‘Post’ Coding and post methodologies

The coding and the after coding processes seemed to be pretty straightforward once the researcher’s biases, subjectivity are taken into open account and once the theoretical frameworks are established; now it seems that there is much more to add to what I have known thus far, which complicates matters; I thought it has recently become clear that qualitative research is as reliable and valid as quantitative research and I thought that the ‘battle’ for validity and reliability territory was a matter of the past.
It appears to me that there is still a ‘battle ‘ going on between “scientism” of methods and various qualitative approaches to analyzing data to reflect on or produce knowledge. I found interesting the idea of “othering” of qualitative data analysis/processes/theory framing as expressed in Lather’s article (2014) and how this research has been “disciplined” to follow scientific based research guidelines- the “quantitative template, the quantitative imperialism” (Lather, 2014, p. 636).
St. Pierre and Jackson(2014) bring forth valid questions related to what counts as good /appropriate data, what is the best way to gather data, what is coding and how coding is done in an ‘appropriate’ way. The answers or research approaches are to be directed by theoretical frameworks and the researcher’s positionality, and of course the research questions because “the ontologies and epistemologies that enable one to code data (scientifically)…are …unthinkable on the ‘posts’ that use different ontologies…[and epistemologies](p.716)… that describe the world as unstable or becoming…unable to be contained in language, that don’t separate being and knowing” (p. 717).