In my experience, resolving conflicts between researchers starts with creating a neutral and respectful space for discussion. First is by meeting with each researcher individually to understand their perspectives and the rationale behind their preferred methodologies. Then, having a joint meeting where both can present their approaches, focusing on the project's goals and how each method contributes to achieving them. To build consensus, then common ground, encourage compromise, and proposing integrating the strengths of both methodologies will be proposed. If disagreements persist, seeking input from an unbiased third party or a team vote based on objective criteria can help finalize the decision while maintaining team cohesion.

To bring the two researchers to a consensus, facilitate an open discussion where each can present their methodology, outlining the pros and cons. Encourage a collaborative approach by identifying common goals and areas of compromise. Consider combining elements from both methodologies if possible. If needed, involve a neutral third-party expert to provide an objective perspective and help guide the decision-making process.

i had lots of experience in this area throughout my career where i have seen multiple disagreements happening where we literally reaching deadlock sometimes, and surprisingly it used to happen between senior positions, the solution i found is to provide each one of them with common goals followed by the compromise they have to do to reach to this common goal. So it used to be hectic and time consuming especially when trying to sell this to more senior positions than yourselves. to give an example, always the senior position want results quickly but other senior positions wants process to be followed, so what was the solution ? do the process quickly and accurately so both are happy, heads up this will require some extra mile!!