is possible to say that the study is based on an appropriate framework that helps the researchers to collect the data and test the hypothesis. Generalization is consistent neither with the purpose of the study nor with the underlying assumptions of the specific research methods. If one were to generalize, the generalization would be criticized as inappropriate and in violation of the assumptions. Taped interviews and observations were transcribed, lending reduced personal bias to the data as they were analyzed. But the researcher who collected the data also analyzed the data, rendering personal bias not completely eliminated. There is insufficient information to assess the extent to which the context limits the generalizability (Atkins