Despite continued criticism of mainstream psychology’s resistance to qualitative methods, the field remains largely enamored by quantification. The current chapter argues that this resistance is due in part to inadequate training and education around quantitative research methods. The procedural conventions surrounding quantitative methods are often taught to psychology students as “matter of fact” and void of human adjudication. This creates an illusion that research activities involving quantitative methods are fundamentally different from those involving qualitative methods. In particular, quantitative methods are taken to be impervious to interpretation, whereas qualitative methods are taken to be open to interpretation. This chapter dispels these misconceptions through the detailing of the interpretative aspects of common practices within quantitative psychology, namely, psychological measurement and descriptive and inferential statistics. It is shown that if quantitative methodological approaches are taught in a way that emphasizes the interpretative role of the tool user, similarities between the activities of quantitative and qualitative research become apparent. This, in turn, opens the door for the broadening of psychology’s methodological toolbox.